Literature DB >> 28346806

Active Surveillance in Younger Men With Prostate Cancer.

Michael S Leapman1, Janet E Cowan1, Hao G Nguyen1, Katsuto K Shinohara1, Nannette Perez1, Matthew R Cooperberg1, William J Catalona1, Peter R Carroll1.   

Abstract

Purpose The suitability of younger patients with prostate cancer (PCa) for initial active surveillance (AS) has been questioned on the basis of eventual treatment necessity and concerns of safety; however, the role of age on surveillance outcomes has not been well defined. Patients and Methods We identified men managed with AS at our institution with a minimum follow-up of 6 months. The primary study objective was to examine the association of age with risk of biopsy-based Gleason score upgrade during AS. We also examined the association of age with related end points, including overall biopsy-determined progression, definitive treatment, and pathologic and biochemical outcomes after delayed radical prostatectomy (RP), using descriptive statistics, the Kaplan-Meier method, and multivariable Cox proportional hazards regression. Results A total of 1,433 patients were followed for a median of 49 months; 74% underwent initial biopsy at a referring institution. Median age at diagnosis was 63 years, including 599 patients (42%) ≤ 60 years old and 834 (58%) > 60 years old. The 3- and 5-year biopsy-based Gleason score upgrade-free rates were 73% and 55%, respectively, for men ≤ 60 years old compared with 64% and 48%, respectively, for men older than 60 years ( P < .01). On Cox regression analysis, younger age was independently associated with lower risk of biopsy-based Gleason score upgrade (hazard ratio per 1-year decrease, 0.969 [95% CI, 0.956 to 0.983]; P < .01), and persisted upon restriction to men meeting strict AS inclusion criteria. There was no significant association between younger age and risk of definitive treatment or risk of biochemical recurrence after delayed RP. Conclusion Younger patient age was associated with decreased risk of biopsy-based Gleason score upgrade during AS but not with risk of definitive treatment in the intermediate term. AS represents a strategy to mitigate overtreatment in young patients with low-risk PCa in the early term.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2017        PMID: 28346806      PMCID: PMC5466007          DOI: 10.1200/JCO.2016.68.0058

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Clin Oncol        ISSN: 0732-183X            Impact factor:   44.544


  34 in total

1.  Gleason Upgrading with Time in a Large Prostate Cancer Active Surveillance Cohort.

Authors:  Suneil Jain; Andrew Loblaw; Danny Vesprini; Liying Zhang; Michael W Kattan; Alexandre Mamedov; Vibhuti Jethava; Perakaa Sethukavalan; Changhong Yu; Laurence Klotz
Journal:  J Urol       Date:  2015-02-04       Impact factor: 7.450

2.  Comparison of MR/ultrasound fusion-guided biopsy with ultrasound-guided biopsy for the diagnosis of prostate cancer.

Authors:  M Minhaj Siddiqui; Soroush Rais-Bahrami; Baris Turkbey; Arvin K George; Jason Rothwax; Nabeel Shakir; Chinonyerem Okoro; Dima Raskolnikov; Howard L Parnes; W Marston Linehan; Maria J Merino; Richard M Simon; Peter L Choyke; Bradford J Wood; Peter A Pinto
Journal:  JAMA       Date:  2015-01-27       Impact factor: 56.272

3.  Compliance Rates with the Prostate Cancer Research International Active Surveillance (PRIAS) Protocol and Disease Reclassification in Noncompliers.

Authors:  Leonard P Bokhorst; Arnout R Alberts; Antti Rannikko; Riccardo Valdagni; Tom Pickles; Yoshiyuki Kakehi; Chris H Bangma; Monique J Roobol
Journal:  Eur Urol       Date:  2015-06-29       Impact factor: 20.096

4.  Impact of age at diagnosis on prostate cancer treatment and survival.

Authors:  Seth K Bechis; Peter R Carroll; Matthew R Cooperberg
Journal:  J Clin Oncol       Date:  2010-12-06       Impact factor: 44.544

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.  Impact of age on quality-of-life outcomes after treatment for localized prostate cancer.

Authors:  Lindsay A Hampson; Janet E Cowan; Shoujun Zhao; Peter R Carroll; Matthew R Cooperberg
Journal:  Eur Urol       Date:  2015-02-02       Impact factor: 20.096

8.  NCCN Clinical Practice Guidelines Prostate Cancer Early Detection, Version 2.2015.

Authors:  Peter R Carroll; J Kellogg Parsons; Gerald Andriole; Robert R Bahnson; Daniel A Barocas; Erik P Castle; William J Catalona; Douglas M Dahl; John W Davis; Jonathan I Epstein; Ruth B Etzioni; Thomas Farrington; George P Hemstreet; Mark H Kawachi; Paul H Lange; Kevin R Loughlin; William Lowrance; Paul Maroni; James Mohler; Todd M Morgan; Robert B Nadler; Michael Poch; Chuck Scales; Terrence M Shaneyfelt; Marc C Smaldone; Geoffrey Sonn; Preston Sprenke; Andrew J Vickers; Robert Wake; Dorothy A Shead; Deborah Freedman-Cass
Journal:  J Natl Compr Canc Netw       Date:  2015-12       Impact factor: 11.908

9.  Long-term functional outcomes after treatment for localized prostate cancer.

Authors:  Matthew J Resnick; Tatsuki Koyama; Kang-Hsien Fan; Peter C Albertsen; Michael Goodman; Ann S Hamilton; Richard M Hoffman; Arnold L Potosky; Janet L Stanford; Antoinette M Stroup; R Lawrence Van Horn; David F Penson
Journal:  N Engl J Med       Date:  2013-01-31       Impact factor: 91.245

10.  Population based study of use and determinants of active surveillance and watchful waiting for low and intermediate risk prostate cancer.

Authors:  Stacy Loeb; Anders Berglund; Pär Stattin
Journal:  J Urol       Date:  2013-05-30       Impact factor: 7.450

View more
  12 in total

Review 1.  Active Surveillance for Intermediate Risk Prostate Cancer.

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

2.  Serial prostate magnetic resonance imaging fails to predict pathological progression in patients on active surveillance.

Authors:  Danly Omil-Lima; Albert Kim; Ilon Weinstein; Karishma Gupta; David Sheyn; Lee Ponsky
Journal:  Can Urol Assoc J       Date:  2022-07       Impact factor: 2.052

3.  Clinical Usefulness of Total Length of Gleason Pattern 4 on Biopsy in Men with Grade Group 2 Prostate Cancer.

Authors:  Lucas W Dean; Melissa Assel; Daniel D Sjoberg; Andrew J Vickers; Hikmat A Al-Ahmadie; Ying-Bei Chen; Anuradha Gopalan; S Joseph Sirintrapun; Satish K Tickoo; James A Eastham; Peter T Scardino; Victor E Reuter; Behfar Ehdaie; Samson W Fine
Journal:  J Urol       Date:  2019-01       Impact factor: 7.450

Review 4.  How should radiologists incorporate non-imaging prostate cancer biomarkers into daily practice?

Authors:  Pawel Rajwa; Jamil Syed; Michael S Leapman
Journal:  Abdom Radiol (NY)       Date:  2020-12

Review 5.  Defining and Measuring Adherence in Observational Studies Assessing Outcomes of Real-world Active Surveillance for Prostate Cancer: A Systematic Review.

Authors:  Glenda Kith; Sarah Lisker; Urmimala Sarkar; Jill Barr-Walker; Benjamin N Breyer; Nynikka R Palmer
Journal:  Eur Urol Oncol       Date:  2019-07-06

6.  When to Discuss Prostate Cancer Screening With Average-Risk Men.

Authors:  Roman Gulati; Sigrid V Carlsson; Ruth Etzioni
Journal:  Am J Prev Med       Date:  2021-05-06       Impact factor: 6.604

Review 7.  Patient and provider experiences with active surveillance: A scoping review.

Authors:  Claire Kim; Frances C Wright; Nicole J Look Hong; Gary Groot; Lucy Helyer; Pamela Meiers; May Lynn Quan; Robin Urquhart; Rebecca Warburton; Anna R Gagliardi
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2018-02-05       Impact factor: 3.240

Review 8.  Being on active surveillance: the patient perspective.

Authors:  Ken Mastris; Louis Denis
Journal:  Transl Androl Urol       Date:  2018-02

9.  The COMET (Comparison of Operative versus Monitoring and Endocrine Therapy) trial: a phase III randomised controlled clinical trial for low-risk ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS).

Authors:  E Shelley Hwang; Terry Hyslop; Thomas Lynch; Elizabeth Frank; Donna Pinto; Desiree Basila; Deborah Collyar; Antonia Bennett; Celia Kaplan; Shoshana Rosenberg; Alastair Thompson; Anna Weiss; Ann Partridge
Journal:  BMJ Open       Date:  2019-03-12       Impact factor: 2.692

10.  PTEN status assessment in the Johns Hopkins active surveillance cohort.

Authors:  Jeffrey J Tosoian; Liana B Guedes; Carlos L Morais; Mufaddal Mamawala; Ashley E Ross; Angelo M De Marzo; Bruce J Trock; Misop Han; H Ballentine Carter; Tamara L Lotan
Journal:  Prostate Cancer Prostatic Dis       Date:  2018-10-02       Impact factor: 5.554

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.