Literature DB >> 14767282

Watchful waiting and factors predictive of secondary treatment of localized prostate cancer.

Hongyan Wu1, Leon Sun, Judd W Moul, Hong Yu Wu, David G McLeod, Christopher Amling, Raymond Lance, Leo Kusuda, Timothy Donahue, John Foley, Andrew Chung, Wade Sexton, Douglas Soderdahl.   

Abstract

PURPOSE: Watchful waiting remains an important treatment option for some patients with localized prostate cancer. We defined the demographic, clinical and outcome features of men selecting watchful waiting as an initial treatment strategy, and determined factors predictive of eventual progression to secondary treatment.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: Of 8390 patients diagnosed with prostate cancer from 1990 to 2001 in the Department of Defense Center for Prostate Disease Research Database, 1158 patients chose watchful waiting as initial treatment. The demographic and clinical differences between patients on watchful waiting and those choosing other initial treatments were compared using the chi-square test. Secondary treatment-free survival according to various prognostic factors was plotted using the Kaplan-Meier method and differences were tested using the log rank test. A multivariate Cox proportional hazards regression analysis was performed to determine which factors were independent predictors of secondary treatment.
RESULTS: Compared to other patients, those selecting watchful waiting were older, had lower prostate specific antigen (PSA) at diagnosis, and were more likely to have lower stage (cT1) and lower grade (Gleason sum 7 or less) cancers. Age, PSA and clinical stage were all significant and independent predictors of secondary treatment. The relative risk of secondary treatment can be expressed as EXP (-0.034 x age at diagnosis + 0.284 x LOG (diagnostic PSA) + 0.271 x clinical stage T2 + 0.264 x clinical stage T3).
CONCLUSIONS: Men who elect watchful waiting as initial management for prostate cancer are older with lower Gleason sums and serum PSA. In these men, age at diagnosis, serum PSA and clinical stage are the most significant predictors of requiring or selecting secondary treatment.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2004        PMID: 14767282     DOI: 10.1097/01.ju.0000113300.74132.8b

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Urol        ISSN: 0022-5347            Impact factor:   7.450


  8 in total

1.  Watchful waiting and quality of life among prostate cancer survivors in the Physicians' Health Study.

Authors:  Julie L Kasperzyk; William V Shappley; Stacey A Kenfield; Lorelei A Mucci; Tobias Kurth; Jing Ma; Meir J Stampfer; Martin G Sanda
Journal:  J Urol       Date:  2011-09-23       Impact factor: 7.450

Review 2.  [Selection criteria for the expected management of localised prostate cancer].

Authors:  M Graefen; G Salomon; E Currlin; C Eichelberg; T Schlomm; H Huland
Journal:  Urologe A       Date:  2005-11       Impact factor: 0.639

Review 3.  [Active surveillance for prostate cancer].

Authors:  M Graefen; S Ahyai; R Heuer; G Salomon; T Schlomm; H Isbarn; L Budäus; H Heinzer; H Huland
Journal:  Urologe A       Date:  2008-03       Impact factor: 0.639

4.  A hospital-based study of initial observation for low-risk prostate cancer and its predictors in the United States.

Authors:  Matthew J Maurice; Hui Zhu; Robert Abouassaly
Journal:  Can Urol Assoc J       Date:  2015-04-13       Impact factor: 1.862

5.  Prostate cancer: is inapparent tumor at endorectal MR and MR spectroscopic imaging a favorable prognostic finding in patients who select active surveillance?

Authors:  Alvin R Cabrera; Fergus V Coakley; Antonio C Westphalen; Ying Lu; Shoujun Zhao; Katsuto Shinohara; Peter R Carroll; John Kurhanewicz
Journal:  Radiology       Date:  2008-05       Impact factor: 11.105

6.  Effect of socioeconomic factors on long-term mortality in men with clinically localized prostate cancer.

Authors:  Ashutosh K Tewari; Heather Taffet Gold; Raymond Y Demers; Christine Cole Johnson; Rajiv Yadav; Edward H Wagner; Marianne Ulcickas Yood; Terri S Field; George Divine; Mani Menon
Journal:  Urology       Date:  2009-01-23       Impact factor: 2.649

Review 7.  Continuing controversy over monitoring men with localized prostate cancer: a systematic review of programs in the prostate specific antigen era.

Authors:  Richard M Martin; David Gunnell; Freddie Hamdy; David Neal; Athene Lane; Jenny Donovan
Journal:  J Urol       Date:  2006-08       Impact factor: 7.450

8.  Focal Cryotherapy in Low-Risk Prostate Cancer: Are We Treating the Cancer or the Mind? - The Cancer.

Authors:  Rodrigo Donalisio da Silva; Fernando J Kim
Journal:  Int Braz J Urol       Date:  2015 Jan-Feb       Impact factor: 1.541

  8 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.