Literature DB >> 25261260

Insignificant disease among men with intermediate-risk prostate cancer.

Sung Kyu Hong1, Emily Vertosick, Daniel D Sjoberg, Peter T Scardino, James A Eastham.   

Abstract

PURPOSE: A paucity of data exists on the insignificant disease potentially suitable for active surveillance (AS) among men with intermediate-risk prostate cancer (PCa). We tried to identify pathologically insignificant disease and its preoperative predictors in men who underwent radical prostatectomy (RP) for intermediate-risk PCa.
METHODS: We analyzed data of 1,630 men who underwent RP for intermediate-risk disease. Total tumor volume (TTV) data were available in 332 men. We examined factors associated with classically defined pathologically insignificant cancer (organ-confined disease with TTV ≤0.5 ml with no Gleason pattern 4 or 5) and pathologically favorable cancer (organ-confined disease with no Gleason pattern 4 or 5) potentially suitable for AS. Decision curve analysis was used to assess clinical utility of a multivariable model including preoperative variables for predicting pathologically unfavorable cancer.
RESULTS: In the entire cohort, 221 of 1,630 (13.6 %) total patients had pathologically favorable cancer. Among 332 patients with TTV data available, 26 (7.8 %) had classically defined pathologically insignificant cancer. Between threshold probabilities of 20 and 40 %, decision curve analysis demonstrated that using multivariable model to identify AS candidates would not provide any benefit over simply treating all men who have intermediate-risk disease with RP.
CONCLUSION: Although a minority of patients with intermediate-risk disease may harbor pathologically favorable or insignificant cancer, currently available conventional tools are not sufficiently able to identify those patients.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2014        PMID: 25261260      PMCID: PMC4558555          DOI: 10.1007/s00345-014-1413-3

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  World J Urol        ISSN: 0724-4983            Impact factor:   4.226


  18 in total

1.  The trade-off between sensitivity and specificity of clinical protocols for identification of insignificant prostate cancer.

Authors:  Theodorus H Van der Kwast
Journal:  Eur Urol       Date:  2012-04-14       Impact factor: 20.096

2.  A critical analysis of the tumor volume threshold for clinically insignificant prostate cancer using a data set of a randomized screening trial.

Authors:  Tineke Wolters; Monique J Roobol; Pim J van Leeuwen; Roderick C N van den Bergh; Robert F Hoedemaeker; Geert J L H van Leenders; Fritz H Schröder; Theodorus H van der Kwast
Journal:  J Urol       Date:  2010-11-12       Impact factor: 7.450

3.  Pathologic prostate cancer characteristics in patients eligible for active surveillance: a head-to-head comparison of contemporary protocols.

Authors:  Viacheslav Iremashvili; Lisét Pelaez; Murugesan Manoharan; Mercé Jorda; Daniel L Rosenberg; Mark S Soloway
Journal:  Eur Urol       Date:  2012-03-17       Impact factor: 20.096

Review 4.  The contemporary concept of significant versus insignificant prostate cancer.

Authors:  Guillaume Ploussard; 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
Journal:  Eur Urol       Date:  2011-05-17       Impact factor: 20.096

5.  Contemporary evaluation of the National Comprehensive Cancer Network prostate cancer risk classification system.

Authors:  Adam C Reese; Phillip M Pierorazio; Misop Han; Alan W Partin
Journal:  Urology       Date:  2012-09-18       Impact factor: 2.649

6.  Prognostic impact of subclassification of radical prostatectomy positive margins by linear extent and Gleason grade.

Authors:  Kazuma Udo; Angel M Cronin; Lauren J Carlino; Caroline J Savage; Alexandra C Maschino; Hikmat A Al-Ahmadie; Anuradha Gopalan; Satish K Tickoo; Peter T Scardino; James A Eastham; Victor E Reuter; Samson W Fine
Journal:  J Urol       Date:  2012-10-09       Impact factor: 7.450

7.  The Epstein criteria predict for organ-confined but not insignificant disease and a high likelihood of cure at radical prostatectomy.

Authors:  Michael C Lee; Fei Dong; Andrew J Stephenson; J Stephen Jones; Cristina Magi-Galluzzi; Eric A Klein
Journal:  Eur Urol       Date:  2009-10-23       Impact factor: 20.096

8.  Outcome following active surveillance of men with screen-detected prostate cancer. Results from the Göteborg randomised population-based prostate cancer screening trial.

Authors:  Rebecka Arnsrud Godtman; Erik Holmberg; Ali Khatami; Johan Stranne; Jonas Hugosson
Journal:  Eur Urol       Date:  2012-09-05       Impact factor: 20.096

9.  Outcomes of initially expectantly managed patients with low or intermediate risk screen-detected localized prostate cancer.

Authors:  Meelan Bul; Roderick C N van den Bergh; Xiaoye Zhu; Antti Rannikko; Hanna Vasarainen; Chris H Bangma; Fritz H Schröder; Monique J Roobol
Journal:  BJU Int       Date:  2012-08-29       Impact factor: 5.588

10.  Prostate cancer: Time for active surveillance of intermediate-risk disease?

Authors:  Hashim U Ahmed
Journal:  Nat Rev Urol       Date:  2012-11-13       Impact factor: 14.432

View more
  5 in total

1.  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

Review 2.  Active Surveillance for Intermediate Risk Prostate Cancer.

Authors:  Laurence Klotz
Journal:  Curr Urol Rep       Date:  2017-08-11       Impact factor: 3.092

3.  Prostate MRSI predicts outcome in radical prostatectomy patients.

Authors:  Kristen L Zakian; William Hatfield; Omer Aras; Kun Cao; Derya Yakar; Debra A Goldman; Chaya S Moskowitz; Amita Shukla-Dave; Yousef Mazaheri Tehrani; Samson Fine; James Eastham; Hedvig Hricak
Journal:  Magn Reson Imaging       Date:  2016-01-26       Impact factor: 2.546

4.  A TMEFF2-regulated cell cycle derived gene signature is prognostic of recurrence risk in prostate cancer.

Authors:  Constantin Georgescu; Joshua M Corbin; Sandra Thibivilliers; Zachary D Webb; Yan D Zhao; Jan Koster; Kar-Ming Fung; Adam S Asch; Jonathan D Wren; Maria J Ruiz-Echevarría
Journal:  BMC Cancer       Date:  2019-05-06       Impact factor: 4.430

5.  The Prognostic PDE4D7 Score in a Diagnostic Biopsy Prostate Cancer Patient Cohort with Longitudinal Biological Outcomes.

Authors:  Dianne van Strijp; Christiane de Witz; Pieter C Vos; Eveline den Biezen-Timmermans; Anne van Brussel; Janneke Wrobel; George S Baillie; Pierre Tennstedt; Thorsten Schlomm; Birthe Heitkötter; Sebastian Huss; Martin Bögemann; Miles D Houslay; Chris Bangma; Axel Semjonow; Ralf Hoffmann
Journal:  Prostate Cancer       Date:  2018-07-26
  5 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.