Literature DB >> 15372478

Characteristics of insignificant clinical T1c prostate tumors. A contemporary analysis.

Patrick J Bastian1, Leslie A Mangold, Jonathan I Epstein, Alan W Partin.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: The authors examined the cases of men who had undergone radical prostatectomy for low-volume clinical T1c prostate carcinoma that was judged to be 'insignificant' on the basis of previously established preoperative clinicopathologic parameters. Pathologic findings subsequently were analyzed for correlations with extent of disease in an attempt to validate the contemporary usefulness of existing parameters for predicting the 'significance' of prostate tumors.
METHODS: A series of 237 men who had undergone radical prostatectomy for T1c disease between December 2000 and August 2003 was evaluated. Insignificant prostate carcinoma as assessed on biopsy was defined according to the 1994 Epstein criteria, which were as follows: prostate-specific antigen density < 0.15 ng/mL, Gleason score < or = 6, fewer than 3 cores containing prostate carcinoma, and < or = 50% involvement of any core with prostate carcinoma. Postsurgical pathologic findings were analyzed for potential correlations with the Epstein criteria.
RESULTS: According to the Epstein needle biopsy criteria, organ-confined prostate carcinoma was detected in 91.6% of all patients, whereas the remaining 8.4% of patients were found to have non-organ-confined disease. Comparison of pathologic findings and Epstein biopsy criteria revealed that alteration of the original criteria did not improve the detection of non-organ-confined prostate carcinoma.
CONCLUSIONS: The findings made in the current study suggest that the majority of patients with T1c prostate carcinoma have insignificant disease. Furthermore, it was found that the Epstein criteria for identifying insignificant prostate carcinoma remained a useful tool in the making of treatment-related decisions.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2004        PMID: 15372478     DOI: 10.1002/cncr.20586

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Cancer        ISSN: 0008-543X            Impact factor:   6.860


  49 in total

1.  Simulation optimization of PSA-threshold based prostate cancer screening policies.

Authors:  Daniel J Underwood; Jingyu Zhang; Brian T Denton; Nilay D Shah; Brant A Inman
Journal:  Health Care Manag Sci       Date:  2012-12

2.  Validation of revised Epstein's criteria for insignificant prostate cancer prediction in a Greek subpopulation.

Authors:  Κ Chondros; Ν Karpathakis; Ι Heretis; Ε Mavromanolakis; N Chondros; F Sofras; C Mamoulakis
Journal:  Hippokratia       Date:  2015 Jan-Mar       Impact factor: 0.471

3.  Conflicting insights into the role of watchful waiting in the management of adenocarcinoma of the prostate.

Authors:  Danil V Makarov; Alan W Partin
Journal:  Rev Urol       Date:  2006

4.  Validation of Epstein criteria of insignificant prostate cancer in Middle East patients.

Authors:  Ihab A Hekal; Nasr A El-Tabey; Mohamed Adel Nabeeh; Ahmed El-Assmy; Mohamed Abd El-Hameed; Adel Nabeeh; Elhousseiny I Ibrahiem
Journal:  Int Urol Nephrol       Date:  2009-11-10       Impact factor: 2.370

5.  [Active surveillance of low risk prostate cancer].

Authors:  K Lellig; B Beyer; M Graefen; D Zaak; C Stief
Journal:  Urologe A       Date:  2014-07       Impact factor: 0.639

6.  Impact of the type of ultrasound probe on prostate cancer detection rate and characterization in patients undergoing MRI-targeted prostate biopsies using cognitive fusion.

Authors:  Guillaume Ploussard; Samuel Aronson; Vincent Pelsser; Mark Levental; Maurice Anidjar; Franck Bladou
Journal:  World J Urol       Date:  2013-10-16       Impact factor: 4.226

7.  Urine TMPRSS2:ERG fusion transcript stratifies prostate cancer risk in men with elevated serum PSA.

Authors:  Scott A Tomlins; Sheila M J Aubin; Javed Siddiqui; Robert J Lonigro; Laurie Sefton-Miller; Siobhan Miick; Sarah Williamsen; Petrea Hodge; Jessica Meinke; Amy Blase; Yvonne Penabella; John R Day; Radhika Varambally; Bo Han; David Wood; Lei Wang; Martin G Sanda; Mark A Rubin; Daniel R Rhodes; Brent Hollenbeck; Kyoko Sakamoto; Jonathan L Silberstein; Yves Fradet; James B Amberson; Stephanie Meyers; Nallasivam Palanisamy; Harry Rittenhouse; John T Wei; Jack Groskopf; Arul M Chinnaiyan
Journal:  Sci Transl Med       Date:  2011-08-03       Impact factor: 17.956

Review 8.  Active surveillance for prostate cancer: current evidence and contemporary state of practice.

Authors:  Jeffrey J Tosoian; H Ballentine Carter; Abbey Lepor; Stacy Loeb
Journal:  Nat Rev Urol       Date:  2016-03-08       Impact factor: 14.432

9.  Treatment outcomes of radical prostatectomy in potential candidates for 3 published active surveillance protocols.

Authors:  C Shad Thaxton; Stacy Loeb; Kimberly A Roehl; Donghui Kan; William J Catalona
Journal:  Urology       Date:  2009-12-05       Impact factor: 2.649

10.  Analysis of repeated 24-core saturation prostate biopsy: Inverse association between asymptomatic histological inflammation and prostate cancer detection.

Authors:  Tomonori Kato; Akira Komiya; Akihiro Morii; Hiroaki Iida; Takatoshi Ito; Hideki Fuse
Journal:  Oncol Lett       Date:  2016-06-09       Impact factor: 2.967

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.