Development of a new nomogram to predict insignificant prostate cancer in patients undergoing radical prostatectomy

References

• Siegel R, Ma J, Zou Z, Jemal A. Cancer statistics, 2014. CA Cancer J Clin 2014;64:9–29.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Cooperberg MR, Broering JM, Kantoff PW, Caroll PR. Contemporary trends in low risk prostate cancer: risk assessment and treatment. J Urol 2007;178:S14–S9.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Nam RK, Cheung P, Herschorn S, Saskin R, Su J, Klotz LH, et al. Incidence of complications other than urinary incontinence or erectile dysfunction after radical prostatectomy or radiotherapy for prostate cancer: a population-based cohort study. Lancet Oncol 2014;15:223–31.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sanda MG, Dunn RL, Michalski J, Sandler HM, Northouse L, Hembroff L, et al. Quality of life and satisfaction with outcome among prostate-cancer survivors. N Engl J Med 2008;358:1250–61.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Loeb S, Bjurlin MA, Nicholson J, Tammela TL, Penson DF, Carter HB, et al. Overdiagnosis and overtreatment of prostate cancer. Eur Urol 2014;65:1046–55.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sivaraman A, Barret E. Focal therapy for prostate cancer: an “à la carte” approach . Eur Urol 2016;69:973–5.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Feijoo ER, Sivaraman A, Barret E, Sanchez-Salas R, Gailano M, Rozet F, et al. Focal high-intensity focused ultrasound targeted hemiablation for unilateral prostate cancer: a prospective evaluation of oncologic and functional outcomes. Eur Urol 2016;69:214–20.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ploussard G, Epstein JI, Montironi R, Carroll PR, Wirth M, Grimm MO, et al. The contemporary concept of significant versus insignificant prostate cancer. Eur Urol 2011;60:291–303.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kattan MW, Eastham JA, Wheeler TM, Maru N, Scardino PT, Erbersdobler A, et al. Counseling men with prostate cancer: a nomogram for predicting the presence of small, moderately differentiated, confined tumors. J Urol 2003;170:1792–7.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Roemeling S, Roobol MJ, Kattan MW, van der Kwast TH, Steyerberg EW, Schröder FH. Nomogram use for the prediction of indolent prostate cancer: impact on screen-detected populations. Cancer 2007;110:2218–21.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Steyerberg EW, Roobol MJ, Kattan MW, van der Kwast TH, de Koning HJ, Schröder FH. Prediction of indolent prostate cancer: validation and updating of a prognostic nomogram. J Urol 2007;177:107–12; discussion 112.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• O'Brien BA, Cohen RJ, Ryan A, Sengupta S, Mills J. A new preoperative nomogram to predict minimal prostate cancer: accuracy and error rates compared to other tools to select patients for active surveillance. J Urol 2011;186:1811–7.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Nakanishi H, Wang X, Ochiai A, Trpkov K, Yilmaz A, Donnelly JB, 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.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Chun FK, Haese A, Ahyai SA, Walz J, Suardi N, Capitanio U, et al. Critical assessment of tools to predict clinically insignificant prostate cancer at radical prostatectomy in contemporary men. Cancer 2008;113:701–9.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Nguyen CT, Kattan MW. Formalized prediction of clinically significant prostate cancer: is it possible? Asian J Androl 2012;14:349–54.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wang SY, Cowan JE, Cary KC, Chan JM, Carroll PR, Cooperberg MR. Limited ability of existing nomograms to predict outcomes in men undergoing active surveillance for prostate cancer. BJU Int 2014;114:E18–24.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Noguchi M, Stamey TA, McNeal JE, Yemoto CE. Assessment of morphometric measurements of prostate carcinoma volume. Cancer 2000;89:1056–64.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Epstein JI, Walsh PC, Carmichael M, Brendler CB. Pathologic and clinical findings to predict tumor extent of nonpalpable (stage T1c) prostate cancer. JAMA 1994;271:368–74.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Delongchamps NB, Singh A, Haas GP. The role of prevalence in the diagnosis of prostate cancer. Cancer Control 2006;13:158–68.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Klotz L, Zhang L, Lam A, Nam R, Mamedov A, Loblaw A. Clinical results of long-term follow-up of a large, active surveillance cohort with localized prostate cancer. J Clin Oncol 2010;28:126–31.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Cooperberg MR, Broering JM, Carroll PR. Time trends and local variation in primary treatment of localized prostate cancer. J Clin Oncol 2010;28:1117–23.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kundu SD, Roehl KA, Yu X, Antenor JA, Suarez BK, Catalona WJ. Prostate specific antigen density correlates with features of prostate cancer aggressiveness. J Urol 2007;177:505–9.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kim TH, Jeong JY, Lee SW, Kim CK, Park BK, Sung HH, et al. Diffusion-weighted magnetic resonance imaging for prediction of insignificant prostate cancer in potential candidates for active surveillance. Eur Radiol 2015;25:1786–92.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Yoo S, Kim JK, Jeong IG. Multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging for prostate cancer: a review and update for urologists. Korean J Urol 2015;56:487–97.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Park BH, Jeon HG, Choo SH, Jeong BC, Seo SI, Jeon SS, et al. Role of multiparametric 3.0-Tesla magnetic resonance imaging in patients with prostate cancer eligible for active surveillance. BJU Int 2014;113:864–70.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lee DH, Koo KC, Lee SH, Rha KH, Choi YD, Hong SJ, et al. Low-risk prostate cancer patients without visible tumor (T1c) on multiparametric MRI could qualify for active surveillance candidate even if they did not meet inclusion criteria of active surveillance protocol. Jpn J Clin Oncol 2013;43:553–8.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar