Literature DB >> 19295434

Outcomes and follow-up strategies for patients on active surveillance.

Marc A Dall'Era1, Peter R Carroll.   

Abstract

PURPOSE OF REVIEW: Prostate cancer is now the most commonly diagnosed solid tumor in American men. Autopsy studies show the uniquely high prevalence rates of small, indolent tumors in men dying of other causes. These findings have led to an increased interest in managing men with prostate cancer and low risk features expectantly, with close observation for early signs of progression. This approach allows one to limit prostate cancer treatment and any risk of related morbidity to the men who will benefit the most from active intervention. RECENT
FINDINGS: Several centers have published their results with active surveillance and delayed selective therapy for men with low grade, early prostate cancer. Although median follow up from these studies is relatively short, the outcomes appear favorable. About one third of men will receive treatment after 3-5 years of surveillance and quality of life remains high.
SUMMARY: Data from these reports provide patients and clinicians with the early experiences and expectations with active surveillance for prostate cancer. They also provide a framework for selecting men for this approach and for following them over time. Prospective, randomized trials comparing active surveillance with standard interventions are underway.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2009        PMID: 19295434     DOI: 10.1097/MOU.0b013e328329eba3

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Curr Opin Urol        ISSN: 0963-0643            Impact factor:   2.309


  4 in total

Review 1.  Management of low (favourable)-risk prostate cancer.

Authors:  H Ballentine Carter
Journal:  BJU Int       Date:  2011-12       Impact factor: 5.588

2.  Transatlantic Consensus Group on active surveillance and focal therapy for prostate cancer.

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

Review 3.  [Cancer screening: curative or harmful? An ethical dilemma facing the physician].

Authors:  C Schaefer; L Weissbach
Journal:  Urologe A       Date:  2011-12       Impact factor: 0.639

4.  What we have learned from randomized trials of prostate cancer screening.

Authors:  Richard M Hoffman; Anthony Y Smith
Journal:  Asian J Androl       Date:  2011-04-11       Impact factor: 3.285

  4 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.