Active surveillance in younger men with prostate cancer

Journal of Clinical Oncology

Volumn 35, Issue 17, 2017, Pages 1898-1904

  Leapman, Michael S ^a,b   Cowan, Janet E ^b   Nguyen, Hao G ^b   Shinohara, Katsuto K ^b   Perez, Nannette ^b   Cooperberg, Matthew R ^b   Catalona, William J ^c   Carroll, Peter R ^b  

^a YALE UNIVERSITY SCHOOL OF MEDICINE   (United States)

^b UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA   (United States)

^c NORTHWESTERN UNIVERSITY   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

PROSTATE SPECIFIC ANTIGEN;

ADULT; ARTICLE; BIOCHEMICAL RECURRENCE; CANCER EPIDEMIOLOGY; CANCER PATIENT; CANCER REGISTRY; CLINICAL OUTCOME; COMPARATIVE STUDY; FOLLOW UP; GLEASON SCORE; HUMAN; MAJOR CLINICAL STUDY; MALE; MIDDLE AGED; OUTCOME ASSESSMENT; PATIENT PREFERENCE; PATIENT SAFETY; PRIORITY JOURNAL; PROSTATE CANCER; PROSTATE VOLUME; PROSTATECTOMY; RISK ASSESSMENT; TRANSRECTAL ULTRASONOGRAPHY; TUMOR VOLUME; AGE; AGED; BIOPSY; CANCER GRADING; COHORT ANALYSIS; EPIDEMIOLOGICAL MONITORING; KAPLAN MEIER METHOD; PATHOLOGY; PROPORTIONAL HAZARDS MODEL; PROSTATIC NEOPLASMS; RETROSPECTIVE STUDY; UNITED STATES;

AGE FACTORS; AGED; BIOPSY; COHORT STUDIES; EPIDEMIOLOGICAL MONITORING; FOLLOW-UP STUDIES; HUMANS; KAPLAN-MEIER ESTIMATE; MALE; MIDDLE AGED; NEOPLASM GRADING; PROPORTIONAL HAZARDS MODELS; PROSTATIC NEOPLASMS; RETROSPECTIVE STUDIES; UNITED STATES;

EID: 85021740359     PISSN: 0732183X     EISSN: 15277755     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1200/JCO.2016.68.0058     Document Type: Article

References (34)

1. Cooperberg MR, Carroll PR, Klotz L: Active surveillance for prostate cancer: Progress and promise. J Clin Oncol 29:3669-3676, 2011
2. Bul M, Zhu X, Valdagni R, et al: Active surveillance for low-risk prostate cancer worldwide: The PRIAS study. Eur Urol 63:597-603, 2013
3. Klotz L, Vesprini D, Sethukavalan P, et al: Long-term follow-up of a large active surveillance cohort of patients with prostate cancer. J Clin Oncol 33:272-277, 2015
4. Welty CJ, Cowan JE, Nguyen H, et al: Extended followup and risk factors for disease reclassification in a large active surveillance cohort for localized prostate cancer. J Urol 193:807-811, 2015
5. Tosoian JJ, Trock BJ, Landis P, et al: Active surveillance program for prostate cancer: An update of the Johns Hopkins experience. J Clin Oncol 29: 2185-2190, 2011
6. Womble PR, Montie JE, Ye Z, et al: Contemporary use of initial active surveillance among men in Michigan with low-risk prostate cancer. Eur Urol 67:44-50, 2015
7. Cooperberg MR, Carroll PR: Trends in management for patients with localized prostate cancer, 1990-2013. JAMA 314:80-82, 2015
8. Loeb S, Berglund A, Stattin P: Population based study of use and determinants of active surveillance and watchful waiting for low and intermediate risk prostate cancer. J Urol 190:1742-1749, 2013
9. Nezolosky MD, Dinh KT, Muralidhar V, et al. Significant increase in prostatectomy and decrease in radiation for clinical T3 prostate cancer from 1998 to 2012. Urol Oncol.34:57.e15-22, 2016
10. Scosyrev E, Messing EM, Mohile S, et al: Prostate cancer in the elderly: Frequency of advanced disease at presentation and disease-specific mortality. Cancer 118:3062-3070, 2012
11. Brajtbord JS, Punnen S, Cowan JE, et al: Age and baseline quality of life at radical prostatectomy–who has the most to lose? J Urol 192:396-401, 2014
12. Cooperberg MR, Pasta DJ, Elkin EP, et al: The University of California, San Francisco Cancer of the Prostate Risk Assessment score: A straightforward and reliable preoperative predictor of disease recurrence after radical prostatectomy. J Urol 173: 1938-1942, 2005
13. Cooperberg MR, Hilton JF, Carroll PR: The CAPRA-S score: A straightforward tool for improved prediction of outcomes after radical prostatectomy. Cancer 117:5039-5046, 2011
14. Hampson LA, Cowan JE, Zhao S, et al: Impact of age on quality-of-life outcomes after treatment for localized prostate cancer. Eur Urol 68:480-486, 2015
15. Resnick MJ, Koyama T, Fan KH, et al: Long-term functional outcomes after treatment for localized prostate cancer. N Engl J Med 368:436-445, 2013
16. Godtman RA, Holmberg E, Khatami A, et al: Long-term results of active surveillance in the Göteborg randomized, population-based prostate cancer screening trial. Eur Urol 70:760-766, 2016
17. Bechis SK, Carroll PR, Cooperberg MR: Impact of age at diagnosis on prostate cancer treatment and survival. J Clin Oncol 29:235-241, 2011
18. Newcomb LF, Thompson IM, Jr., Boyer HD, et al: Outcomes of active surveillance for clinically localized prostate cancer in the prospective, multi-institutional Canary PASS cohort. J Urol 195: 313-320, 2016
19. Tosoian JJ, Mamawala M, Epstein JI, et al: Intermediate and longer-term outcomes from a prospective active-surveillance program for favorable-risk prostate cancer. J Clin Oncol 33: 3379-3385, 2015
20. Jain S, Loblaw A, Vesprini D, et al: Gleason upgrading with time in a large prostate cancer active surveillance cohort. J Urol 194:79-84, 2015
21. Wong LM, Alibhai SM, Trottier G, et al: A negative confirmatory biopsy among men on active surveillance for prostate cancer does not protect them from histologic grade progression. Eur Urol 66: 406-413, 2014
22. Anderson CB, Sternberg IA, Karen-Paz G, et al: Age is associated with upgrading at confirmatory biopsy among men with prostate cancer treated with active surveillance. J Urol 194:1607-1611, 2015
23. Walton Diaz A, Shakir NA, George AK, et al. Use of serial multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging in the management of patients with prostate cancer on active surveillance. Urol Oncol;3:202.e201-207, 2015.
24. Siddiqui MM, Rais-Bahrami S, Turkbey B, et al: Comparison of MR/ultrasound fusion-guided biopsy with ultrasound-guided biopsy for the diagnosis of prostate cancer. JAMA 313:390-397, 2015
25. Bokhorst LP, Alberts AR, Rannikko A, et al: Compliance rates with the Prostate Cancer Research International Active Surveillance (PRIAS) protocol and disease reclassification in noncompliers. Eur Urol 68: 814-821, 2015
26. Chamie K, Williams SB, Hershman DL, et al: Population-based assessment of determining predictors for quality of prostate cancer surveillance. Cancer 121:4150-4157, 2015
27. Porten SP, Whitson JM, Cowan JE, et al: Changes in prostate cancer grade on serial biopsy in men undergoing active surveillance. J Clin Oncol 29: 2795-2800, 2011
28. Cary KC, Cowan JE, 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 66:337-342, 2014
29. Hussein AA, Welty CJ, Ameli N, et al: Untreated Gleason grade progression on serial biopsies during prostate cancer active surveillance: Clinical course and pathological outcomes. J Urol 194:85-90, 2015
30. Inoue LY, Trock BJ, Partin AW, et al: Modeling grade progression in an active surveillance study. Stat Med 33:930-939, 2014
31. Jeldres C, Cullen J, Hurwitz LM, et al: Prospective quality-of-life outcomes for low-risk prostate cancer: Active surveillance versus radical prostatectomy. Cancer 121:2465-2473, 2015
32. Vickers AJ, Edwards K, Cooperberg MR, et al: A simple schema for informed decision making about prostate cancer screening. Ann Intern Med 161: 441-442, 2014
33. Vickers AJ, Ulmert D, Sjoberg DD, et al: Strategy for detection of prostate cancer based on relation between prostate specific antigen at age 40-55 and long term risk of metastasis: case-control study. BMJ 346:f2023, 2013
34. Carroll PR, Parsons JK, Andriole G, et al: NCCN Clinical Practice Guidelines prostate cancer early detection, version 2.2015. J Natl Compr Canc Netw 13:1534-1561, 2015