What is the optimal definition of misclassification in patients with very low-risk prostate cancer eligible for active surveillance? Results from a multi-institutional series

Urologic Oncology: Seminars and Original Investigations

Volumn 33, Issue 4, 2015, Pages 164.e1-164.e9

  Gandaglia, Giorgio ^a   Ploussard, Guillaume ^b   Isbarn, Hendrik ^c,d   Suardi, Nazareno ^a   De Visschere, Peter J L ^e   Futterer, Jurgen J ^f   Ghadjar, Pirus ^g   Massard, Christophe ^h   Ost, Piet ^e   Sooriakumaran, Prasanna ⁱ   Surcel, Christian I ^j   van der Bergh, Roderick C N ^k   Montorsi, Francesco ^a   Ficarra, Vincenzo ^l   Giannarini, Gianluca ^a   Briganti, Alberto ^a  

^a SAN RAFFAELE HOSPITAL   (Italy)

^b SAINT LOUIS HOSPITAL   (France)

^c Regio Klinik Wedel   (Germany)

^d UNIVERSITY MEDICAL CENTER HAMBURG EPPENDORF   (Germany)

^e GHENT UNIVERSITY HOSPITAL   (Belgium)

^f RADBOUD UNIVERSITY MEDICAL CENTER   (Netherlands)

^g CHARITÉ UNIVERSITÄTSMEDIZIN BERLIN   (Germany)

^h INSTITUT GUSTAVE ROUSSY   (France)

ⁱ UNIVERSITY OF OXFORD   (United Kingdom)

^j FUNDENI CLINICAL INSTITUTE   (Romania)

^k UNIVERSITY MEDICAL CENTER UTRECHT   (Netherlands)

^l UNIVERSITY OF UDINE   (Italy)

more..

Author keywords

Active surveillance; Biochemical recurrence; Oncologic outcomes; Prostate cancer; Radical prostatectomy

Indexed keywords

PROSTATE SPECIFIC ANTIGEN;

ACTIVE SURVEILLANCE; ADULT; AGE; ARTICLE; BIOCHEMICAL RECURRENCE FREE SURVIVAL; CANCER EPIDEMIOLOGY; CANCER PATIENT; CANCER RECURRENCE; CANCER RISK; CANCER SURGERY; CANCER SURVIVAL; FOLLOW UP; GLEASON SCORE; HUMAN; LOW RISK PATIENT; LYMPH NODE DISSECTION; MAJOR CLINICAL STUDY; MALE; MULTICENTER STUDY; PATIENT CODING; PATIENT MISCLASSIFICATION; PRIORITY JOURNAL; PROSTATE CANCER; PROSTATECTOMY; RISK ASSESSMENT; AGED; BLOOD; CLASSIFICATION; CLINICAL TRIAL; MIDDLE AGED; PATHOLOGY; PROPORTIONAL HAZARDS MODEL; PROSTATIC NEOPLASMS; RISK FACTOR; TUMOR RECURRENCE; WATCHFUL WAITING;

AGED; HUMANS; MALE; MIDDLE AGED; NEOPLASM RECURRENCE, LOCAL; PROPORTIONAL HAZARDS MODELS; PROSTATE-SPECIFIC ANTIGEN; PROSTATECTOMY; PROSTATIC NEOPLASMS; RISK FACTORS; WATCHFUL WAITING;

EID: 85006324933     PISSN: 10781439     EISSN: 18732496     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.urolonc.2014.12.011     Document Type: Article

References (35)

1. Budaus L., Spethmann J., Isbarn H., et al. Inverse stage migration in patients undergoing radical prostatectomy: results of 8916 European patients treated within the last decade. BJU Int 2011, 108:1256-1261.
2. Ploussard G., Epstein J.I., Montironi R., et al. The contemporary concept of significant versus insignificant prostate cancer. Eur Urol 2011, 60:291-303.
3. Wilt T.J., Brawer M.K., Jones K.M., et al. Radical prostatectomy versus observation for localized prostate cancer. N Engl J Med 2012, 367:203-213.
4. Dall'Era M.A., Albertsen P.C., Bangma C., et al. Active surveillance for prostate cancer: a systematic review of the literature. Eur Urol 2012, 62:976-983.
5. Heidenreich A., Bastian P.J., Bellmunt J., et al. EAU guidelines on prostate cancer. part 1: screening, diagnosis, and local treatment with curative intent-update 2013. Eur Urol 2014, 65:124-137.
6. Iremashvili V., Pelaez L., Manoharan M., Jorda M., Rosenberg D.L., Soloway M.S. Pathologic prostate cancer characteristics in patients eligible for active surveillance: a head-to-head comparison of contemporary protocols. Eur Urol 2012, 62:462-468.
7. El Hajj A., Ploussard G., de la Taille A., et al. Analysis of outcomes after radical prostatectomy in patients eligible for active surveillance (PRIAS). BJU Int 2013, 111:53-59.
8. Muller G., Bonkat G., Rieken M., et al. Potential consequences of low biopsy core number in selection of patients with prostate cancer for current active surveillance protocols. Urology 2013, 81:837-842.
9. Mitsuzuka K., Narita S., Koie T., et al. Pathological and biochemical outcomes after radical prostatectomy in men with low-risk prostate cancer meeting the Prostate Cancer International: Active Surveillance criteria. BJU Int 2013, 111:914-920.
10. van den Bergh R.C., Vasarainen H., van der Poel H.G., et al. Short-term outcomes of the prospective multicentre 'Prostate Cancer Research International: Active Surveillance' study. BJU Int 2010, 105:956-962.
11. Ploussard G., Isbarn H., Briganti A., et al. Can we expand active surveillance criteria to include biopsy Gleason 3+4 prostate cancer? A multi-institutional study of 2,323 patients. Urol Oncol 2014, pii: S1078-1439(14)00263-4. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.urolonc.2014.07.007.
12. Loeb S., Folkvaljon Y., Makarov D.V., Bratt O., Bill-Axelson A., Stattin P. Five-year nationwide follow-up study of active surveillance for prostate cancer. Eur Urol 2014, pii: S0302-2838(14)00531-4. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.eururo.2014.06.010.
13. Weiner A.B., Patel S.G., Etzioni R., Eggener S.E. National trends in the management of low- and intermediate-risk prostate cancer in the United States. J Urol 2015, 193:95-102.
14. Bul M., Zhu X., Valdagni R., et al. Active surveillance for low-risk prostate cancer worldwide: the PRIAS study. Eur Urol 2013, 63:597-603.
15. Selvadurai E.D., Singhera M., Thomas K., et al. Medium-term outcomes of active surveillance for localised prostate cancer. Eur Urol 2013, 64:981-987.
16. Klotz L., Zhang L., Lam A., Nam R., Mamedov A., Loblaw A. Clinical results of long-term follow-up of a large, active surveillance cohort with localized prostate cancer. J Clin Oncol 2010, 28:126-131.
17. Mullins J.K., Feng Z., Trock B.J., Epstein J.I., Walsh P.C., Loeb S. The impact of anatomical radical retropubic prostatectomy on cancer control: the 30-year anniversary. J Urol 2012, 188:2219-2224.
18. El Hajj A., Ploussard G., de la Taille A., et al. Patient selection and pathological outcomes using currently available active surveillance criteria. BJU Int 2013, 112:471-477.
19. Hong S.K., Sternberg I.A., Keren Paz G.E., et al. Definitive pathology at radical prostatectomy is commonly favorable in men following initial active surveillance. Eur Urol 2014, 66:214-219.
20. Ploussard G., Salomon L., Xylinas E., et al. Pathological findings and prostate specific antigen outcomes after radical prostatectomy in men eligible for active surveillance--does the risk of misclassification vary according to biopsy criteria?. J Urol 2010, 183:539-544.
21. Suardi N., Gallina A., Capitanio U., et al. Age-adjusted validation of the most stringent criteria for active surveillance in low-risk prostate cancer patients. Cancer 2012, 118:973-980.
22. Villa L., Capitanio U., Briganti A., et al. The number of cores taken in patients diagnosed with a single microfocus at initial biopsy is a major predictor of insignificant prostate cancer. J Urol 2013, 189:854-859.
23. Tseng K.S., Landis P., Epstein J.I., Trock B.J., Carter H.B. Risk stratification of men choosing surveillance for low risk prostate cancer. J Urol 2010, 183:1779-1785.
24. Welty C.J., Cowan J.E., Nguyen H., et al. Extended follow-up and risk factors for disease reclassification from a large active surveillance cohort for localized prostate cancer. J Urol 2014, pii: S0022-5347(14)04547-9. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.juro.2014.09.094.
25. Cary K.C., Cowan J.E., Sanford M., et al. Predictors of pathologic progression on biopsy among men on active surveillance for localized prostate cancer: the value of the pattern of surveillance biopsies. Eur Urol 2014, 66:337-342.
26. Loeb S., Bruinsma S.M., Nicholson J., et al. Active surveillance for prostate cancer: a systematic review of clinicopathologic variables and biomarkers for risk stratification. Eur Urol 2014, pii: S0302-2838(14)01018-5. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.eururo.2014.10.010.
27. van den Bergh R.C., Ahmed H.U., Bangma C.H., Cooperberg M.R., Villers A., Parker C.C. Novel tools to improve patient selection and monitoring on active surveillance for low-risk prostate cancer: a systematic review. Eur Urol 2014, 65:1023-1031.
28. Abd-Alazeez M., Ahmed H.U., Arya M., et al. Can multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging predict upgrading of transrectal ultrasound biopsy results at more definitive histology?. Urol Oncol 2014, 32:741-747.
29. Park B.H., Jeon H.G., Choo S.H., et al. Role of multiparametric 3.0-Tesla magnetic resonance imaging in patients with prostate cancer eligible for active surveillance. BJU Int 2014, 113:864-870.
30. Cuzick J., Berney D.M., Fisher G., et al. Prognostic value of a cell cycle progression signature for prostate cancer death in a conservatively managed needle biopsy cohort. Br J Cancer 2012, 106:1095-1099.
31. Radtke J.P., Kuru T.H., Boxler S., et al. Comparative analysis of transperineal template-saturation prostate biopsy versus MRI-targeted biopsy with MRI-US fusion-guidance. J Urol 2015, 193:87-94.
32. van den Bergh R.C., Roemeling S., Roobol M.J., et al. Gleason score 7 screen-detected prostate cancers initially managed expectantly: outcomes in 50 men. BJU Int 2009, 103:1472-1477.
33. van As N.J., Norman A.R., Thomas K., et al. Predicting the probability of deferred radical treatment for localised prostate cancer managed by active surveillance. Eur Urol 2008, 54:1297-1305.
34. Cooperberg M.R., Cowan J.E., Hilton J.F., et al. Outcomes of active surveillance for men with intermediate-risk prostate cancer. J Clin Oncol 2011, 29:228-234.
35. Delahunt B., Miller R.J., Srigley J.R., Evans A.J., Samaratunga H. Gleason grading: past, present and future. Histopathology 2012, 60:75-86.