Literature DB >> 28347770

Intermediate-Term Outcomes for Men with Very Low/Low and Intermediate/High Risk Prostate Cancer Managed by Active Surveillance.

Yaw A Nyame1, Nima Almassi1, Samuel C Haywood1, Daniel J Greene1, Vishnu Ganesan1, Charles Dai1, Joseph Zabell1, Chad Reichard1, Hans Arora1, Anna Zampini1, Alice Crane1, Daniel Hettel1, Ahmed Elshafei1, Khaled Fareed1, Robert J Stein1, Ryan K Berglund1, Michael Gong1, J Stephen Jones1, Eric A Klein1, Andrew J Stephenson2.   

Abstract

PURPOSE: We compare intermediate term clinical outcomes among men with favorable risk and intermediate/high risk prostate cancer managed by active surveillance.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: A total of 635 men with localized prostate cancer have been on active surveillance since 2002 at a high volume academic hospital in the United States. Median followup is 50.5 months (IQR 31.1-80.3). Time to event analysis was performed for our clinical end points.
RESULTS: Of the cohort 117 men (18.4%) had intermediate/high risk disease. Overall 5 and 10-year all cause survival was 98% and 94%, respectively. Cumulative metastasis-free survival at 5 and 10 years was 99% and 98%, respectively. To date no cancer specific deaths had been observed. Overall freedom from intervention was 61% and 49% at 5 and 10 years, respectively. Overall cumulative freedom from failure of active surveillance, defined as metastasis or biochemical failure after local therapy with curative intent, was 97% and 91% at 5 and 10 years, respectively. Of the men 21 (9.9%) experienced biochemical failure after deferred treatment and the 5-year progression-free probability was 92%. Compared to men with favorable risk disease those with intermediate/high risk cancer experienced no difference in metastases, surveillance failure or curative intervention. However, patients at higher risk were at significantly increased risk for all cause mortality, likely reflecting patient selection factors. These conclusions may be limited by the small number of events and the duration of our study.
CONCLUSIONS: Patients with localized prostate cancer who are on active surveillance demonstrated a low rate of active surveillance failure, prostate cancer specific mortality and metastases regardless of baseline risk.
Copyright © 2017 American Urological Association Education and Research, Inc. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

Entities:  

Keywords:  epidemiology; mortality; prostatic neoplasms; risk factors; sentinel surveillance

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2017        PMID: 28347770     DOI: 10.1016/j.juro.2017.03.123

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


  9 in total

1.  Deferred radical prostatectomy in patients who initially elected for active surveillance: a multi-institutional, prospective, observational cohort of the PRIAS-JAPAN study.

Authors:  Yoichiro Tohi; Takuma Kato; Masaki Nakamura; Ryuji Matsumoto; Hiroshi Sasaki; Koji Mitsuzuka; Junichi Inokuchi; Katsuyoshi Hashine; Akira Yokomizo; Hirohito Naito; Isao Hara; Norihiko Kawamura; Masaharu Inoue; Hiroshi Fukuhara; Satoru Maruyama; Shinichi Sakamoto; Toshihiro Saito; Shin Egawa; Yoshiyuki Kakehi; Mikio Sugimoto
Journal:  Int J Clin Oncol       Date:  2021-10-02       Impact factor: 3.402

2.  Oncologic Outcomes of Total Length Gleason Pattern 4 on Biopsy in Men with Grade Group 2 Prostate Cancer.

Authors:  Marlon Perera; Melissa J Assel; Nicole E Benfante; Andrew J Vickers; Victor E Reuter; Sigrid Carlsson; Vincent Laudone; Karim A Touijer; James A Eastham; Peter T Scardino; Samson W Fine; Behfar Ehdaie
Journal:  J Urol       Date:  2022-04-01       Impact factor: 7.600

3.  Risk of Metastasis in Men with Grade Group 2 Prostate Cancer Managed with Active Surveillance at a Tertiary Cancer Center.

Authors:  Sigrid Carlsson; Nicole Benfante; Ricardo Alvim; Daniel D Sjoberg; Andrew Vickers; Victor E Reuter; Samson W Fine; Hebert Alberto Vargas; Michal Wiseman; Maha Mamoor; Behfar Ehdaie; Vincent Laudone; Peter Scardino; James Eastham; Karim Touijer
Journal:  J Urol       Date:  2020-01-07       Impact factor: 7.450

4.  Reduction of MRI-targeted biopsies in men with low-risk prostate cancer on active surveillance by stratifying to PI-RADS and PSA-density, with different thresholds for significant disease.

Authors:  Ivo G Schoots; Daniel F Osses; Frank-Jan H Drost; Jan F M Verbeek; Sebastiaan Remmers; Geert J L H van Leenders; Chris H Bangma; Monique J Roobol
Journal:  Transl Androl Urol       Date:  2018-02

5.  The future of active surveillance.

Authors:  Laurence Klotz
Journal:  Transl Androl Urol       Date:  2018-04

6.  Clinical outcomes in men with prostate cancer who selected active surveillance using a clinical cell cycle risk score.

Authors:  Sanjeev Kaul; Kirk J Wojno; Steven Stone; Brent Evans; Ryan Bernhisel; Stephanie Meek; Richard E D'Anna; Jeffrey Ferguson; Jeffrey Glaser; Todd M Morgan; Jeremy Lieb; Robert Yan; Todd Cohen; Behfar Ehdaie
Journal:  Per Med       Date:  2019-09-04       Impact factor: 2.512

7.  No significant difference in intermediate key outcomes in men with low- and intermediate-risk prostate cancer managed by active surveillance.

Authors:  Karolina Cyll; Sven Löffeler; Birgitte Carlsen; Karin Skogstad; May Lisbeth Plathan; Martin Landquist; Erik Skaaheim Haug
Journal:  Sci Rep       Date:  2022-04-25       Impact factor: 4.996

Review 8.  Active Surveillance in Intermediate-Risk Prostate Cancer: A Review of the Current Data.

Authors:  Leandro Blas; Masaki Shiota; Masatoshi Eto
Journal:  Cancers (Basel)       Date:  2022-08-27       Impact factor: 6.575

Review 9.  Rethinking active surveillance for prostate cancer in African American men.

Authors:  Gabriel Z Leinwand; Andrew T Gabrielson; Louis S Krane; Jonathan L Silberstein
Journal:  Transl Androl Urol       Date:  2018-09
  9 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.