PURPOSE: We updated our experience with a strategy of expectant treatment for men with stage T1c prostate cancer and evaluated predictors of disease intervention. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A total of 407 men with a median age of 65.7 years (range 45.8 to 81.5) with stage T1c (99.8%) or T2a (0.2%) prostate cancer suspected of harboring small volume prostate cancer based on needle biopsy findings and prostate specific antigen density have been followed in a prospective, longitudinal surveillance program with a median followup of 2.8 years (range 0.4 to 12.5). A recommendation for treatment was made if disease progression was suggested by unfavorable followup needle biopsy findings (Gleason pattern 4 or 5, greater than 2 biopsy cores with cancer or greater than 50% involvement of any core with cancer). Cox proportional hazards regression was used to evaluate the affect of multiple covariates on the outcome of curative intervention. RESULTS: Of 407 men 239 (59%) men remained on active surveillance at a median followup of 3.4 years (range 0.43 to 12.5), 103 (25%) underwent curative intervention at a median of 2.2 years after diagnosis (range 0.96 to 7.39) and 65 (16%) were either lost to followup (12), withdrew from the program (45), or died of causes other than prostate cancer (8). Older age at diagnosis (p = 0.011) and an earlier date of diagnosis (p = 0.001) were significantly associated with curative intervention. CONCLUSIONS: Recognizing that over treatment of prostate cancer is prevalent, especially among elderly patients, a program of careful selection and monitoring of older men who are likely to harbor small volume, low grade disease may be a rational alternative to the active treatment of all.
PURPOSE: We updated our experience with a strategy of expectant treatment for men with stage T1c prostate cancer and evaluated predictors of disease intervention. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A total of 407 men with a median age of 65.7 years (range 45.8 to 81.5) with stage T1c (99.8%) or T2a (0.2%) prostate cancer suspected of harboring small volume prostate cancer based on needle biopsy findings and prostate specific antigen density have been followed in a prospective, longitudinal surveillance program with a median followup of 2.8 years (range 0.4 to 12.5). A recommendation for treatment was made if disease progression was suggested by unfavorable followup needle biopsy findings (Gleason pattern 4 or 5, greater than 2 biopsy cores with cancer or greater than 50% involvement of any core with cancer). Cox proportional hazards regression was used to evaluate the affect of multiple covariates on the outcome of curative intervention. RESULTS: Of 407 men 239 (59%) men remained on active surveillance at a median followup of 3.4 years (range 0.43 to 12.5), 103 (25%) underwent curative intervention at a median of 2.2 years after diagnosis (range 0.96 to 7.39) and 65 (16%) were either lost to followup (12), withdrew from the program (45), or died of causes other than prostate cancer (8). Older age at diagnosis (p = 0.011) and an earlier date of diagnosis (p = 0.001) were significantly associated with curative intervention. CONCLUSIONS: Recognizing that over treatment of prostate cancer is prevalent, especially among elderly patients, a program of careful selection and monitoring of older men who are likely to harbor small volume, low grade disease may be a rational alternative to the active treatment of all.
Authors: Lars Holmberg; Anna Bill-Axelson; Hans Garmo; Juni Palmgren; Bo Johan Norlén; Hans Olov Adami; Jan Erik Johansson Journal: Hematol Oncol Clin North Am Date: 2006-08 Impact factor: 3.722
Authors: Christopher Warlick; Bruce J Trock; Patricia Landis; Jonathan I Epstein; H Ballentine Carter Journal: J Natl Cancer Inst Date: 2006-03-01 Impact factor: 13.506
Authors: Stijn Roemeling; Monique J Roobol; Stijn H de Vries; Tineke Wolters; Claartje Gosselaar; Geert J L H van Leenders; Fritz H Schröder Journal: Eur Urol Date: 2006-12-05 Impact factor: 20.096
Authors: Corey A Carter; Timothy Donahue; Leon Sun; Hongyu Wu; David G McLeod; Christopher Amling; Raymond Lance; John Foley; Wade Sexton; Leo Kusuda; Andrew Chung; Douglas Soderdahl; Stephen Jackmaan; Judd W Moul Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2003-11-01 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: Hashim U Ahmed; Oguz Akin; Jonathan A Coleman; Sarah Crane; Mark Emberton; Larry Goldenberg; Hedvig Hricak; Mike W Kattan; John Kurhanewicz; Caroline M Moore; Chris Parker; Thomas J Polascik; Peter Scardino; Nicholas van As; Arnauld Villers Journal: BJU Int Date: 2011-11-11 Impact factor: 5.588
Authors: Barry B McGuire; Brian T Helfand; Shilajit Kundu; Qiaoyan Hu; Jessica A Banks; Phillip Cooper; William J Catalona Journal: BJU Int Date: 2011-11-11 Impact factor: 5.588
Authors: Scott E Eggener; Alex Mueller; Ryan K Berglund; Raj Ayyathurai; Cindy Soloway; Mark S Soloway; Robert Abouassaly; Eric A Klein; Steven J Jones; Chris Zappavigna; Larry Goldenberg; Peter T Scardino; James A Eastham; Bertrand Guillonneau Journal: J Urol Date: 2009-02-23 Impact factor: 7.450
Authors: Karim Chamie; Geoffrey A Sonn; David S Finley; Nelly Tan; Daniel J A Margolis; Steven S Raman; Shyam Natarajan; Jiaoti Huang; Robert E Reiter Journal: Urology Date: 2014-02 Impact factor: 2.649