Evaluation of D'Amico criteria for low-risk prostate cancer

References

• Chun FK, Briganti A, Gallina A, Hutterer GC, Shariat SF, Antebie E, et al. Prostate-specific antigen improves the ability of clinical stage and biopsy Gleason sum to predict the pathologic stage at radical prostatectomy in the new millennium. Eur Urol 2007;52:1067–74.
   Google Scholar
• Epstein JI, Chan DW, Sokoll LJ, Walsh PC, Cox JL, Rittenhouse H, et al. Nonpalpable stage T1c prostate cancer: prediction of insignificant disease using free/total prostate specific antigen levels and needle biopsy findings. J Urol 1998;160:2407–11.
   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
• 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
• Bastian PJ, Mangold LA, Epstein JI, Partin AW. Characteristics of insignificant clinical T1c prostate tumors. A contemporary analysis. Cancer 2004;101:2001–5.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Jeldres C, Suardi N, Walz J, Hutterer GC, Ahyai S, Lattouf JB, et al. Validation of the contemporary Epstein criteria for insignificant prostate cancer in European men. Eur Urol 2008;54:1306–13.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Hekal IA, El-Tabey NA, Nabeeh MA, El-Assmy A, Abd El-Hameed M, Nabeeh A, et al. Validation of Epstein criteria of insignificant prostate cancer in Middle East patients. Int Urol Nephrol 2010;42:667–71.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lee SE, Kim DS, Lee WK, Park HZ, Lee CJ, Doo SH, et al. Application of the Epstein criteria for prediction of clinically insignificant prostate cancer in Korean men. BJU Int 2010;105:1526–30.
   Google Scholar
• D'Amico AV, Whittington R, Malkowicz SB, Schultz D, Blank K, Broderick GA, et al. Biochemical outcome after radical prostatectomy, external beam radiation therapy, or interstitial radiation therapy for clinically localized prostate cancer. JAMA 1998;280:969–74.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kramer NM, Hanlon AL, Horwitz EM, Pinover WH, Hanks GH. Biochemical failure rates in prostate cancer patients predicted to have biologically insignificant tumors treated with three-dimensional conformal radiation therapy. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 2002;53:277–81.
   Google Scholar
• Sengupta S, Blute ML, Bagniewski SM, Inman B, Leibovich BC, Slezak JM, et al. After radical retropubic prostatectomy “insignificant” prostate cancer has a risk of progression similar to low-risk “significant” cancer. BJU Int 2008;101:170–4.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Greene FL, Page DL, Fleming ID, Fritz A, Balch CM, Haller DG, et al. editors. American joint committee on cancer staging manual. 6th ed. New York: Springer; 2002.
   Google Scholar
• Cooperberg MR, Broering JM, Kantoff PW, Carroll PR. Contemporary trends in low risk prostate cancer: risk assessment and treatment. J Urol 2007;178:S14–19.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Stephenson AJ, Scardino PT, Eastham JA, Bianco FJ Jr, Dotan ZA, Fearn PA, et al. Preoperative nomogram predicting the 10-year probability of prostate cancer recurrence after radical prostatectomy. J Natl Cancer Inst 2006;98:715–17.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Cooperberg MR, Pasta DJ, Elkin EP, Litwin MS, Latini DM, Du Chane J, et al. 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. J Urol 2005;173:1938–42.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lughezzani G, Budäus L, Isbarn H, Sun M, Perrotte P, Haese A, et al. Head-to-head comparison of the three most commonly used preoperative models for prediction of biochemical recurrence after radical prostatectomy. Eur Urol 2010;57:562–8.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Mitchell JA, Cooperberg MR, Elkin EP, Lubeck DP, Mehta SS, Kane CJ, et al. Ability of 2 pretreatment risk assessment methods to predict prostate cancer recurrence after radical prostatectomy: data from CaPSURE. J Urol 2005;173:1126–31.
   Google Scholar
• Obek C, Louis P, Civantos F, Soloway MS. Comparison of digital rectal examination and biopsy results with the radical prostatectomy specimen. J Urol 1999;161:494–8.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Smith JA Jr, Scardino PT, Resnick MI, Hernandez AD, Rose SC, Egger MJ. Transrectal ultrasound versus digital rectal examination for the staging of carcinoma of the prostate: results of a prospective, multi-institutional trial. J Urol 1997;157:902–6.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Thickman D, Speers WC, Philpott PJ, Shapiro H. Effect of the number of core biopsies of the prostate on predicting Gleason score of prostate cancer. J Urol 1996;156:110–13.
   Google Scholar
• Cookson MS, Fleshner NE, Soloway SM, Fair WR. Correlation between Gleason score of needle biopsy and radical prostatectomy specimen: accuracy and clinical implications. J Urol 1997;157:559–62.
   Google Scholar
• Milonas D, Grybas A, Auskalnis S, Gudinaviciene I, Baltrimavicius R, Kincius M, et al. Factors predicting Gleason score 6 upgrading after radical prostatectomy. CEJU 2011;64:205–8.
   Google Scholar
• Gofrit ON, Zorn KC, Taxy JB, Lin S, Zagaja GP, Steinberg GD, et al. Predicting the risk of patients with biopsy Gleason score 6 to harbor a higher grade cancer. J Urol 2007;178:1925–8.
   Google Scholar
• Chun FK, Briganti A, Shariat SF, Graefen M, Montorsi F, Erbersdobler A, et al. Significant upgrading affects a third of men diagnosed with prostate cancer: predictive nomogram and internal validation. BJU Int 2006;98:329–34.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hong SK, Han BK, Lee ST, Kim SS, Min KE, Jeong SJ, et al. Prediction of Gleason score upgrading in low-risk prostate cancers diagnosed via multi (> or = 12)-core prostate biopsy. World J Urol 2009;27:271–6.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• El Hajj A, Ploussard G, de la Taille A, Allory Y, Vordos D, Hoznek A, et al. Analysis of outcomes after radical prostatectomy in patients eligible for active surveillance (PRIAS). BJU Int 2013;111:53–9.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Zlotta AR, Egawa S, Pushkar D, Govorov A, Kimura T, Kido M, et al. Prevalence of prostate cancer on autopsy: cross-sectional study on unscreened Caucasian and Asian men. J Natl Cancer Inst 2013;105:1050–8.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Milonas D, Baltrimavicius R, Grybas A, Gudinaviciene I, Trumbeckas D, Kincius M, et al. Outcome of surgery in locally advanced pT3a prostate cancer. CEJU 2011;64:209–12.
   Google Scholar
• Nakanishi H, Groskopf J, Fritsche HA, Bhadkamkar V, Blase A, Kumar SV, et al. PCA3 molecular urine assay correlates with prostate cancer tumor volume: implication in selecting candidates for active surveillance. J Urol 2008;179:1804–9.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Leman ES, Cannon GW, Trock BJ, Sokoll LJ, Chan DW, Mangold L, et al. EPCA-2: a highly specific serum marker for prostate cancer. Urology 2007;69:714–20.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Klein EA, Stephenson AJ, Raghavan D, Dreicer R. Systems pathology and predicting outcome after radical prostatectomy. J Clin Oncol 2008;26:3916–17.
   Google Scholar