PURPOSE: We assessed oncologic outcomes at surgery in men with low risk and very low risk prostate cancer who were candidates for active surveillance. MATERIALS AND METHODS: In a prospectively collected institutional database, we identified 7,486 subjects eligible for active surveillance who underwent radical retropubic prostatectomy. Candidates were designated as being at low risk (stage T1c/T2a, prostate specific antigen 10 ng/ml or less, and Gleason score 6 or less) or very low risk (stage T1c, prostate specific antigen density 0.15 or less, Gleason score 6 or less, 2 or fewer positive biopsy cores, 50% or less cancer involvement per core) based on preoperative data. Adverse findings were Gleason score upgrade (score 7 or greater) and nonorgan confined cancer on surgical pathology. The relative risk of adverse findings in men at low risk with very low risk disease was evaluated in a multivariate model using Poisson regression. RESULTS: A total of 7,333 subjects met the criteria for low risk disease and 153 had very low risk disease. The proportion of subjects at low risk found to have Gleason score upgrade or nonorgan confined cancer on final pathology was 21.8% and 23.1%, respectively. Corresponding values in those at very low risk were 13.1% and 8.5%, respectively. After adjusting for age, race, year of surgery, body mass index, and prostate specific antigen at diagnosis, the relative risk of Gleason score upgrade in men with low risk vs very low risk disease was 1.89 (95% CI 1.21-2.95). The relative risk of nonorgan confined cancer was 2.06 (95% CI 1.19-3.57). CONCLUSIONS: Men with very low risk prostate cancer were at significantly lower risk for adverse findings at surgery compared to those with low risk disease. These data support the stratification of low risk cancer when selecting and counseling men who may be appropriate for active surveillance.
PURPOSE: We assessed oncologic outcomes at surgery in men with low risk and very low risk prostate cancer who were candidates for active surveillance. MATERIALS AND METHODS: In a prospectively collected institutional database, we identified 7,486 subjects eligible for active surveillance who underwent radical retropubic prostatectomy. Candidates were designated as being at low risk (stage T1c/T2a, prostate specific antigen 10 ng/ml or less, and Gleason score 6 or less) or very low risk (stage T1c, prostate specific antigen density 0.15 or less, Gleason score 6 or less, 2 or fewer positive biopsy cores, 50% or less cancer involvement per core) based on preoperative data. Adverse findings were Gleason score upgrade (score 7 or greater) and nonorgan confined cancer on surgical pathology. The relative risk of adverse findings in men at low risk with very low risk disease was evaluated in a multivariate model using Poisson regression. RESULTS: A total of 7,333 subjects met the criteria for low risk disease and 153 had very low risk disease. The proportion of subjects at low risk found to have Gleason score upgrade or nonorgan confined cancer on final pathology was 21.8% and 23.1%, respectively. Corresponding values in those at very low risk were 13.1% and 8.5%, respectively. After adjusting for age, race, year of surgery, body mass index, and prostate specific antigen at diagnosis, the relative risk of Gleason score upgrade in men with low risk vs very low risk disease was 1.89 (95% CI 1.21-2.95). The relative risk of nonorgan confined cancer was 2.06 (95% CI 1.19-3.57). CONCLUSIONS:Men with very low risk prostate cancer were at significantly lower risk for adverse findings at surgery compared to those with low risk disease. These data support the stratification of low risk cancer when selecting and counseling men who may be appropriate for active surveillance.
Authors: James Mohler; Robert R Bahnson; Barry Boston; J Erik Busby; Anthony D'Amico; James A Eastham; Charles A Enke; Daniel George; Eric Mark Horwitz; Robert P Huben; Philip Kantoff; Mark Kawachi; Michael Kuettel; Paul H Lange; Gary Macvicar; Elizabeth R Plimack; Julio M Pow-Sang; Mack Roach; Eric Rohren; Bruce J Roth; Dennis C Shrieve; Matthew R Smith; Sandy Srinivas; Przemyslaw Twardowski; Patrick C Walsh Journal: J Natl Compr Canc Netw Date: 2010-02 Impact factor: 11.908
Authors: Jonas Hugosson; Sigrid Carlsson; Gunnar Aus; Svante Bergdahl; Ali Khatami; Pär Lodding; Carl-Gustaf Pihl; Johan Stranne; Erik Holmberg; Hans Lilja Journal: Lancet Oncol Date: 2010-07-02 Impact factor: 41.316
Authors: Matthew R Cooperberg; Janet E Cowan; Joan F Hilton; Adam C Reese; Harras B Zaid; Sima P Porten; Katsuto Shinohara; Maxwell V Meng; Kirsten L Greene; Peter R Carroll Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2010-11-29 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: Marc A Dall'Era; Peter C Albertsen; Christopher Bangma; Peter R Carroll; H Ballentine Carter; Matthew R Cooperberg; Stephen J Freedland; Laurence H Klotz; Christopher Parker; Mark S Soloway Journal: Eur Urol Date: 2012-06-07 Impact factor: 20.096
Authors: Roderick C N van den Bergh; Hanna Vasarainen; Henk G van der Poel; Jenneke J Vis-Maters; John B Rietbergen; Tom Pickles; Erik B Cornel; Riccardo Valdagni; Joris J Jaspars; John van der Hoeven; Frederic Staerman; Eric H G M Oomens; Antti Rannikko; Stijn Roemeling; Ewout W Steyerberg; Monique J Roobol; Fritz H Schröder; Chris H Bangma Journal: BJU Int Date: 2009-10-08 Impact factor: 5.588
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: Mrishta Brizmohun Appayya; Harbir S Sidhu; Nikolaos Dikaios; Edward W Johnston; Lucy Am Simmons; Alex Freeman; Alexander Ps Kirkham; Hashim U Ahmed; Shonit Punwani Journal: Br J Radiol Date: 2017-12-15 Impact factor: 3.039
Authors: Yaw A Nyame; Adam B Murphy; Diana K Bowen; Gregory Jordan; Ken Batai; Michael Dixon; Courtney M P Hollowell; Stephanie Kielb; Joshua J Meeks; Peter H Gann; Virgilia Macias; Andre Kajdacsy-Balla; William J Catalona; Rick Kittles Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2016-02-22 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: Jeffrey J Tosoian; Stacy Loeb; Jonathan I Epstein; Baris Turkbey; Peter L Choyke; Edward M Schaeffer Journal: Am Soc Clin Oncol Educ Book Date: 2016
Authors: Nabeel A Shakir; Arvin K George; M Minhaj Siddiqui; Jason T Rothwax; Soroush Rais-Bahrami; Lambros Stamatakis; Daniel Su; Chinonyerem Okoro; Dima Raskolnikov; Annerleim Walton-Diaz; Richard Simon; Baris Turkbey; Peter L Choyke; Maria J Merino; Bradford J Wood; Peter A Pinto Journal: J Urol Date: 2014-08-09 Impact factor: 7.450
Authors: Javier Romero-Otero; Borja García-Gómez; José M Duarte-Ojeda; Alfredo Rodríguez-Antolín; Antoni Vilaseca; Sigrid V Carlsson; Karim A Touijer Journal: Int J Urol Date: 2015-11-30 Impact factor: 3.369
Authors: Thomas P Frye; Arvin K George; Amichai Kilchevsky; Mahir Maruf; M Minhaj Siddiqui; Michael Kongnyuy; Akhil Muthigi; Hui Han; Howard L Parnes; Maria Merino; Peter L Choyke; Baris Turkbey; Brad Wood; Peter A Pinto Journal: J Urol Date: 2016-09-06 Impact factor: 7.450
Authors: Tatsuo Gondo; Bing Ying Poon; Kazuhiro Matsumoto; Melanie Bernstein; Daniel D Sjoberg; James A Eastham Journal: BJU Int Date: 2014-08-13 Impact factor: 5.588