1464-410X/asset/olbannerleft.gif?v=1&s=3b023a287baccfcd7715cf1935101c4ef9feb906)
1464-410X/asset/olbannerright.gif?v=1&s=2aeadcb16d199baae496a2f637919008651befce)
You have full text access to this OnlineOpen article
Testing the most stringent criteria for selection of candidates for active surveillance in patients with low-risk prostate cancer
Article first published online: 13 NOV 2009
DOI: 10.1111/j.1464-410X.2009.09057.x
© 2009 THE AUTHORS. JOURNAL COMPILATION © 2009 BJU INTERNATIONAL
Additional Information
How to Cite
Suardi, N., Briganti, A., Gallina, A., Salonia, A., Karakiewicz, P. I., Capitanio, U., Freschi, M., Cestari, A., Guazzoni, G., Rigatti, P. and Montorsi, F. (2010), Testing the most stringent criteria for selection of candidates for active surveillance in patients with low-risk prostate cancer. BJU International, 105: 1548–1552. doi: 10.1111/j.1464-410X.2009.09057.x
Publication History
- Issue published online: 10 MAY 2010
- Article first published online: 13 NOV 2009
- Accepted for publication 12 August 2009
REFERENCES
- 1, , et al. Cancer statistics, 2008. CA Cancer J Clin 2008; 58: 71–96
- 2, , et al. Early outcomes of active surveillance for localized prostate cancer. BJU Int 2005; 95: 956–60
- 3, , , , , . Active surveillance; a reasonable management alternative for patients with prostate cancer: the Miami experience. BJU Int 2008; 101: 165–9
- 4. Active surveillance for prostate cancer: for whom? J Clin Oncol 2005; 23: 8165–9
- 5, , et al. Outcomes of men with screen-detected prostate cancer eligible for active surveillance who were managed expectantly. Eur Urol 2009 (in press)
- 6, , , . Expectant management of nonpalpable prostate cancer with curative intent: preliminary results. J Urol 2002; 167: 1231–4
- 7, , et al. Expectant management of prostate cancer with curative intent: an update of the Johns Hopkins experience. J Urol 2007; 178: 2359–65
- 8, , , . Outcomes following active surveillance of men with localized prostate cancer diagnosed in the prostate specific antigen era. J Urol 2008; 180: 1336–41
- 9, , et al. Active surveillance for prostate cancers detected in three subsequent rounds of a screening trial: characteristics, PSA doubling times, and outcome. Eur Urol 2007; 51: 1244– 51
- 10, , , , , . Surveillance and deferred treatment for localized prostate cancer. Population based study in the National Prostate Cancer Register of Sweden. J Urol 2008; 180: 2423–30
- 11, , et al. Predictors of histological disease progression in untreated, localized prostate cancer. J Urol 2007; 178: 833–7
- 12, , , , . Delayed versus immediate surgical intervention and prostate cancer outcome. J Natl Cancer Inst 2006; 98: 355–7
- 13, , , . Pathologic and clinical findings to predict tumor extent of nonpalpable (stage T1c) prostate cancer. JAMA 1994; 271: 368–74
- 14, , , . Zonal distribution of prostatic adenocarcinoma. Correlation with histologic pattern and direction of spread. Am J Surg Pathol 1988; 12: 897–906
- 15, , et al. Feasibility study: watchful waiting for localized low to intermediate grade prostate carcinoma with selective delayed intervention based on prostate specific antigen, histological and/or clinical progression. J Urol 2002; 167: 1664–9
- 16, , et al. Currently used criteria for active surveillance in men with low-risk prostate cancer: an analysis of pathologic features. Cancer 2008; 113: 2068–72
- 17, , et al. Predicting the probability of deferred radical treatment for localised prostate cancer managed by active surveillance. Eur Urol 2008; 54: 1297–305
- 18, , et al. Active surveillance for the management of prostate cancer in a contemporary cohort. Cancer 2008; 112: 2664–70
- 19, , et al. A nomogram for predicting low-volume /low-grade prostate cancer: a tool in selecting patients for active surveillance. Cancer 2007; 110: 2441–7
- 20, , et al. Gleason score 7 screen-detected prostate cancers initially managed expectantly: outcomes in 50 men. BJU Int 2009; 103: 1472–7
- 21, , , , , . Pathological upgrading and up staging with immediate repeat biopsy in patients eligible for active surveillance. J Urol 2008; 180: 1964–8
- 22, , et al. How much does Gleason grade of follow-up biopsy differ from that of initial biopsy in untreated, Gleason score 4–7, clinically localized prostate cancer? Prostate 2007; 67: 1614–20
- 23, , et al. Significant upgrading affects a third of men diagnosed with prostate cancer: predictive nomogram and internal validation. BJU Int 2006; 98: 329–34
- 24, , et al. The probability of Gleason score upgrading between biopsy and radical prostatectomy can be accurately predicted. Int J Urol 2009; 16: 526–9
- 25, , , . What percentage of patients with newly diagnosed carcinoma of the prostate are candidates for surveillance? An analysis of the CaPSURE database. J Urol 2008; 180: 1330–5