OBJECTIVE: Active surveillance has become a management option for low-risk prostate cancer patients, while keeping the curative treatment option available. In this study, we evaluated the our results of active surveillance for localized prostate cancer patients. MATERIAL AND METHODS: Patients diagnosed with localized prostate cancer who chose an active surveillance protocol were followed with PSA measurements, digital rectal examinations, and TRUS-guided biopsies. The patients' data and rebiopsy results were evaluated. The results were compared with the results of the patients who had definitive treatment. RESULTS: Forty-one patients on active surveillance and 34 patients with at least one rebiopsy were included in the study. Twenty-seven patients who had more than one rebiopsy were followed for an average of 27.7 (12-78) months. Twelve patients (44.4%) had undergone definitive treatment including radical prostatectomy (n=9), and radiotherapy (n=3). There were 17 patients under surveillance after a second biopsy, and 9 (33%) of them had a third biopsy. Among these 9 patients, 7 patients were kept under surveillance, and 2 (7%) them had a fourth biopsy. Active surveillance of 15 out of 17 patients who have not undergone definitive treatment is still ongoing. CONCLUSION: Active surveillance is a treatment option refrains low-risk prostate cancer patients from the complications of an early or unnecessary definitive treatment and related reduction in the quality of their lives. while keeping the curative treatment option available. Active surveillance can be applied safely with the appropriate patient selection, regular examinations and tests.
OBJECTIVE: Active surveillance has become a management option for low-risk prostate cancerpatients, while keeping the curative treatment option available. In this study, we evaluated the our results of active surveillance for localized prostate cancerpatients. MATERIAL AND METHODS:Patients diagnosed with localized prostate cancer who chose an active surveillance protocol were followed with PSA measurements, digital rectal examinations, and TRUS-guided biopsies. The patients' data and rebiopsy results were evaluated. The results were compared with the results of the patients who had definitive treatment. RESULTS: Forty-one patients on active surveillance and 34 patients with at least one rebiopsy were included in the study. Twenty-seven patients who had more than one rebiopsy were followed for an average of 27.7 (12-78) months. Twelve patients (44.4%) had undergone definitive treatment including radical prostatectomy (n=9), and radiotherapy (n=3). There were 17 patients under surveillance after a second biopsy, and 9 (33%) of them had a third biopsy. Among these 9 patients, 7 patients were kept under surveillance, and 2 (7%) them had a fourth biopsy. Active surveillance of 15 out of 17 patients who have not undergone definitive treatment is still ongoing. CONCLUSION: Active surveillance is a treatment option refrains low-risk prostate cancerpatients from the complications of an early or unnecessary definitive treatment and related reduction in the quality of their lives. while keeping the curative treatment option available. Active surveillance can be applied safely with the appropriate patient selection, regular examinations and tests.
Entities:
Keywords:
Active surveillance; prostate biopsy; prostate cancer
Authors: Albert El Hajj; Guillaume Ploussard; Alexandre de la Taille; Yves Allory; Dimitri Vordos; Andras Hoznek; Claude Clément Abbou; Laurent Salomon Journal: BJU Int Date: 2012-06-21 Impact factor: 5.588
Authors: Ian Thompson; James Brantley Thrasher; Gunnar Aus; Arthur L Burnett; Edith D Canby-Hagino; Michael S Cookson; Anthony V D'Amico; Roger R Dmochowski; David T Eton; Jeffrey D Forman; S Larry Goldenberg; Javier Hernandez; Celestia S Higano; Stephen R Kraus; Judd W Moul; Catherine M Tangen Journal: J Urol Date: 2007-06 Impact factor: 7.450
Authors: James Mohler; Robert R Bahnson; Barry Boston; J Erik Busby; Anthony D'Amico; James A Eastham; Charles A Enke; Daniel George; Eric Mark Horwitz; Robert P Huben; Philip Kantoff; Mark Kawachi; Michael Kuettel; Paul H Lange; Gary Macvicar; Elizabeth R Plimack; Julio M Pow-Sang; Mack Roach; Eric Rohren; Bruce J Roth; Dennis C Shrieve; Matthew R Smith; Sandy Srinivas; Przemyslaw Twardowski; Patrick C Walsh Journal: J Natl Compr Canc Netw Date: 2010-02 Impact factor: 11.908
Authors: Carmel N Anandadas; Noel W Clarke; Susan E Davidson; Patrick H O'Reilly; John P Logue; Lynne Gilmore; Ric Swindell; Richard J Brough; Guy D Wemyss-Holden; Maurice W Lau; Pradip M Javle; Vijay A C Ramani; James P Wylie; Gerald N Collins; Stephen Brown; Richard A Cowan Journal: BJU Int Date: 2010-11-17 Impact factor: 5.588
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
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
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