Literature DB >> 23712205

Defining the threshold for significant versus insignificant prostate cancer.

Theo H Van der Kwast1, Monique J Roobol.   

Abstract

Autopsy studies have shown the presence of a large reservoir of latent prostate cancers in adult men. Serum PSA testing of asymptomatic men leads to the detection of a proportion of these latent prostate cancers. The unequivocal demonstration of a substantial (30-50%) risk of overdiagnosis by the two largest randomized population-based screening trials has led to a growing awareness of this unwanted effect. Unsurprisingly, active surveillance is now becoming the favoured strategy for deferring active treatment in men diagnosed with low-risk prostate cancer and reducing their risk of overtreatment. Almost all eligibility criteria for active surveillance refer to a strict pathological definition of insignificant prostate cancer, based on two landmark studies published about 20 years ago. However, current epidemiological data suggest that this original pathological definition of insignificant prostate cancer is too restrictive. In addition, the International Society of Urological Pathology (ISUP) 2005 modification to the Gleason grading system might have resulted in a marked upgrading of biopsy-diagnosed prostate cancers, reducing the number of men eligible for active surveillance. An updated definition of insignificant prostate cancer should reflect the optimal trade-off between reducing the risk of underestimating a significant prostate cancer and including as many men as possible in active surveillance programmes.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2013        PMID: 23712205     DOI: 10.1038/nrurol.2013.112

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Nat Rev Urol        ISSN: 1759-4812            Impact factor:   14.432


  85 in total

1.  Pathologic findings in radical prostatectomy specimens from patients eligible for active surveillance with highly selective criteria: a multicenter study.

Authors:  Jean-Baptiste Beauval; Guillaume Ploussard; Michel Soulié; Christian Pfister; Simon Van Agt; Sébastien Vincendeau; Sébastien Larue; Jérome Rigaud; Nicolas Gaschignard; Morgan Rouprêt; Sarah Drouin; Mickael Peyromaure; Jean Alexandre Long; Francois Iborra; Guy Vallancien; Francois Rozet; Laurent Salomon
Journal:  Urology       Date:  2012-07-07       Impact factor: 2.649

2.  The significance of modified Gleason grading of prostatic carcinoma in biopsy and radical prostatectomy specimens.

Authors:  Burkhard Helpap; Lars Egevad
Journal:  Virchows Arch       Date:  2006-11-08       Impact factor: 4.064

3.  Cancer detection and cancer characteristics in the European Randomized Study of Screening for Prostate Cancer (ERSPC)--Section Rotterdam. A comparison of two rounds of screening.

Authors:  Renske Postma; Fritz H Schröder; Geert J L H van Leenders; Robert F Hoedemaeker; Andre N Vis; Monique J Roobol; Theodorus H van der Kwast
Journal:  Eur Urol       Date:  2007-01-16       Impact factor: 20.096

4.  Tumour features in the control and screening arm of a randomized trial of prostate cancer.

Authors:  Renske Postma; Arno G J L H van Leenders; Monique J Roobol; Fritz H Schröder; Theodorus H van der Kwast
Journal:  Eur Urol       Date:  2005-12-19       Impact factor: 20.096

5.  The combined percentage of Gleason patterns 4 and 5 is the best predictor of cancer progression after radical prostatectomy.

Authors:  Liang Cheng; Michael O Koch; Beth E Juliar; Joanne K Daggy; Richard S Foster; Richard Bihrle; Thomas A Gardner
Journal:  J Clin Oncol       Date:  2005-05-01       Impact factor: 44.544

6.  Clonal progression of prostate cancers from Gleason grade 3 to grade 4.

Authors:  Adam G Sowalsky; Huihui Ye; Glenn J Bubley; Steven P Balk
Journal:  Cancer Res       Date:  2012-11-30       Impact factor: 12.701

7.  Quantifying the role of PSA screening in the US prostate cancer mortality decline.

Authors:  Ruth Etzioni; Alex Tsodikov; Angela Mariotto; Aniko Szabo; Seth Falcon; Jake Wegelin; Dante DiTommaso; Kent Karnofski; Roman Gulati; David F Penson; Eric Feuer
Journal:  Cancer Causes Control       Date:  2007-11-20       Impact factor: 2.506

8.  Natural history of early, localized prostate cancer.

Authors:  Jan-Erik Johansson; Ove Andrén; Swen-Olof Andersson; Paul W Dickman; Lars Holmberg; Anders Magnuson; Hans-Olov Adami
Journal:  JAMA       Date:  2004-06-09       Impact factor: 56.272

9.  Intermixed normal tissue within prostate cancer: effect on MR imaging measurements of apparent diffusion coefficient and T2--sparse versus dense cancers.

Authors:  Deanna L Langer; Theodorus H van der Kwast; Andrew J Evans; Laibao Sun; Martin J Yaffe; John Trachtenberg; Masoom A Haider
Journal:  Radiology       Date:  2008-12       Impact factor: 11.105

10.  Risk assessment of prostatic pathology in patients undergoing radical cystoprostatectomy.

Authors:  Joseph A Pettus; Hikmat Al-Ahmadie; Daniel A Barocas; Theresa M Koppie; Harry Herr; S Machele Donat; Guido Dalbagni; Victor E Reuter; Semra Olgac; Bernard H Bochner
Journal:  Eur Urol       Date:  2007-07-26       Impact factor: 20.096

View more
  35 in total

Review 1.  Serum markers in prostate cancer detection.

Authors:  Ola Bratt; Hans Lilja
Journal:  Curr Opin Urol       Date:  2015-01       Impact factor: 2.309

Review 2.  Current trends and new frontiers in focal therapy for localized prostate cancer.

Authors:  Melissa H Mendez; Daniel Y Joh; Rajan Gupta; Thomas J Polascik
Journal:  Curr Urol Rep       Date:  2015-06       Impact factor: 3.092

3.  Prostate cancer: Is prostatectomy for Gleason score 6 a treatment failure?

Authors:  Theodorus H van der Kwast; Monique J Roobol
Journal:  Nat Rev Urol       Date:  2014-12-09       Impact factor: 14.432

4.  Multiparametric 3T MRI for the prediction of pathological downgrading after radical prostatectomy in patients with biopsy-proven Gleason score 3 + 4 prostate cancer.

Authors:  Tatsuo Gondo; Hedvig Hricak; Evis Sala; Junting Zheng; Chaya S Moskowitz; Melanie Bernstein; James A Eastham; Hebert Alberto Vargas
Journal:  Eur Radiol       Date:  2014-08-07       Impact factor: 5.315

Review 5.  Prognostic prostate tissue biomarkers of potential clinical use.

Authors:  Theodorus H Van der Kwast
Journal:  Virchows Arch       Date:  2014-02-01       Impact factor: 4.064

Review 6.  Temporal trends and racial disparities in global prostate cancer prevalence.

Authors:  Timothy R Rebbeck; Gabriel P Haas
Journal:  Can J Urol       Date:  2014-10       Impact factor: 1.344

7.  [Importance of magnetic resonance imaging/ultrasound-guided fusion biopsy for the detection and monitoring of prostate cancer].

Authors:  R Ganzer; W Brummeisl; F S Siokou; R Scheck; T Franz; P Ho-Thi; A Mangold
Journal:  Urologe A       Date:  2019-12       Impact factor: 0.639

8.  18F-Choline PET/MRI: The Additional Value of PET for MRI-Guided Transrectal Prostate Biopsies.

Authors:  Morand Piert; Jeffrey Montgomery; Lakshmi Priya Kunju; Javed Siddiqui; Virginia Rogers; Thekkelnaycke Rajendiran; Timothy D Johnson; Xia Shao; Matthew S Davenport
Journal:  J Nucl Med       Date:  2016-03-16       Impact factor: 10.057

Review 9.  An arranged marriage for precision medicine: hypoxia and genomic assays in localized prostate cancer radiotherapy.

Authors:  R G Bristow; A Berlin; A Dal Pra
Journal:  Br J Radiol       Date:  2014-02-03       Impact factor: 3.039

10.  Is There a Future for Chemoprevention of Prostate Cancer?

Authors:  Maarten C Bosland
Journal:  Cancer Prev Res (Phila)       Date:  2016-04-20
View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.