Literature DB >> 25487136

Diagnostic prostate biopsy performed in a non-academic center increases the risk of re-classification at confirmatory biopsy for men considering active surveillance for prostate cancer.

L M Wong1, S Ferrara2, S M H Alibhai3, A Evans4, T Van der Kwast4, G Trottier2, N Timilshina5, A Toi6, G Kulkarni2, R Hamilton2, A Zlotta2, N Fleshner2, A Finelli2.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: To examine whether diagnostic biopsy (B1), for patients on active surveillance (AS) for prostate cancer, performed at an outside referral centre (external) compared with our in-house tertiary center (internal), increased the risk of re-classification on the second (confirmatory) biopsy (B2).
METHODS: Patients on AS were identified from our tertiary center database (1997-2012) with PSA<10, Gleason sum (GS) ⩽6, clinical stage ⩽cT2, ⩽3 positive cores, <50% of single core involved, age ⩽75 years and having a B2. Patients who had <10 cores at B1 and delay in B2 >24 mo were excluded. Depending on center where B1 was performed, men were dichotomized to internal or external groups. All B2 were performed internally. Multivariate logistic regression examined if external B1 was a predictor of re-classification at B2.
RESULTS: A total of 375 patients were divided into external (n=71, 18.9%) and internal groups (n=304, 81.1%). At B2, more men in the external group re-classified (26.8%) compared with the internal group (13.8%) (P=0.008). On multivariate analysis, external B1 predicted grade-related re-classification (odds ratio (OR) 4.14, confidence interval (CI) 2.01-8.54, P<0.001) and volume-related re-classification (OR 3.43, CI 1.87-6.25, P<0.001). Other significant predictors for grade-related re-classification were age (OR 2.13 per decade, CI 1.32-3.57, P<0.001), PSA density (OR 2.56 per unit, CI 1.44-4.73, P<0.001), maximum % core involvement (OR 1.04 per percentage point, CI 1.01-1.09, P=0.02) and time between B1 and B2 (OR 1.43 per 6 months, CI 1.21-1.71, P<0.001).
CONCLUSION: At our institution, patients on AS who had their initial B1 performed externally were more likely to have adverse pathological features and re-classify on internal B2.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2014        PMID: 25487136     DOI: 10.1038/pcan.2014.48

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Prostate Cancer Prostatic Dis        ISSN: 1365-7852            Impact factor:   5.554


  19 in total

1.  Prospective validation of active surveillance in prostate cancer: the PRIAS study.

Authors:  Roderick C N van den Bergh; Stijn Roemeling; Monique J Roobol; Wouter Roobol; Fritz H Schröder; Chris H Bangma
Journal:  Eur Urol       Date:  2007-05-25       Impact factor: 20.096

2.  Pathological upgrading and up staging with immediate repeat biopsy in patients eligible for active surveillance.

Authors:  Ryan K Berglund; Timothy A Masterson; Kinjal C Vora; Scott E Eggener; James A Eastham; Bertrand D Guillonneau
Journal:  J Urol       Date:  2008-09-17       Impact factor: 7.450

3.  Active surveillance program for prostate cancer: an update of the Johns Hopkins experience.

Authors:  Jeffrey J Tosoian; Bruce J Trock; Patricia Landis; Zhaoyong Feng; Jonathan I Epstein; Alan W Partin; Patrick C Walsh; H Ballentine Carter
Journal:  J Clin Oncol       Date:  2011-04-04       Impact factor: 44.544

4.  Careful selection and close monitoring of low-risk prostate cancer patients on active surveillance minimizes the need for treatment.

Authors:  Mark S Soloway; Cynthia T Soloway; Ahmed Eldefrawy; Kristell Acosta; Bruce Kava; Murugesan Manoharan
Journal:  Eur Urol       Date:  2010-08-20       Impact factor: 20.096

5.  Operator is an independent predictor of detecting prostate cancer at transrectal ultrasound guided prostate biopsy.

Authors:  Nathan Lawrentschuk; Ants Toi; Gina A Lockwood; Andrew Evans; Antonio Finelli; Martin O'Malley; Myles Margolis; Sangeet Ghai; Neil E Fleshner
Journal:  J Urol       Date:  2009-12       Impact factor: 7.450

6.  Predicting the probability of deferred radical treatment for localised prostate cancer managed by active surveillance.

Authors:  Nicholas J van As; Andrew R Norman; Karen Thomas; Vincent S Khoo; Alan Thompson; Robert A Huddart; Alan Horwich; David P Dearnaley; Christopher C Parker
Journal:  Eur Urol       Date:  2008-03-07       Impact factor: 20.096

7.  Does transrectal ultrasound probe configuration really matter? End fire versus side fire probe prostate cancer detection rates.

Authors:  Christina B Ching; Ayman S Moussa; Jianbo Li; Brian R Lane; Craig Zippe; J Stephen Jones
Journal:  J Urol       Date:  2009-03-14       Impact factor: 7.450

8.  A negative confirmatory biopsy among men on active surveillance for prostate cancer does not protect them from histologic grade progression.

Authors:  Lih-Ming Wong; Shabbir M H Alibhai; Greg Trottier; Narhari Timilshina; Theodorus Van der Kwast; Alexandre Zlotta; Nathan Lawrentschuk; Girish Kulkarni; Robert Hamilton; Sarah Ferrara; David Margel; John Trachtenberg; Michael A Jewett; Ants Toi; Andrew Evans; Neil E Fleshner; Antonio Finelli
Journal:  Eur Urol       Date:  2013-05-02       Impact factor: 20.096

9.  Clinical results of long-term follow-up of a large, active surveillance cohort with localized prostate cancer.

Authors:  Laurence Klotz; Liying Zhang; Adam Lam; Robert Nam; Alexandre Mamedov; Andrew Loblaw
Journal:  J Clin Oncol       Date:  2009-11-16       Impact factor: 44.544

10.  International multicentre study examining selection criteria for active surveillance in men undergoing radical prostatectomy.

Authors:  L-M Wong; D E Neal; R B Johnston; N Shah; N Sharma; A Y Warren; C M Hovens; S Larry Goldenberg; M E Gleave; A J Costello; N M Corcoran
Journal:  Br J Cancer       Date:  2012-10-04       Impact factor: 7.640

View more
  3 in total

1.  Performance of biopsy factors in predicting unfavorable disease in patients eligible for active surveillance according to the PRIAS criteria.

Authors:  G I Russo; T Castelli; V Favilla; G Reale; D Urzì; S Privitera; E Fragalà; S Cimino; G Morgia
Journal:  Prostate Cancer Prostatic Dis       Date:  2015-06-02       Impact factor: 5.554

2.  The performance of PI-RADSv2 and quantitative apparent diffusion coefficient for predicting confirmatory prostate biopsy findings in patients considered for active surveillance of prostate cancer.

Authors:  Stephanie Nougaret; Nicola Robertson; Jennifer Golia Pernicka; Nicolas Molinari; Andreas M Hötker; Behfar Ehdaie; Evis Sala; Hedvig Hricak; Hebert Alberto Vargas
Journal:  Abdom Radiol (NY)       Date:  2017-07

3.  Applying precision medicine to the active surveillance of prostate cancer.

Authors:  Chad A Reichard; Andrew J Stephenson; Eric A Klein
Journal:  Cancer       Date:  2015-07-06       Impact factor: 6.860

  3 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.