Literature DB >> 21601982

The contemporary concept of significant versus insignificant prostate cancer.

Guillaume Ploussard1, Jonathan I Epstein, Rodolfo Montironi, Peter R Carroll, Manfred Wirth, Marc-Oliver Grimm, Anders S Bjartell, Francesco Montorsi, Stephen J Freedland, Andreas Erbersdobler, Theodorus H van der Kwast.   

Abstract

CONTEXT: The notion of insignificant prostate cancer (Ins-PCa) has progressively emerged in the past two decades. The clinical relevance of such a definition was based on the fact that low-grade, small-volume, and organ-confined prostate cancer (PCa) may be indolent and unlikely to progress to biologic significance in the absence of treatment.
OBJECTIVE: To review the definition of Ins-PCa, its incidence, and the clinical impact of Ins-PCa on the contemporary management of PCa. EVIDENCE ACQUISITION: A review of the literature was performed using the Medline, Scopus, and Web of Science databases with no restriction on language up to September 2010. The literature search used the following terms: insignificant, indolent, minute, microfocal, minimal, low volume, low risk, and prostate cancer. EVIDENCE SYNTHESIS: The most commonly used criteria to define Ins-PCa are based on the pathologic assessment of the radical prostatectomy specimen: (1) Gleason score ≤ 6 without Gleason pattern 4 or 5, (2) organ-confined disease, and (3) tumour volume<0.5 cm(3). Several preoperative criteria and prognostication tools for predicting Ins-PCa have been suggested. Nomograms are best placed to estimate the risk of progression on an individualised basis, but a substantial proportion of men with a high probability of harbouring Ins-PCa are at risk for pathologic understaging and/or undergrading. Thus, there is an ongoing need for identifying novel and more accurate predictors of Ins-PCa to improve the distinction between insignificant versus significant disease and thus to promote the adequate management of PCa patients at low risk for progression.
CONCLUSIONS: The exciting challenge of obtaining the pretreatment diagnostic tools that can really distinguish insignificant from significant PCa should be one of the main objectives of urologists in the following years to decrease the risk of overtreatment of Ins-PCa.
Copyright © 2011 European Association of Urology. Published by Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2011        PMID: 21601982     DOI: 10.1016/j.eururo.2011.05.006

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


  102 in total

1.  Do tumor volume, percent tumor volume predict biochemical recurrence after radical prostatectomy? A meta-analysis.

Authors:  Yang Meng; He Li; Peng Xu; Jia Wang
Journal:  Int J Clin Exp Med       Date:  2015-12-15

2.  Utility of Gleason pattern 4 morphologies detected on transrectal ultrasound (TRUS)-guided biopsies for prediction of upgrading or upstaging in Gleason score 3 + 4 = 7 prostate cancer.

Authors:  Trevor A Flood; Nicola Schieda; Daniel T Keefe; Rodney H Breau; Chris Morash; Kevin Hogan; Eric C Belanger; Kien T Mai; Susan J Robertson
Journal:  Virchows Arch       Date:  2016-07-10       Impact factor: 4.064

3.  Insignificant disease among men with intermediate-risk prostate cancer.

Authors:  Sung Kyu Hong; Emily Vertosick; Daniel D Sjoberg; Peter T Scardino; James A Eastham
Journal:  World J Urol       Date:  2014-09-27       Impact factor: 4.226

4.  Incidental prostate cancer prevalence at radical cystoprostatectomy--importance of the histopathological work-up.

Authors:  C Wetterauer; M Weibel; J R Gsponer; T Vlajnic; T Zellweger; S Bütikofer; G Müller; H Püschel; A Bachmann; T C Gasser; L Bubendorf; C A Rentsch
Journal:  Virchows Arch       Date:  2014-10-01       Impact factor: 4.064

5.  Utility of quantitative apparent diffusion coefficient measurements and normalized apparent diffusion coefficient ratios in the diagnosis of clinically significant peripheral zone prostate cancer.

Authors:  Tan B Nguyen; Alexander Ushinsky; Albert Yang; Michael Nguyentat; Sara Fardin; Edward Uchio; Chandana Lall; Thomas Lee; Roozbeh Houshyar
Journal:  Br J Radiol       Date:  2018-06-21       Impact factor: 3.039

6.  [High intensity focused ultrasound for hemiablation of localized prostate cancer].

Authors:  Jost von Hardenberg
Journal:  Urologe A       Date:  2018-10       Impact factor: 0.639

7.  Cost-effectiveness of MR Imaging-guided Strategies for Detection of Prostate Cancer in Biopsy-Naive Men.

Authors:  Shivani Pahwa; Nicholas K Schiltz; Lee E Ponsky; Ziang Lu; Mark A Griswold; Vikas Gulani
Journal:  Radiology       Date:  2017-05-17       Impact factor: 11.105

8.  Methylation of PITX2, HOXD3, RASSF1 and TDRD1 predicts biochemical recurrence in high-risk prostate cancer.

Authors:  Kirill Litovkin; Steven Joniau; Evelyne Lerut; Annouschka Laenen; Olivier Gevaert; Martin Spahn; Burkhard Kneitz; Sofie Isebaert; Karin Haustermans; Monique Beullens; Aleyde Van Eynde; Mathieu Bollen
Journal:  J Cancer Res Clin Oncol       Date:  2014-06-18       Impact factor: 4.553

9.  Accuracy analysis in MRI-guided robotic prostate biopsy.

Authors:  Helen Xu; Andras Lasso; Peter Guion; Axel Krieger; Aradhana Kaushal; Anurag K Singh; Peter A Pinto; Jonathan Coleman; Robert L Grubb; Jean-Baptiste Lattouf; Cynthia Menard; Louis L Whitcomb; Gabor Fichtinger
Journal:  Int J Comput Assist Radiol Surg       Date:  2013-03-27       Impact factor: 2.924

Review 10.  Defining the threshold for significant versus insignificant prostate cancer.

Authors:  Theo H Van der Kwast; Monique J Roobol
Journal:  Nat Rev Urol       Date:  2013-05-28       Impact factor: 14.432

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.