OBJECTIVES: One option for the management of low-grade, low-stage prostate cancer is to delay or forego treatment unless evidence of an increased risk of disease progression exists. Accurate assessment of the disease extent and aggressiveness is necessary to determine the candidates for active surveillance (AS). Office-based saturation prostate biopsy (SB) provides more accurate staging than traditional biopsy; therefore, we studied its role in patients on an AS protocol. METHODS: Our database identified 52 men with prostate cancer treated with AS from July 2000 to May 2007. The records were reviewed to determine the role of SB in determining the need for definitive therapy. RESULTS: The patients had a median age of 69 years (range 51 to 83) and median prostate-specific antigen (PSA) level of 5.1 ng/mL (range 0.5 to 47). Patients underwent subsequent staging 20-core SB a median of 9 months (range 1 to 20 months) after diagnosis. The disease of 20 patients (38%) was upstaged as defined by an increase in Gleason score or increased disease volume, leading to a recommendation for active treatment. Patients with disease upstaging had had significantly fewer cores taken at the initial diagnostic biopsy (11% with 20 cores or more compared with 55% with fewer than 20 cores, P = 0.002). CONCLUSIONS: SB might lead to a more accurate assessment of the extent and grade of disease in men with prostate cancer on an AS protocol than traditional biopsy. In our series, more than one half of patients who pursue an AS protocol delayed or avoided local therapy. No patient developed clinical metastasis, but long-term surveillance is required.
OBJECTIVES: One option for the management of low-grade, low-stage prostate cancer is to delay or forego treatment unless evidence of an increased risk of disease progression exists. Accurate assessment of the disease extent and aggressiveness is necessary to determine the candidates for active surveillance (AS). Office-based saturation prostate biopsy (SB) provides more accurate staging than traditional biopsy; therefore, we studied its role in patients on an AS protocol. METHODS: Our database identified 52 men with prostate cancer treated with AS from July 2000 to May 2007. The records were reviewed to determine the role of SB in determining the need for definitive therapy. RESULTS: The patients had a median age of 69 years (range 51 to 83) and median prostate-specific antigen (PSA) level of 5.1 ng/mL (range 0.5 to 47). Patients underwent subsequent staging 20-core SB a median of 9 months (range 1 to 20 months) after diagnosis. The disease of 20 patients (38%) was upstaged as defined by an increase in Gleason score or increased disease volume, leading to a recommendation for active treatment. Patients with disease upstaging had had significantly fewer cores taken at the initial diagnostic biopsy (11% with 20 cores or more compared with 55% with fewer than 20 cores, P = 0.002). CONCLUSIONS:SB might lead to a more accurate assessment of the extent and grade of disease in men with prostate cancer on an AS protocol than traditional biopsy. In our series, more than one half of patients who pursue an AS protocol delayed or avoided local therapy. No patient developed clinical metastasis, but long-term surveillance is required.
Authors: Bertrand Tombal; Filip Ameye; Alexandre de la Taille; Theo de Reijke; Paolo Gontero; Alexander Haese; Paul Kil; Paul Perrin; Mesut Remzi; Jörg Schröder; Mark Speakman; Alessandro Volpe; Bianca Meesen; Herman Stoevelaar Journal: World J Urol Date: 2011-07-01 Impact factor: 4.226
Authors: Christopher J Kane; Ronald Im; Christopher L Amling; Joseph C Presti; William J Aronson; Martha K Terris; Stephen J Freedland Journal: Urology Date: 2010-04-15 Impact factor: 2.649
Authors: Hiten D Patel; Zhaoyong Feng; Patricia Landis; Bruce J Trock; Jonathan I Epstein; H Ballentine Carter Journal: J Urol Date: 2013-09-20 Impact factor: 7.450