Low-volume grade group 2 prostate cancer candidates for active surveillance: a radical prostatectomy retrospective analysis

References

• Klotz L, Vesprini D, Sethukavalan P, et al. Long-term follow-up of a large active surveillance cohort of patients with prostate cancer. J Clin Oncol. 2015;33(3):272–277.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Carter HB, Walsh PC, Landis P, et al. Expectant management of nonpalpable prostate cancer with curative intent: preliminary results. J Urol. 2002;167(3):1231–1234.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Komisarenko M, Martin LJ, Finelli A. Active surveillance review: contemporary selection criteria, follow-up, compliance and outcomes. Transl Androl Urol. 2018;7(2):243–255.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Klotz LH, Choo R, Morton G, et al. Expectant management with selective delayed intervention for favorable-risk prostate cancer. Can J Urol. 2002;9(Suppl 1):2–7.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Mottet N, van den Bergh RCN, Briers E, et al. EAU-EANM-ESTRO-ESUR-SIOG guidelines on prostate cancer-2020 update. Part 1: screening, diagnosis, and local treatment with curative intent. Eur Urol. 2021;79(2):243–262.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bekelman JE, Rumble RB, Freedland SJ. Clinically localized prostate cancer: ASCO clinical practice guideline endorsement of an AUA/ASTRO/SUO guideline summary. J Oncol Pract. 2018;14(10):618–624.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Klotz L. Active surveillance in intermediate-risk prostate cancer. BJU Int. 2020;125(3):346–354.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Preisser F, Cooperberg MR, Crook J, et al. Intermediate-risk prostate cancer: stratification and management. Eur Urol Oncol. 2020;3(3):270–280.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ploussard G, Isbarn H, Briganti A, et al. Can we expand active surveillance criteria to include biopsy gleason 3 + 4 prostate cancer? A multi-institutional study of 2,323 patients. Urol Oncol. 2015;33(2):71 e1–9.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Patel P, Sun R, Shiff B, et al. The effect of time from biopsy to radical prostatectomy on adverse pathologic outcomes. Res Rep Urol. 2019;11:53–60.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Vickers A, Carlsson SV, Cooperberg M. Routine use of magnetic resonance imaging for early detection of prostate cancer is not justified by the clinical trial evidence. Eur Urol. 2020;78(3):304–306.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• van As NJ, Norman AR, Thomas K, et al. Predicting the probability of deferred radical treatment for localised prostate cancer managed by active surveillance. Eur Urol. 2008;54(6):1297–1305.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bul M, Zhu X, Valdagni R, et al. Active surveillance for low-risk prostate cancer worldwide: the PRIAS study. Eur Urol. 2013;63(4):597–603.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Adamy A, Yee DS, Matsushita K, et al. Role of prostate specific antigen and immediate confirmatory biopsy in predicting progression during active surveillance for low risk prostate cancer. J Urol. 2011;185(2):477–482.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bill-Axelson A, Holmberg L, Garmo H, et al. Radical prostatectomy or watchful waiting in prostate cancer - 29-Year follow-up. N Engl J Med. 2018;379(24):2319–2329.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Zlotta AR, Egawa S, Pushkar D, et al. Prevalence of prostate cancer on autopsy: cross-sectional study on unscreened caucasian and asian men. J Natl Cancer Inst. 2013;105(14):1050–1058.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Carlsson S, Benfante N, Alvim R, et al. Risk of metastasis in men with grade group 2 prostate cancer managed with active surveillance at a tertiary cancer center. J Urol. 2020;203(6):1117–1121.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Yamamoto T, Musunuru HB, Vesprini D, et al. Metastatic prostate cancer in men initially treated with active surveillance. J Urol. 2016 May;195(5):1409–1414.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Patel HD, Gupta M, Tosoian JJ, et al. Subtyping the risk of intermediate risk prostate cancer for active surveillance based on adverse pathology at radical prostatectomy. J Urol. 2018;200(5):1068–1074.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Godtman RA, Holmberg E, Khatami A, et al. Long-term results of active surveillance in the goteborg randomized, population-based prostate cancer screening trial. Eur Urol. 2016;70(5):760–766.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Huang CC, Kong MX, Zhou M, et al. Gleason score 3 + 4=7 prostate cancer with minimal quantity of gleason pattern 4 on needle biopsy is associated with low-risk tumor in radical prostatectomy specimen. Am J Surg Pathol. 2014;38(8):1096–1101.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Cole AI, Morgan TM, Spratt DE, et al. Prognostic value of percent gleason grade 4 at prostate biopsy in predicting prostatectomy pathology and recurrence. J Urol. 2016;196(2):405–411.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Perlis N, Sayyid R, Evans A, et al. Limitations in predicting organ confined prostate cancer in patients with gleason pattern 4 on biopsy: implications for active surveillance. J Urol. 2017;197(1):75–83.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Zhang F, Liu CL, Chen Q, et al. Accuracy of multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging for detecting extracapsular extension in prostate cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Br J Radiol. 2019;92(1104):20190480.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ploussard G, Beauval JB, Lesourd M, et al. Active surveillance eligibility of MRI-positive patients with grade group 2 prostate cancer: a pathological study. World J Urol. 2020;38(7):1735–1740.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kovac E, Vertosick EA, Sjoberg DD, et al. Effects of pathological upstaging or upgrading on metastasis and cancer-specific mortality in men with clinical low-risk prostate cancer. BJU Int. 2018;122(6):1003–1009.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar