Biopsy features associated with prostate cancer progression in active surveillance patients: Comparison of three statistical models

BJU International

Volumn 111, Issue 4, 2013, Pages 574-579

  Iremashvili, Viacheslav ^a   Manoharan, Murugesan ^a   Rosenberg, Daniel L ^a   Soloway, Mark S ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF MIAMI MILLER SCHOOL OF MEDICINE   (United States)

Author keywords

active surveillance; multivariate model; prostate biopsy; prostate cancer; risk factors

Indexed keywords

ARTICLE; CANCER GROWTH; CANCER PROGNOSIS; COHORT ANALYSIS; COMPARATIVE STUDY; CONTROLLED STUDY; FOLLOW UP; GLEASON SCORE; HIGH RISK PATIENT; HUMAN; HUMAN TISSUE; MAJOR CLINICAL STUDY; MALE; OVERALL SURVIVAL; PATIENT MONITORING; PRIORITY JOURNAL; PROGRESSION FREE SURVIVAL; PROSTATE BIOPSY; PROSTATE CANCER; RISK ASSESSMENT; STATISTICAL MODEL; TUMOR VOLUME;

EID: 85028110880     PISSN: 14644096     EISSN: 1464410X     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1111/j.1464-410X.2012.11127.x     Document Type: Article

References (21)

1. Jemal A, Siegel R, Xu J, Ward E,. Cancer statistics, 2010. CA Cancer J Clin 2010; 60: 277-300
2. Cooperberg MR, Broering JM, Kantoff PW, Carroll PR,. Contemporary trends in low risk prostate cancer: risk assessment and treatment. J Urol 2007; 178: S14-19
3. Carter HB,. Management of low (favourable)-risk prostate cancer. BJU Int 2011; 108: 1684-1695
4. Thompson I, Thrasher JB, Aus G, et al. Guideline for the management of clinically localized prostate cancer: 2007 update. J Urol 2007; 177: 2106-2131
5. Cooperberg MR, Carroll PR, Klotz L,. Active surveillance for prostate cancer: progress and promise. J Clin Oncol 2011; 29: 3669-3676
6. Dall'Era MA, Cooperberg MR, Chan JM, et al. Active surveillance for early-stage prostate cancer: review of the current literature. Cancer 2008; 112: 1650-1659
7. Bangma CH, Roobol MJ,. Defining and predicting indolent and low risk prostate cancer. Crit Rev Oncol Hematol 2011; October 25 [Epub ahead of print]
8. Kane CJ, Im R, Amling CL, et al. Outcomes after radical prostatectomy among men who are candidates for active surveillance: results from the SEARCH database. Urology 2010; 76: 695-700
9. Jeldres C, Suardi N, Walz J, et al. Validation of the contemporary epstein criteria for insignificant prostate cancer in European men. Eur Urol 2008; 54: 1306-1313
10. Epstein JI, Walsh PC, Carmichael M, Brendler CB,. Pathologic and clinical findings to predict tumor extent of nonpalpable (stage T1c) prostate cancer. JAMA 1994; 271: 368-374
11. Porten SP, Whitson JM, Cowan JE, et al. Changes in prostate cancer grade on serial biopsy in men undergoing active surveillance. J Clin Oncol 2011; 29: 2795-2800
12. Tosoian JJ, Trock BJ, Landis P, et al. Active surveillance program for prostate cancer: an update of the Johns Hopkins experience. J Clin Oncol 2011; 29: 2185-2190
13. San Francisco IF, Werner L, Regan MM, Garnick MB, Bubley G, DeWolf WC,. Risk stratification and validation of prostate specific antigen density as independent predictor of progression in men with low risk prostate cancer during active surveillance. J Urol 2010; 185: 471-476
14. Adamy A, Yee DS, Matsushita K, et al. Role of prostate specific antigen and immediate confirmatory biopsy in predicting progression during active surveillance for low risk prostate cancer. J Urol 2011; 185: 477-482
15. Patel AR, Jones JS,. Optimal biopsy strategies for the diagnosis and staging of prostate cancer. Curr Opin Urol 2009; 19: 232-237
16. Suardi N, Briganti A, Gallina A, et al. Testing the most stringent criteria for selection of candidates for active surveillance in patients with low-risk prostate cancer. BJU Int 2010; 105: 1548-1552
17. Tseng KS, Landis P, Epstein JI, Trock BJ, Carter HB,. Risk stratification of men choosing surveillance for low risk prostate cancer. J Urol 2010; 183: 1779-1785
18. Bul M, van den Bergh RC, Rannikko A, et al. Predictors of Unfavourable Repeat Biopsy Results in Men Participating in a Prospective Active Surveillance Program. Eur Urol 2011; 61: 370-377
19. King CR, McNeal JE, Gill H, Presti JC Jr,. Extended prostate biopsy scheme improves reliability of Gleason grading: implications for radiotherapy patients. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 2004; 59: 386-391
20. Epstein JI,. Precursor lesions to prostatic adenocarcinoma. Virchows Arch 2009; 454: 1-16
21. Isharwal S, Makarov DV, Sokoll LJ, et al. ProPSA and diagnostic biopsy tissue DNA content combination improves accuracy to predict need for prostate cancer treatment among men enrolled in an active surveillance program. Urology 2011; 77: 763 e1-7636