Literature DB >> 26327354

Outcomes of Active Surveillance for Clinically Localized Prostate Cancer in the Prospective, Multi-Institutional Canary PASS Cohort.

Lisa F Newcomb1, Ian M Thompson2, Hilary D Boyer3, James D Brooks4, Peter R Carroll5, Matthew R Cooperberg5, Atreya Dash6, William J Ellis7, Ladan Fazli8, Ziding Feng3, Martin E Gleave8, Priya Kunju9, Raymond S Lance10, Jesse K McKenney11, Maxwell V Meng5, Marlo M Nicolas2, Martin G Sanda12, Jeffry Simko5, Alan So8, Maria S Tretiakova7, Dean A Troyer10, Lawrence D True7, Funda Vakar-Lopez7, Jeff Virgin6, Andrew A Wagner12, John T Wei9, Yingye Zheng3, Peter S Nelson3, Daniel W Lin13.   

Abstract

PURPOSE: Active surveillance represents a strategy to address the overtreatment of prostate cancer, yet uncertainty regarding individual patient outcomes remains a concern. We evaluated outcomes in a prospective multicenter study of active surveillance.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: We studied 905 men in the prospective Canary PASS enrolled between 2008 and 2013. We collected clinical data at study entry and at prespecified intervals, and determined associations with adverse reclassification, defined as increased Gleason grade or greater cancer volume on followup biopsy. We also evaluated the relationships of clinical parameters with pathology findings in participants who underwent surgery after a period of active surveillance.
RESULTS: At a median followup of 28 months 24% of participants experienced adverse reclassification, of whom 53% underwent treatment while 31% continued on active surveillance. Overall 19% of participants received treatment, 68% with adverse reclassification, while 32% opted for treatment without disease reclassification. In multivariate Cox proportional hazards modeling the percent of biopsy cores with cancer, body mass index and prostate specific antigen density were associated with adverse reclassification (p=0.01, 0.04, 0.04, respectively). Of 103 participants subsequently treated with radical prostatectomy 34% had adverse pathology, defined as primary pattern 4-5 or nonorgan confined disease, including 2 with positive lymph nodes, with no significant relationship between risk category at diagnosis and findings at surgery (p=0.76).
CONCLUSIONS: Most men remain on active surveillance at 5 years without adverse reclassification or adverse pathology at surgery. However, clinical factors had only a modest association with disease reclassification, supporting the need for approaches that improve the prediction of this outcome.
Copyright © 2016 American Urological Association Education and Research, Inc. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

Entities:  

Keywords:  prospective studies; prostatic neoplasms; watchful waiting

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2015        PMID: 26327354      PMCID: PMC4970462          DOI: 10.1016/j.juro.2015.08.087

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Urol        ISSN: 0022-5347            Impact factor:   7.450


  27 in total

1.  Screening for prostate cancer: U.S. Preventive Services Task Force recommendation statement.

Authors:  Virginia A Moyer
Journal:  Ann Intern Med       Date:  2012-07-17       Impact factor: 25.391

2.  A preoperative nomogram for disease recurrence following radical prostatectomy for prostate cancer.

Authors:  M W Kattan; J A Eastham; A M Stapleton; T M Wheeler; P T Scardino
Journal:  J Natl Cancer Inst       Date:  1998-05-20       Impact factor: 13.506

3.  Prediction of prognosis for prostatic adenocarcinoma by combined histological grading and clinical staging.

Authors:  D F Gleason; G T Mellinger
Journal:  J Urol       Date:  1974-01       Impact factor: 7.450

4.  Development and multi-institutional validation of an upgrading risk tool for Gleason 6 prostate cancer.

Authors:  Matthew Truong; Jon A Slezak; Chee Paul Lin; Viacheslav Iremashvili; Martins Sado; Aria A Razmaria; Glen Leverson; Mark S Soloway; Scott E Eggener; E Jason Abel; Tracy M Downs; David F Jarrard
Journal:  Cancer       Date:  2013-09-04       Impact factor: 6.860

5.  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

6.  The University of California, San Francisco Cancer of the Prostate Risk Assessment score: a straightforward and reliable preoperative predictor of disease recurrence after radical prostatectomy.

Authors:  Matthew R Cooperberg; David J Pasta; Eric P Elkin; Mark S Litwin; David M Latini; Janeen Du Chane; Peter R Carroll
Journal:  J Urol       Date:  2005-06       Impact factor: 7.450

7.  Long-term follow-up of a large active surveillance cohort of patients with prostate cancer.

Authors:  Laurence Klotz; Danny Vesprini; Perakaa Sethukavalan; Vibhuti Jethava; Liying Zhang; Suneil Jain; Toshihiro Yamamoto; Alexandre Mamedov; Andrew Loblaw
Journal:  J Clin Oncol       Date:  2014-12-15       Impact factor: 44.544

Review 8.  Active surveillance for prostate cancer: a systematic review of the literature.

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

9.  Time trends and local variation in primary treatment of localized prostate cancer.

Authors:  Matthew R Cooperberg; Jeanette M Broering; Peter R Carroll
Journal:  J Clin Oncol       Date:  2010-02-01       Impact factor: 44.544

10.  Canary Prostate Active Surveillance Study: design of a multi-institutional active surveillance cohort and biorepository.

Authors:  Lisa F Newcomb; James D Brooks; Peter R Carroll; Ziding Feng; Martin E Gleave; Peter S Nelson; Ian M Thompson; Daniel W Lin
Journal:  Urology       Date:  2009-09-16       Impact factor: 2.649

View more
  52 in total

1.  A diagnosis of prostate cancer and pursuit of active surveillance is not followed by weight loss: potential for a teachable moment.

Authors:  M A Liss; J M Schenk; A V Faino; L F Newcomb; H Boyer; J D Brooks; P R Carroll; A Dash; M D Fabrizio; M E Gleave; P S Nelson; M L Neuhouser; J T Wei; Y Zheng; J L Wright; D W Lin; I M Thompson
Journal:  Prostate Cancer Prostatic Dis       Date:  2016-07-19       Impact factor: 5.554

2.  Comparative Analysis of Biopsy Upgrading in Four Prostate Cancer Active Surveillance Cohorts.

Authors:  Lurdes Y T Inoue; Daniel W Lin; Lisa F Newcomb; Amy S Leonardson; Donna Ankerst; Roman Gulati; H Ballentine Carter; Bruce J Trock; Peter R Carroll; Matthew R Cooperberg; Janet E Cowan; Laurence H Klotz; Alexandre Mamedov; David F Penson; Ruth Etzioni
Journal:  Ann Intern Med       Date:  2017-11-28       Impact factor: 25.391

Review 3.  Molecular correlates of intermediate- and high-risk localized prostate cancer.

Authors:  Huihui Ye; Adam G Sowalsky
Journal:  Urol Oncol       Date:  2018-03-02       Impact factor: 3.498

Review 4.  Active Surveillance for Intermediate Risk Prostate Cancer.

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

5.  Active Surveillance in Younger Men With Prostate Cancer.

Authors:  Michael S Leapman; Janet E Cowan; Hao G Nguyen; Katsuto K Shinohara; Nannette Perez; Matthew R Cooperberg; William J Catalona; Peter R Carroll
Journal:  J Clin Oncol       Date:  2017-03-27       Impact factor: 44.544

6.  Prostate cancer: Caveat Emptor - long-term outcomes in the Göteborg active surveillance cohort.

Authors:  Christopher P Filson
Journal:  Nat Rev Urol       Date:  2016-05-10       Impact factor: 14.432

7.  Loss of Expression of AZGP1 Is Associated With Worse Clinical Outcomes in a Multi-Institutional Radical Prostatectomy Cohort.

Authors:  James D Brooks; Wei Wei; Jonathan R Pollack; Robert B West; Jun Ho Shin; John B Sunwoo; Sarah J Hawley; Heidi Auman; Lisa F Newcomb; Jeff Simko; Antonio Hurtado-Coll; Dean A Troyer; Peter R Carroll; Martin E Gleave; Daniel W Lin; Peter S Nelson; Ian M Thompson; Lawrence D True; Jesse K McKenney; Ziding Feng; Ladan Fazli
Journal:  Prostate       Date:  2016-06-21       Impact factor: 4.104

8.  Selecting Active Surveillance: Decision Making Factors for Men with a Low-Risk Prostate Cancer.

Authors:  Richard M Hoffman; Tania Lobo; Stephen K Van Den Eeden; Kimberly M Davis; George Luta; Amethyst D Leimpeter; David Aaronson; David F Penson; Kathryn Taylor
Journal:  Med Decis Making       Date:  2019-10-21       Impact factor: 2.583

9.  Men's Eating and Living (MEAL) study (CALGB 70807 [Alliance]): recruitment feasibility and baseline demographics of a randomized trial of diet in men on active surveillance for prostate cancer.

Authors:  J Kellogg Parsons; John P Pierce; James Mohler; Electra Paskett; Sin-Ho Jung; Michael J Morris; Eric Small; Olwen Hahn; Peter Humphrey; John Taylor; James Marshall
Journal:  BJU Int       Date:  2017-05-21       Impact factor: 5.588

10.  The Influence of Psychosocial Constructs on the Adherence to Active Surveillance for Localized Prostate Cancer in a Prospective, Population-based Cohort.

Authors:  Maximilian F Lang; Mark D Tyson; JoAnn Rudd Alvarez; Tatsuki Koyama; Karen E Hoffman; Matthew J Resnick; Matthew R Cooperberg; Xiao-Cheng Wu; Vivien Chen; Lisa E Paddock; Ann S Hamilton; Mia Hashibe; Michael Goodman; Sheldon Greenfield; Sherrie H Kaplan; Antoinette Stroup; David F Penson; Daniel A Barocas
Journal:  Urology       Date:  2017-02-09       Impact factor: 2.649

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.