Literature DB >> 24904995

Indications for intervention during active surveillance of prostate cancer: a comparison of the Johns Hopkins and Prostate Cancer Research International Active Surveillance (PRIAS) protocols.

Max Kates1, Jeffrey J Tosoian, Bruce J Trock, Zhaoyong Feng, H Ballentine Carter, Alan W Partin.   

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: To analyse how patients enrolled in our biopsy based surveillance programme would fare under the Prostate Cancer Research International Active Surveillance (PRIAS) protocol, which uses PSA kinetics. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Since 1995, 1125 men with very-low-risk prostate cancer have enrolled in the AS programme at the Johns Hopkins Hospital (JHH), which is based on monitoring with annual biopsy. The PRIAS protocol uses a combination of periodic biopsies (in years 1, 4, and 7) and prostate-specific antigen doubling time (PSADT) to trigger intervention. Patients enrolled in the JHH AS programme were retrospectively reviewed to evaluate how the use of the PRIAS protocol would alter the timing and use of curative intervention.
RESULTS: Over a median of 2.1 years of follow up, 38% of men in the JHH AS programme had biopsy reclassification. Of those, 62% were detected at biopsy intervals corresponding to the PRIAS criteria, while 16% were detected between scheduled PRIAS biopsies, resulting in a median delay in detection of 1.9 years. Of the 202 men with >5 years of follow-up, 11% in the JHH programme were found to have biopsy reclassification after it would have been identified in the PRIAS protocol, resulting in a median delay of 4.7 years to reclassification. In all, 12% of patients who would have undergone immediate intervention under PRIAS due to abnormal PSA kinetics would never have undergone reclassification on the JHH protocol and thus would not have undergone definitive intervention.
CONCLUSIONS: There are clear differences between PSA kinetics-based AS programmes and biopsy based programmes. Further studies should address whether and how the differences in timing of intervention impact subsequent disease progression and prostate cancer mortality.
© 2014 The Authors. BJU International © 2014 BJU International.

Entities:  

Keywords:  PSA; active surveillance; prostate biopsy; prostate cancer

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2014        PMID: 24904995     DOI: 10.1111/bju.12828

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  BJU Int        ISSN: 1464-4096            Impact factor:   5.588


  12 in total

1.  [Not Available].

Authors:  D Robert Siemens
Journal:  Can Urol Assoc J       Date:  2015 May-Jun       Impact factor: 1.862

2.  Codifying active surveillance.

Authors:  D Robert Siemens
Journal:  Can Urol Assoc J       Date:  2015 May-Jun       Impact factor: 1.862

Review 3.  Organ-confined prostate cancer: are we moving towards more or less radical surgical intervention?

Authors:  Daniel J Stevens; Naomi L Sharma; Ashutosh K Tewari; Roger Kirby; Prasanna Sooriakumaran
Journal:  Curr Urol Rep       Date:  2015-05       Impact factor: 3.092

4.  Active surveillance in Canadian men with low-grade prostate cancer.

Authors:  Octav Cristea; Luke T Lavallée; Joshua Montroy; Andrew Stokl; Sonya Cnossen; Ranjeeta Mallick; Dean Fergusson; Franco Momoli; Illias Cagiannos; Christopher Morash; Rodney H Breau
Journal:  CMAJ       Date:  2016-02-29       Impact factor: 8.262

5.  Prostate cancer: optimizing active surveillance: patient and protocol.

Authors:  Annette Fenner
Journal:  Nat Rev Urol       Date:  2014-06-24       Impact factor: 14.432

6.  An assessment of Prostate Cancer Research International: Active Surveillance (PRIAS) criteria for active surveillance of clinically low-risk prostate cancer patients.

Authors:  Vitor da Silva; Ilias Cagiannos; Luke T Lavallée; Ranjeeta Mallick; Kelsey Witiuk; Sonya Cnossen; James A Eastham; Dean A Fergusson; Chris Morash; Rodney H Breau
Journal:  Can Urol Assoc J       Date:  2017-08       Impact factor: 1.862

Review 7.  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

Review 8.  [Follow-up of urological tumor treatment].

Authors:  C-H Ohlmann; P Albers; K Boehm; M Graefen; O W Hakenberg; M Kuczyk; J Graf; I Peters; C Protzel
Journal:  Urologe A       Date:  2015-09       Impact factor: 0.639

9.  Pathologic Outcomes in Men with Low-risk Prostate Cancer Who Are Potential Candidates for Contemporary, Active Surveillance Protocols.

Authors:  Ho Won Kang; Joo Yong Lee; Jong Kyou Kwon; Seong Uk Jeh; Hae Do Jung; Kang Su Cho; Won Sik Ham; Young Deuk Choi
Journal:  J Korean Med Sci       Date:  2015-06-10       Impact factor: 2.153

10.  Upgrading and upstaging of low-risk prostate cancer among Korean patients: a multicenter study.

Authors:  Insang Hwang; Donghoon Lim; Young Beom Jeong; Seung Chol Park; Jun Hwa Noh; Dong Deuk Kwon; Taek Won Kang
Journal:  Asian J Androl       Date:  2015 Sep-Oct       Impact factor: 3.285

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.