Poor association between the progression criteria in active surveillance and subsequent histopathological findings following radical prostatectomy

References

• Thomsen FB, Brasso K, Klotz LH, Andreas Røder M, Berg KD, Iversen P. Active surveillance for clinically localized prostate cancer - a systematic review. J Surg Oncol 2014;109:830–5.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Duffield AS, Lee TK, Miyamoto H, Carter HB, Epstein JI. Radical prostatectomy findings in patients in whom active surveillance of prostate cancer fails. J Urol 2009;182:2274–8.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Seiler D, Randazzo M, Klotz L, Grobholz R, Baumgartner M, Isbarn H, et al. Pathological stage distribution in patients treated with radical prostatectomy reflecting the need for protocol-based active surveillance: results from a contemporary European patient cohort. BJU Int 2012;110:195–200.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bul M, Zhu X, Rannikko A, Staerman F, Valdagni R, Pickles T, et al. Radical prostatectomy for low-risk prostate cancer following initial active surveillance: results from a prospective observational study. Eur Urol 2012;62:195–200.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Han JS, Toll AD, Amin A, Carter HB, Landis P, Lee S, et al. Low prostate-specific antigen and no Gleason score upgrade despite more extensive cancer during active surveillance predicts insignificant prostate cancer at radical prostatectomy. Urology 2012;80:883–8.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hong SK, Sternberg IA, Keren Paz GE, Kim PH, Touijer KA, Scardino PT, et al. Definitive pathology at radical prostatectomy is commonly favorable in men following initial active surveillance. Eur Urol 2014;66:214–19.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Louie-Johnsun M, Neill M, Treurnicht K, Jarmulowicz M, Eden C. Final outcomes of patients with low-risk prostate cancer suitable for active surveillance but treated surgically. BJU Int 2009;104:1501–4.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Conti SL, Dall’Era M, Fradet V, Cowan JE, Simko J, Carroll PR, et al. Pathological outcomes of candidates for active surveillance of prostate cancer. J Urol 2009;181:1628–34.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Dall’Era MA, Cowan JE, Simko J, Shinohara K, Davies B, Konety BR, et al. Surgical management after active surveillance for low-risk prostate cancer: pathological outcomes compared with men undergoing immediate treatment. BJU Int 2011;107:1232–7.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ploussard G, Salomon L, Xylinas E, Allory Y, Vordos D, Hoznek A, et al. Pathological findings and prostate specific antigen outcomes after radical prostatectomy in men eligible for active surveillance - does the risk of misclassification vary according to biopsy criteria? J Urol 2010;183:539–44.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Mufarrij P, Sankin A, Godoy G, Lepor H. Pathologic outcomes of candidates for active surveillance undergoing radical prostatectomy. Urology 2010;76:689–92.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Oliveira IS, Pontes-Junior J, Abe DK, Crippa A, Oglio MF, Nesralah AJ, et al. Undergrading and understaging in patients with clinically insignificant prostate cancer who underwent radical prostatectomy. Int Braz J Urol 2010;36:292–9.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Suardi N, Briganti A, Gallina A, Salonia A, Karakiewicz PI, Capitanio U, et al. Testing the most stringent criteria for selection of candidates for active surveillance in patients with low-risk prostate cancer. BJU Int 2010;105:1548–52.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kang DI, Jang TL, Jeong J, Choi EY, Johnson K, Lee DH, et al. Pathological findings following radical prostatectomy in patients who are candidates for active surveillance: impact of varying PSA levels. Asian J Androl 2011;13:838–41.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Beauval J-B, Ploussard G, Soulié M, Pfister C, Van Agt S, Vincendeau S, et al. Pathologic findings in radical prostatectomy specimens from patients eligible for active surveillance with highly selective criteria: a multicenter study. Urology 2012;80:656–60.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Behbahani TE, Ellinger J, Caratozzolo DG, Müller SC. Pathological outcomes of men eligible for active surveillance after undergoing radical prostatectomy: are results predictable? Clin Genitourin Cancer 2012;10:32–6.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Drouin SJ, Comperat E, Cussenot O, Bitker M-O, Haertig A, Rouprêt M. Clinical characteristics and pathologic findings in patients eligible for active surveillance who underwent radical prostatectomy. Urol Oncol 2012;30:402–7.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Mullins JK, Han M, Pierorazio PM, Partin AW, Carter HB. Radical prostatectomy outcome in men 65 years old or older with low risk prostate cancer. Urology 2012;187:1620–5.
   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
• Iremashvili V, Pelaez L, Manoharan M, Jorda M, Rosenberg DL, Soloway MS. Pathologic prostate cancer characteristics in patients eligible for active surveillance: a head-to-head comparison of contemporary protocols. Eur Urol 2012;62:462–8.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Palisaar JR, Noldus J, Löppenberg B, von Bodman C, Sommerer F, Eggert T. Comprehensive report on prostate cancer misclassification by 16 currently used low-risk and active surveillance criteria. BJU Int 2012;110:E172–81.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Inoue T, Kinoshita H, Inui H, Komai Y, Nakagawa M, Oguchi N, et al. Pathological outcomes of Japanese men eligible for active surveillance after radical prostatectomy. Int J Clin Oncol 2014;19:379–83.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Epstein JI, Allsbrook WC, Amin MB, Egevad LL. The 2005 International Society of Urological Pathology (ISUP) Consensus Conference on Gleason Grading of Prostatic Carcinoma. Am J Surg Pathol 2005;29:1228–42.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Thomsen FB, Christensen IJ, Brasso K, Røder MA, Iversen P. PSA doubling time as a progression criterion in an active surveillance programme for patients with localised prostate cancer. BJU Int 2014;113:E98–105.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ross AE, Loeb S, Landis P, Partin AW, Epstein JI, Kettermann A, et al. Prostate-specific antigen kinetics during follow-up are an unreliable trigger for intervention in a prostate cancer surveillance program. J Clin Oncol 2010;28:2810–16.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Fall K, Garmo H, Andrén O, Bill-Axelson A, Adolfsson J, Adami H-O, et al. Prostate-specific antigen levels as a predictor of lethal prostate cancer. J Natl Cancer Inst 2007;99:526–32.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Røder MA, Berg KD, Gruschy L, Brasso K, Iversen P. First Danish single-institution experience with radical prostatectomy: biochemical outcome in 1200 consecutive patients. Prostate Cancer 2011;2011:236357.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Van den Bergh RC, Albertsen PC, Bangma CH, Freedland SJ, Graefen M, Vickers A, et al. Timing of curative treatment for prostate cancer: a systematic review. Eur Urol 2013;64:204–15.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar