Pathologic outcomes for low-risk prostate cancer after delayed radical prostatectomy in the United States

Urologic Oncology: Seminars and Original Investigations

Volumn 33, Issue 4, 2015, Pages 164.e11-164.e17

  Weiner, Adam B ^a   Patel, Sanjay G ^a   Eggener, Scott E ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF CHICAGO MEDICAL CENTER   (United States)

Author keywords

Active Surveillance; Pathology; Prostatic neoplasms; Radical prostatectomy; United States epidemiology; Watchful waiting

Indexed keywords

PROSTATE SPECIFIC ANTIGEN;

ADULT; ADVERSE OUTCOME; AGED; ARTICLE; BLACK PERSON; CANCER GRADING; CANCER STAGING; CAUCASIAN; COMORBIDITY; GLEASON SCORE; HUMAN; LOW RISK PATIENT; LYMPH NODE METASTASIS; MAJOR CLINICAL STUDY; MALE; MIDDLE AGED; OUTCOME ASSESSMENT; PRIORITY JOURNAL; PROSTATE BIOPSY; PROSTATE CANCER; PROSTATECTOMY; THERAPY DELAY; UNITED STATES; WATCHFUL WAITING; ODDS RATIO; PATHOLOGY; PROSTATIC NEOPLASMS; RISK; TIME FACTOR;

AGED; HUMANS; LYMPHATIC METASTASIS; MALE; MIDDLE AGED; NEOPLASM GRADING; ODDS RATIO; PROSTATECTOMY; PROSTATIC NEOPLASMS; RISK; TIME FACTORS; UNITED STATES; WATCHFUL WAITING;

EID: 85017330669     PISSN: 10781439     EISSN: 18732496     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.urolonc.2014.12.012     Document Type: Article

References (29)

1. Vellekoop A., Loeb S., Folkvaljon Y., Stattin P. Population based study of predictors of adverse pathology among candidates for active surveillance with Gleason 6 prostate cancer. J Urol 2014, 191:350-357.
2. 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.
3. 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.
4. Barocas D.A., Cowan J.E., Smith J.A., Carroll P.R. What percentage of patients with newly diagnosed carcinoma of the prostate are candidates for surveillance? An analysis of the CaPSURE database. J Urol 2008, 180:1330-1334. [discussion 1334-1335].
5. Hayes J.H., Ollendorf D.A., Pearson S.D., et al. Active surveillance compared with initial treatment for men with low-risk prostate cancer: a decision analysis. JAMA 2010, 304:2373-2380.
6. Mohler J.L., Kantoff P.W., Armstrong A.J., et al. Prostate cancer, version 2.2014. J Natl Compr Canc Netw 2014, 12:686-718.
7. Thompson I., Thrasher J.B., Aus G., et al. Guideline for the management of clinically localized prostate cancer: 2007 update. J Urol 2007, 177:2106-2131.
8. 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.
9. O'Brien D., Loeb S., Carvalhal G.F., et al. Delay of surgery in men with low risk prostate cancer. J Urol 2011, 185:2143-2147.
10. Satkunasivam R., Kulkarni G.S., Zlotta A.R., et al. Pathological, oncologic and functional outcomes of radical prostatectomy following active surveillance. J Urol 2013, 190:91-95.
11. Dall'Era M.A., Cowan J.E., Simko J., et al. Surgical management after active surveillance for low-risk prostate cancer: pathological outcomes compared with men undergoing immediate treatment. BJU Int 2011, 107:1232-1237.
12. Abern M.R., Aronson W.J., Terris M.K., et al. Delayed radical prostatectomy for intermediate-risk prostate cancer is associated with biochemical recurrence: possible implications for active surveillance from the SEARCH database. Prostate 2013, 73:409-417.
13. Vickers A.J., Bianco F.J., Boorjian S., Scardino P.T., Eastham J.A. Does a delay between diagnosis and radical prostatectomy increase the risk of disease recurrence?. Cancer 2006, 106:576-580.
14. Khan M.A., Mangold L.A., Epstein J.I., Boitnott J.K., Walsh P.C., Partin A.W. Impact of surgical delay on long-term cancer control for clinically localized prostate cancer. J Urol 2004, 172(5 Pt 1):1835-1839.
15. Winchester D.P., Stewart A.K., Bura C., Jones R.S. The National Cancer Data Base: a clinical surveillance and quality improvement tool. J Surg Oncol 2004, 85:1-3.
16. Collaborative Stage Work Group of the American Joint Committee on Cancer. Collaborative stage data collection system user documentation and coding instructions. version 02.04.40.; Published by American Joint Committee on Cancer (Chicago, IL).
17. Freedland S.J., Aronson W.J., Terris M.K., et al. Percent of prostate needle biopsy cores with cancer is significant independent predictor of prostate specific antigen recurrence following radical prostatectomy: results from SEARCH database. J Urol 2003, 169:2136-2141.
18. Kryvenko O.N., Carter H.B., Trock B.J., Epstein J.I. Biopsy criteria for determining appropriateness for active surveillance in the modern era. Urology 2014, 83:869-874.
19. Berglund R.K., Masterson T.A., Vora K.C., Eggener S.E., Eastham J.A., Guillonneau B.D. Pathological upgrading and up staging with immediate repeat biopsy in patients eligible for active surveillance. J Urol 2008, 180:1964-1967. [discussion 1967-1968].
20. Gershman B., Dahl D.M., Olumi A.F., Young R.H., McDougal W.S., Wu C.L. Smaller prostate gland size and older age predict Gleason score upgrading. Urol Oncol 2013, 31:1033-1037.
21. Sundi D., Ross A.E., Humphreys E.B., et al. African American men with very low-risk prostate cancer exhibit adverse oncologic outcomes after radical prostatectomy: should active surveillance still be an option for them?. J Clin Oncol 2013, 31:2991-2997.
22. Pierorazio P.M., Kinnaman M.D., Wosnitzer M.S., Benson M.C., McKiernan J.M., Goluboff E.T. Prostate volume and pathologic prostate cancer outcomes after radical prostatectomy. Urology 2007, 70:696-701.
23. Walz J., Chun F.K., Klein E.A., et al. Risk-adjusted hazard rates of biochemical recurrence for prostate cancer patients after radical prostatectomy. Eur Urol 2009, 55:412-419.
24. Reese A.C., Cooperberg M.R., Carroll P.R. Minimal impact of clinical stage on prostate cancer prognosis among contemporary patients with clinically localized disease. J Urol 2010, 184:114-119.
25. Freedland S.J., Aronson W.J., Csathy G.S., et al. Comparison of percentage of total prostate needle biopsy tissue with cancer to percentage of cores with cancer for predicting PSA recurrence after radical prostatectomy: results from the SEARCH database. Urology 2003, 61:742-747.
26. Miller D.C., Hafez K.S., Stewart A., Montie J.E., Wei J.T. Prostate carcinoma presentation, diagnosis, and staging: an update form the National Cancer Data Base. Cancer 2003, 98:1169-1178.
27. Mettlin C.J., Menck H.R., Winchester D.P., Murphy G.P. A comparison of breast, colorectal, lung, and prostate cancers reported to the National Cancer Data Base and the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results Program. Cancer 1997, 79:2052-2061.
28. Epstein J.I., Pound C.R., Partin A.W., Walsh P.C. Disease progression following radical prostatectomy in men with Gleason score 7 tumor. J Urol 1998, 160:97-100. [discussion 101].
29. Alenda O., Ploussard G., Mouracade P., et al. Impact of the primary Gleason pattern on biochemical recurrence-free survival after radical prostatectomy: a single-center cohort of 1,248 patients with Gleason 7 tumors. World J Urol 2011, 29:671-676.