OBJECTIVES: To examine the treatment outcomes of men who would have been eligible for active surveillance (AS) but underwent immediate radical retropubic prostatectomy (RRP). AS protocols are designed to spare the potential morbidity of treatment to patients with low-risk prostate cancer (PCa). METHODS: From a prospective RRP database, we evaluated the tumor features and treatment outcomes for men who would have met 1 of 3 published AS criteria: (1) clinically localized disease, Gleason < or = 7, and no significant comorbidities (Patel et al, J Urol. 2004;171:1520-1524) (2) T1b-T2b N0M0 disease, Gleason < or = 7, and prostate-specific antigen < or = 15 ng/mL (Choo R et al. J Urol. 2002;167:1664-1669), or (3) T1c PCa (Mohler JL et al. World J Urol. 1997;15:364-368.). RESULTS: 3959, 3536, and 2330 RRP patients, respectively, would have met these AS criteria. At surgery, 3%-4% had a Gleason score of 8-10, 16%-19% had positive surgical margins, 15%-18% had extracapsular tumor extension, 3%-5% had seminal vesicle invasion, and 0.4%-1% had lymph node metastasis. The 5-year progression-free survival rate ranged from 84%-89%. Metastasis occurred in 0.1%-1.2%, and 0.1%-0.9% died of PCa. On multivariate analysis, Gleason score > 6 was the strongest predictor of biochemical progression. CONCLUSIONS: A substantial proportion of men who might have been considered potential AS candidates had aggressive tumor features at RRP and/or progression. Biopsy Gleason score > 6 was the strongest predictor of adverse outcomes, highlighting the importance of limiting AS to patients with Gleason < or = 6. Overall, the accurate identification of patients with truly indolent PCa at the time of diagnosis remains challenging. 2010 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.
OBJECTIVES: To examine the treatment outcomes of men who would have been eligible for active surveillance (AS) but underwent immediate radical retropubic prostatectomy (RRP). AS protocols are designed to spare the potential morbidity of treatment to patients with low-risk prostate cancer (PCa). METHODS: From a prospective RRP database, we evaluated the tumor features and treatment outcomes for men who would have met 1 of 3 published AS criteria: (1) clinically localized disease, Gleason < or = 7, and no significant comorbidities (Patel et al, J Urol. 2004;171:1520-1524) (2) T1b-T2b N0M0 disease, Gleason < or = 7, and prostate-specific antigen < or = 15 ng/mL (Choo R et al. J Urol. 2002;167:1664-1669), or (3) T1c PCa (Mohler JL et al. World J Urol. 1997;15:364-368.). RESULTS: 3959, 3536, and 2330 RRPpatients, respectively, would have met these AS criteria. At surgery, 3%-4% had a Gleason score of 8-10, 16%-19% had positive surgical margins, 15%-18% had extracapsular tumor extension, 3%-5% had seminal vesicle invasion, and 0.4%-1% had lymph node metastasis. The 5-year progression-free survival rate ranged from 84%-89%. Metastasis occurred in 0.1%-1.2%, and 0.1%-0.9% died of PCa. On multivariate analysis, Gleason score > 6 was the strongest predictor of biochemical progression. CONCLUSIONS: A substantial proportion of men who might have been considered potential AS candidates had aggressive tumor features at RRP and/or progression. Biopsy Gleason score > 6 was the strongest predictor of adverse outcomes, highlighting the importance of limiting AS to patients with Gleason < or = 6. Overall, the accurate identification of patients with truly indolent PCa at the time of diagnosis remains challenging. 2010 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.
Authors: Simon L Conti; Marc Dall'era; Vincent Fradet; Janet E Cowan; Jeffery Simko; Peter R Carroll Journal: J Urol Date: 2009-02-23 Impact factor: 7.450
Authors: G W Chodak; R A Thisted; G S Gerber; J E Johansson; J Adolfsson; G W Jones; G D Chisholm; B Moskovitz; P M Livne; J Warner Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 1994-01-27 Impact factor: 91.245
Authors: Anna Bill-Axelson; Lars Holmberg; Frej Filén; Mirja Ruutu; Hans Garmo; Christer Busch; Stig Nordling; Michael Häggman; Swen-Olof Andersson; Stefan Bratell; Anders Spångberg; Juni Palmgren; Hans-Olov Adami; Jan-Erik Johansson Journal: J Natl Cancer Inst Date: 2008-08-11 Impact factor: 13.506
Authors: Nazareno Suardi; Umberto Capitanio; Felix K H Chun; Markus Graefen; Paul Perrotte; Thorsten Schlomm; Alexander Haese; Hartwig Huland; Andreas Erbersdobler; Francesco Montorsi; Pierre I Karakiewicz Journal: Cancer Date: 2008-10-15 Impact factor: 6.860
Authors: Manish I Patel; Dino T DeConcini; Ernesto Lopez-Corona; Makato Ohori; Thomas Wheeler; Peter T Scardino Journal: J Urol Date: 2004-04 Impact factor: 7.450
Authors: Jan-Erik Johansson; Ove Andrén; Swen-Olof Andersson; Paul W Dickman; Lars Holmberg; Anders Magnuson; Hans-Olov Adami Journal: JAMA Date: 2004-06-09 Impact factor: 56.272
Authors: Michael W Kattan; James A Eastham; Thomas M Wheeler; Norio Maru; Peter T Scardino; Andreas Erbersdobler; Markus Graefen; Hartwig Huland; Hideshige Koh; Shahrokh F Shariat; Kevin M Slawin; Makoto Ohori Journal: J Urol Date: 2003-11 Impact factor: 7.450
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: Dong Il Kang; Thomas L Jang; Jeongyun Jeong; Eun Young Choi; Kelly Johnson; Dong Hyeon Lee; Wun-Jae Kim; Isaac Yi Kim Journal: Asian J Androl Date: 2011-07-25 Impact factor: 3.285
Authors: R Schiavina; M Borghesi; E Brunocilla; D Romagnoli; D Diazzi; F Giunchi; V Vagnoni; C V Pultrone; H Dababneh; A Porreca; M Fiorentino; G Martorana Journal: Prostate Cancer Prostatic Dis Date: 2015-06-09 Impact factor: 5.554
Authors: Daniel Baumunk; Roman Reunkoff; Julien Kushner; Alexandra Baumunk; Carsten Kempkensteffen; Ursula Steiner; Steffen Weikert; Lutz Moser; Mark Schrader; Stefan Höcht; Thomas Wiegel; Kurt Miller; Martin Schostak Journal: BMC Med Inform Decis Mak Date: 2013-08-05 Impact factor: 2.796