Literature DB >> 20800964

Careful selection and close monitoring of low-risk prostate cancer patients on active surveillance minimizes the need for treatment.

Mark S Soloway1, Cynthia T Soloway, Ahmed Eldefrawy, Kristell Acosta, Bruce Kava, Murugesan Manoharan.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: With the advent of prostate-specific antigen (PSA) screening and the increase in the number of transrectal ultrasound-guided biopsy cores, there has been a dramatic rise in the incidence of low-risk prostate cancer (LRPC). Because > 97% of men with LRPC are likely to die of something other than prostate cancer, it is critical that patients give thought to whether early curative treatment is the only option at diagnosis.
OBJECTIVE: To identify a group of men with LRPC who may not require initial treatment and monitor them on our active surveillance (AS) protocol, to determine the percentage treated and the outcome and to analyze the quality-of-life data. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: We defined patients eligible for AS as Gleason ≤ 6, PSA ≤ 10, and two or fewer biopsy cores with ≤ 20% tumor in each core. MEASUREMENTS: Kaplan Meier analysis was used to predict the 5-year treatment free survival. Logistic regression determined the predictors of treatment. Data on sexual function, continence, and outcome were obtained and analyzed. RESULTS AND LIMITATIONS: The AS cohort consisted of 230 patients with a mean age of 63.4 yr; 86% remained on AS for a mean follow-up of 44 mo. Thirty-two of the 230 patients (14%) were treated for a mean follow-up of 33 mo. Twelve had a total prostatectomy (TP). The pathologic stage of these patients was similar to initially treated TP patients with LRPC. Fourteen underwent radiation therapy, and six underwent androgen-deprivation therapy. Fifty percent of patients had no tumor on the first rebiopsy, and only 5% of these patients were subsequently treated. PSA doubling time and clinical stage were not predictors of treatment. No patient progressed after treatment. Among the AS patients, 30% had incontinence, yet < 15% were bothered by it. As measured by the Sexual Health Inventory for Men, 49% of patients had, at a minimum, moderate (≤ 16) erectile dysfunction.
CONCLUSIONS: If guidelines for AS are narrowly defined to include only patients with Gleason 6, tumor volume ≤ 20% in one or two biopsy cores, and PSA levels ≤ 10, few patients are likely to require treatment. Progression-free survival of those treated is likely to be equivalent to patients with similar clinical findings treated at diagnosis.
Copyright © 2010 European Association of Urology. Published by Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2010        PMID: 20800964     DOI: 10.1016/j.eururo.2010.08.027

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Eur Urol        ISSN: 0302-2838            Impact factor:   20.096


  83 in total

1.  Association of prostate cancer risk alleles with unfavourable pathological characteristics in potential candidates for active surveillance.

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

Review 2.  Active surveillance for low-risk prostate cancer: an update.

Authors:  Nathan Lawrentschuk; Laurence Klotz
Journal:  Nat Rev Urol       Date:  2011-04-26       Impact factor: 14.432

3.  Prospective blinded comparison of real-time sonoelastography targeted versus randomised biopsy of the prostate in the primary and re-biopsy setting.

Authors:  Roman Ganzer; Andreas Brandtner; Wolf F Wieland; Hans-Martin Fritsche
Journal:  World J Urol       Date:  2011-04-26       Impact factor: 4.226

Review 4.  [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

5.  [Active surveillance of low risk prostate cancer].

Authors:  K Lellig; B Beyer; M Graefen; D Zaak; C Stief
Journal:  Urologe A       Date:  2014-07       Impact factor: 0.639

Review 6.  Robotic high-intensity focused ultrasound for prostate cancer: what have we learned in 15 years of clinical use?

Authors:  Christian G Chaussy; Stefan F Thüroff
Journal:  Curr Urol Rep       Date:  2011-06       Impact factor: 3.092

Review 7.  Active surveillance for low-risk prostate cancer.

Authors:  Laurence Klotz
Journal:  Curr Urol Rep       Date:  2015-04       Impact factor: 3.092

8.  Diagnostic prostate biopsy performed in a non-academic center increases the risk of re-classification at confirmatory biopsy for men considering active surveillance for prostate cancer.

Authors:  L M Wong; S Ferrara; S M H Alibhai; A Evans; T Van der Kwast; G Trottier; N Timilshina; A Toi; G Kulkarni; R Hamilton; A Zlotta; N Fleshner; A Finelli
Journal:  Prostate Cancer Prostatic Dis       Date:  2014-12-09       Impact factor: 5.554

Review 9.  Active surveillance for prostate cancer: current evidence and contemporary state of practice.

Authors:  Jeffrey J Tosoian; H Ballentine Carter; Abbey Lepor; Stacy Loeb
Journal:  Nat Rev Urol       Date:  2016-03-08       Impact factor: 14.432

10.  Validation of Selection Criteria for Active Surveillance in Prostate Cancer.

Authors:  Saif Elamin; Nikita Rajiv Bhatt; Niall F Davis; Paul Sweeney
Journal:  J Clin Diagn Res       Date:  2016-04-01
View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.