PURPOSE: Active surveillance for early prostate cancer is a policy of close monitoring with radical treatment targeted at cases with evidence of disease progression. There is no consensus on the need for or optimum timing of repeat biopsies as part of active surveillance. MATERIALS AND METHODS: In a prospective cohort study of active surveillance 119 patients with untreated localized prostate cancer (T1/2a), prostate specific antigen less than 15 ng/ml, Gleason score 3 + 4 or less and 50% or less positive cores underwent repeat biopsy after 18 to 24 months. Histological disease progression was defined as primary Gleason grade 4 or greater, greater than 50% positive cores or a Gleason score increase from 6 or less to 7 or greater. The risk of histological disease progression was analyzed with respect to baseline clinical factors. RESULTS: Median patient age was 66 years and median initial prostate specific antigen was 6.6 ng/ml. Histological disease progression was seen in 33 of 119 cases (28%). On multivariate analysis prostate specific antigen density (p = 0.002) and maximum percent involvement of any core (p = 0.04) were significant independent determinants of histological disease progression. Progression was seen in 22 of 40 cases (55%) with prostate specific antigen density 0.2 ng/ml/ml or greater and greater than 15% maximum involvement of any core. Progression was seen in 2 of 33 cases (6%) with prostate specific antigen density less than 0.2 ng/ml/ml and 15% or less maximum involvement of any core. CONCLUSIONS: Repeat biopsy should be an integral part of active surveillance for untreated localized prostate cancer. Immediate repeat biopsy should be considered in patients who elect active surveillance but who have prostate specific antigen density greater than 0.2 ng/ml/ml. These findings must be validated in a cohort of patients with extended biopsies at diagnosis and followup.
PURPOSE: Active surveillance for early prostate cancer is a policy of close monitoring with radical treatment targeted at cases with evidence of disease progression. There is no consensus on the need for or optimum timing of repeat biopsies as part of active surveillance. MATERIALS AND METHODS: In a prospective cohort study of active surveillance 119 patients with untreated localized prostate cancer (T1/2a), prostate specific antigen less than 15 ng/ml, Gleason score 3 + 4 or less and 50% or less positive cores underwent repeat biopsy after 18 to 24 months. Histological disease progression was defined as primary Gleason grade 4 or greater, greater than 50% positive cores or a Gleason score increase from 6 or less to 7 or greater. The risk of histological disease progression was analyzed with respect to baseline clinical factors. RESULTS: Median patient age was 66 years and median initial prostate specific antigen was 6.6 ng/ml. Histological disease progression was seen in 33 of 119 cases (28%). On multivariate analysis prostate specific antigen density (p = 0.002) and maximum percent involvement of any core (p = 0.04) were significant independent determinants of histological disease progression. Progression was seen in 22 of 40 cases (55%) with prostate specific antigen density 0.2 ng/ml/ml or greater and greater than 15% maximum involvement of any core. Progression was seen in 2 of 33 cases (6%) with prostate specific antigen density less than 0.2 ng/ml/ml and 15% or less maximum involvement of any core. CONCLUSIONS: Repeat biopsy should be an integral part of active surveillance for untreated localized prostate cancer. Immediate repeat biopsy should be considered in patients who elect active surveillance but who have prostate specific antigen density greater than 0.2 ng/ml/ml. These findings must be validated in a cohort of patients with extended biopsies at diagnosis and followup.
Authors: Stacy Loeb; Sophie M Bruinsma; Joseph Nicholson; Alberto Briganti; Tom Pickles; Yoshiyuki Kakehi; Sigrid V Carlsson; Monique J Roobol Journal: Eur Urol Date: 2014-10-31 Impact factor: 20.096
Authors: Ramachandran Venkitaraman; Karen Thomas; Phillip Grace; David P Dearnaley; Alan Horwich; Robert A Huddart; Christopher C Parker Journal: Tumour Biol Date: 2010-02-16
Authors: Vitor da Silva; Ilias Cagiannos; Luke T Lavallée; Ranjeeta Mallick; Kelsey Witiuk; Sonya Cnossen; James A Eastham; Dean A Fergusson; Chris Morash; Rodney H Breau Journal: Can Urol Assoc J Date: 2017-08 Impact factor: 1.862
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
Authors: Ola Bratt; Stefan Carlsson; Erik Holmberg; Lars Holmberg; Eva Johansson; Andreas Josefsson; Annika Nilsson; Maria Nyberg; David Robinsson; Jonas Sandberg; Dag Sandblom; Pär Stattin Journal: Scand J Urol Date: 2013-07-24 Impact factor: 1.612
Authors: Justin R Gregg; John W Davis; Chad Reichard; Xuemei Wang; Mary Achim; Brian F Chapin; Louis Pisters; Curtis Pettaway; John F Ward; Seungtaek Choi; Quynh-Nhu Nguyen; Deborah Kuban; Richard Babaian; Patricia Troncoso; Lydia T Madsen; Christopher Logothetis; Jeri Kim Journal: Urology Date: 2019-12-30 Impact factor: 2.649
Authors: Jure Murgic; Matthew H Stenmark; Schuyler Halverson; Kevin Blas; Felix Y Feng; Daniel A Hamstra Journal: Radiat Oncol Date: 2012-08-01 Impact factor: 3.481