Literature DB >> 20304433

Risk stratification of men choosing surveillance for low risk prostate cancer.

Kenneth S Tseng1, Patricia Landis, Jonathan I Epstein, Bruce J Trock, H Ballentine Carter.   

Abstract

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.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2010        PMID: 20304433      PMCID: PMC3474981          DOI: 10.1016/j.juro.2010.01.001

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Urol        ISSN: 0022-5347            Impact factor:   7.450


  20 in total

Review 1.  The changing face of prostate cancer.

Authors:  Matthew R Cooperberg; Judd W Moul; Peter R Carroll
Journal:  J Clin Oncol       Date:  2005-11-10       Impact factor: 44.544

Review 2.  Active surveillance for prostate cancer: for whom?

Authors:  Laurence Klotz
Journal:  J Clin Oncol       Date:  2005-11-10       Impact factor: 44.544

3.  Simulation study of confounder-selection strategies.

Authors:  G Maldonado; S Greenland
Journal:  Am J Epidemiol       Date:  1993-12-01       Impact factor: 4.897

4.  Predicting prostate specific antigen outcome preoperatively in the prostate specific antigen era.

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

5.  Screening and prostate-cancer mortality in a randomized European study.

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

6.  Delayed therapy with curative intent in a contemporary prostate cancer watchful-waiting cohort.

Authors:  M el-Geneidy; M Garzotto; I Panagiotou; Y C Hsieh; M Mori; L Peters; T Klein; T M Beer
Journal:  BJU Int       Date:  2004-03       Impact factor: 5.588

7.  Pathologic and clinical findings to predict tumor extent of nonpalpable (stage T1c) prostate cancer.

Authors:  J I Epstein; P C Walsh; M Carmichael; C B Brendler
Journal:  JAMA       Date:  1994-02-02       Impact factor: 56.272

8.  An analysis of men with clinically localized prostate cancer who deferred definitive therapy.

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

9.  Lead times and overdetection due to prostate-specific antigen screening: estimates from the European Randomized Study of Screening for Prostate Cancer.

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

10.  Temporarily deferred therapy (watchful waiting) for men younger than 70 years and with low-risk localized prostate cancer in the prostate-specific antigen era.

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

View more
  25 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.  PSA density: The comeback kid?

Authors:  Chris Morash
Journal:  Can Urol Assoc J       Date:  2012-02       Impact factor: 1.862

3.  Modeling grade progression in an active surveillance study.

Authors:  Lurdes Y T Inoue; Bruce J Trock; Alan W Partin; Herbert B Carter; Ruth Etzioni
Journal:  Stat Med       Date:  2013-10-09       Impact factor: 2.373

Review 4.  Active surveillance for prostate cancer: a systematic review of clinicopathologic variables and biomarkers for risk stratification.

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

Review 5.  Prostate Biopsy in Active Surveillance Protocols: Immediate Re-biopsy and Timing of Subsequent Biopsies.

Authors:  Jonathan H Wang; Tracy M Downs; E Jason Abel; Kyle A Richards; David F Jarrard
Journal:  Curr Urol Rep       Date:  2017-07       Impact factor: 3.092

6.  Performance of biopsy factors in predicting unfavorable disease in patients eligible for active surveillance according to the PRIAS criteria.

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

Review 7.  Standard and Targeted Biopsy During Follow-up for Active Surveillance.

Authors:  Brian Weiss; Stacy Loeb
Journal:  Rev Urol       Date:  2015

Review 8.  Differentiation of lethal and non lethal prostate cancer: PSA and PSA isoforms and kinetics.

Authors:  H Ballentine Carter
Journal:  Asian J Androl       Date:  2012-02-20       Impact factor: 3.285

9.  Active surveillance for prostate cancer: an underutilized opportunity for reducing harm.

Authors:  H Ballentine Carter
Journal:  J Natl Cancer Inst Monogr       Date:  2012-12

10.  Association of [-2]proPSA with biopsy reclassification during active surveillance for prostate cancer.

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

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.