OBJECTIVE: To test the ability of two of the most stringent criteria used to identify patients with low-risk prostate cancer suitable for active surveillance (AS) to correctly exclude patients with unfavourable prostate cancer characteristics. PATIENTS AND METHODS: The study included 874 consecutive patients treated with radical prostatectomy (RP). We selected patients who could have been selected for AS according to the van den Bergh et al. and the Carter et al. criteria. We analysed the rates of advanced disease in these patients, defined as presence of either extracapsular extension (ECE), seminal vesicle invasion (SVI), lymph node invasion (LNI) and Gleason sum of 8-10 or 7-10. RESULTS: Of 874 patients, 85 (9.7%) and 61 (6.9%) patients, respectively, qualified for AS according to the tested criteria. Within the van den Bergh et al. candidates, 5.9, 1.2, 1.2 and 1.2% of patients, respectively, showed ECE, SVI, LNI and high-grade Gleason sum 8-10 at pathology. Within the Carter et al. candidates, 3.3, 0, 3.3 and 0% of patients, respectively, showed ECE, SVI, LNI and high-grade Gleason sum 8-10. The cumulative rate of unfavourable characteristics was 7.1 and 3.3%. The rate increased to 28.2 and 27.9%, respectively, when Gleason sum 7 was considered as an unfavourable prostate cancer. CONCLUSIONS: The use of the strictest criteria for AS inclusion identified 7-10% of the men in our cohort of men undergoing RP, as men that would have been eligible for AS. Among this small proportion, between 3.3 and 7.1% of patients harboured unfavourable prostate cancer characteristics. The clinical implications of these misclassification rates remain to be determined.
OBJECTIVE: To test the ability of two of the most stringent criteria used to identify patients with low-risk prostate cancer suitable for active surveillance (AS) to correctly exclude patients with unfavourable prostate cancer characteristics. PATIENTS AND METHODS: The study included 874 consecutive patients treated with radical prostatectomy (RP). We selected patients who could have been selected for AS according to the van den Bergh et al. and the Carter et al. criteria. We analysed the rates of advanced disease in these patients, defined as presence of either extracapsular extension (ECE), seminal vesicle invasion (SVI), lymph node invasion (LNI) and Gleason sum of 8-10 or 7-10. RESULTS: Of 874 patients, 85 (9.7%) and 61 (6.9%) patients, respectively, qualified for AS according to the tested criteria. Within the van den Bergh et al. candidates, 5.9, 1.2, 1.2 and 1.2% of patients, respectively, showed ECE, SVI, LNI and high-grade Gleason sum 8-10 at pathology. Within the Carter et al. candidates, 3.3, 0, 3.3 and 0% of patients, respectively, showed ECE, SVI, LNI and high-grade Gleason sum 8-10. The cumulative rate of unfavourable characteristics was 7.1 and 3.3%. The rate increased to 28.2 and 27.9%, respectively, when Gleason sum 7 was considered as an unfavourable prostate cancer. CONCLUSIONS: The use of the strictest criteria for AS inclusion identified 7-10% of the men in our cohort of men undergoing RP, as men that would have been eligible for AS. Among this small proportion, between 3.3 and 7.1% of patients harboured unfavourable prostate cancer characteristics. The clinical implications of these misclassification rates remain to be determined.
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: Sabine Brookman-May; Matthias May; Wolf-Ferdinand Wieland; Steffen Lebentrau; Sven Gunia; Stefan Koch; Christian Gilfrich; Jan Roigas; Bernd Hoschke; Maximilian Burger Journal: World J Urol Date: 2010-12-30 Impact factor: 4.226
Authors: Guangjing Zhu; Zhi Liu; Jonathan I Epstein; Christine Davis; Christhunesa S Christudass; H Ballentine Carter; Patricia Landis; Hui Zhang; Joon-Yong Chung; Stephen M Hewitt; M Craig Miller; Robert W Veltri Journal: Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev Date: 2015-09-24 Impact factor: 4.254
Authors: Baris Turkbey; Haresh Mani; Omer Aras; Jennifer Ho; Anthony Hoang; Ardeshir R Rastinehad; Harsh Agarwal; Vijay Shah; Marcelino Bernardo; Yuxi Pang; Dagane Daar; Yolanda L McKinney; W Marston Linehan; Aradhana Kaushal; Maria J Merino; Bradford J Wood; Peter A Pinto; Peter L Choyke Journal: Radiology Date: 2013-03-06 Impact factor: 11.105
Authors: Marco Roscigno; Armando Stabile; Giovanni Lughezzani; Pietro Pepe; Lucio Dell'Atti; Angelo Naselli; Richard Naspro; Maria Nicolai; Giovanni La Croce; Aljoulani Muhannad; Giovanna Perugini; Giorgio Guazzoni; Francesco Montorsi; Luca Balzarini; Sandro Sironi; Luigi F Da Pozzo Journal: Prostate Int Date: 2020-05-28
Authors: L-M Wong; D E Neal; R B Johnston; N Shah; N Sharma; A Y Warren; C M Hovens; S Larry Goldenberg; M E Gleave; A J Costello; N M Corcoran Journal: Br J Cancer Date: 2012-10-04 Impact factor: 7.640