PURPOSE: We sought to predict biopsy progression in men on prostate cancer surveillance. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A total of 376 men with a median age of 65.5 years (range 45.8 to 79.5) with low risk prostate cancer on surveillance underwent at least 1 followup biopsy after diagnosis. Progression was defined at surveillance biopsy as Gleason pattern 4 or 5, greater than 2 biopsy cores with cancer or greater than 50% involvement of any core with cancer. Proportional hazards analysis was used to evaluate the association between covariates and progression at surveillance biopsy. The Kaplan-Meier method was used to estimate the probability of disease progression. RESULTS: Of the 376 men 123 (32.7%) had progression a median of 5.6 years (range 0.3 to 8.5) after diagnosis. Percent free PSA and maximum percent core involvement at diagnosis were associated with progression, allowing stratification of the progression risk at initial surveillance biopsy. Cancer presence and PSA density at initial surveillance biopsy were associated with subsequent progression, allowing stratification of the cumulative incidence of progression 3 years after initial surveillance biopsy (cumulative incidence 11.1%, 95% CI 4.7 to 25.2 for negative biopsy and PSAD less than 0.08 ng/ml/cm(3) vs 53.6%, 95% CI 38.6 to 70.0 for positive biopsy and PSAD 0.08 ng/ml/cm(3) or greater, log rank test p <0.0001). CONCLUSIONS: Clinical variables at diagnosis and at first surveillance biopsy during followup in an active surveillance program can be used to inform men about the likelihood of an unfavorable prostate biopsy. This information could improve patient and physician acceptance of active surveillance in carefully selected men. 2010 American Urological Association Education and Research, Inc. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.
PURPOSE: We sought to predict biopsy progression in men on prostate cancer surveillance. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A total of 376 men with a median age of 65.5 years (range 45.8 to 79.5) with low risk prostate cancer on surveillance underwent at least 1 followup biopsy after diagnosis. Progression was defined at surveillance biopsy as Gleason pattern 4 or 5, greater than 2 biopsy cores with cancer or greater than 50% involvement of any core with cancer. Proportional hazards analysis was used to evaluate the association between covariates and progression at surveillance biopsy. The Kaplan-Meier method was used to estimate the probability of disease progression. RESULTS: Of the 376 men 123 (32.7%) had progression a median of 5.6 years (range 0.3 to 8.5) after diagnosis. Percent free PSA and maximum percent core involvement at diagnosis were associated with progression, allowing stratification of the progression risk at initial surveillance biopsy. Cancer presence and PSA density at initial surveillance biopsy were associated with subsequent progression, allowing stratification of the cumulative incidence of progression 3 years after initial surveillance biopsy (cumulative incidence 11.1%, 95% CI 4.7 to 25.2 for negative biopsy and PSAD less than 0.08 ng/ml/cm(3) vs 53.6%, 95% CI 38.6 to 70.0 for positive biopsy and PSAD 0.08 ng/ml/cm(3) or greater, log rank test p <0.0001). CONCLUSIONS: Clinical variables at diagnosis and at first surveillance biopsy during followup in an active surveillance program can be used to inform men about the likelihood of an unfavorable prostate biopsy. This information could improve patient and physician acceptance of active surveillance in carefully selected men. 2010 American Urological Association Education and Research, Inc. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.
Authors: A V D'Amico; R Whittington; S B Malkowicz; M Weinstein; J E Tomaszewski; D Schultz; M Rhude; S Rocha; A Wein; J P Richie Journal: J Urol Date: 2001-12 Impact factor: 7.450
Authors: Fritz H Schröder; Jonas Hugosson; Monique J Roobol; Teuvo L J Tammela; Stefano Ciatto; Vera Nelen; Maciej Kwiatkowski; Marcos Lujan; Hans Lilja; Marco Zappa; Louis J Denis; Franz Recker; Antonio Berenguer; Liisa Määttänen; Chris H Bangma; Gunnar Aus; Arnauld Villers; Xavier Rebillard; Theodorus van der Kwast; Bert G Blijenberg; Sue M Moss; Harry J de Koning; Anssi Auvinen Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 2009-03-18 Impact factor: 91.245
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: Gerrit Draisma; Rob Boer; Suzie J Otto; Ingrid W van der Cruijsen; Ronald A M Damhuis; Fritz H Schröder; Harry J de Koning Journal: J Natl Cancer Inst Date: 2003-06-18 Impact factor: 13.506
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: Stacy Loeb; Sophie M Bruinsma; Joseph Nicholson; Alberto Briganti; Tom Pickles; Yoshiyuki Kakehi; Sigrid V Carlsson; Monique J Roobol Journal: Eur Urol Date: 2014-10-31 Impact factor: 20.096
Authors: G I Russo; T Castelli; V Favilla; G Reale; D Urzì; S Privitera; E Fragalà; S Cimino; G Morgia Journal: Prostate Cancer Prostatic Dis Date: 2015-06-02 Impact factor: 5.554
Authors: Jeffrey J Tosoian; Stacy Loeb; Zhaoyong Feng; Sumit Isharwal; Patricia Landis; Debra J Elliot; Robert Veltri; Jonathan I Epstein; Alan W Partin; H Ballentine Carter; Bruce Trock; Lori J Sokoll Journal: J Urol Date: 2012-08-15 Impact factor: 7.450