Publications (100) View all
-
Article: Gleason Score 6 Adenocarcinoma: Should It Be Labeled As Cancer?
Journal of Clinical Oncology 10/2012; · 18.37 Impact Factor -
Article: Prostate Cancer Mortality following Active Surveillance versus Immediate Radical Prostatectomy.
[show abstract] [hide abstract]
ABSTRACT: Propose: Active surveillance has been endorsed for low-risk prostate cancer, but information about long-term outcomes and comparative effectiveness of active surveillance is lacking. The purpose of this study is to project prostate cancer mortality under active surveillance followed by radical prostatectomy versus under immediate radical prostatectomy. Experimental design: A simulation model was developed to combine information on time from diagnosis to treatment under active surveillance and associated disease progression from a Johns Hopkins active surveillance cohort (n = 769), time from radical prostatectomy to recurrence from cases in the CaPSURE database with T-stage ≤ T2a (n = 3,470), and time from recurrence to prostate cancer death from a T-stage ≤ T2a Johns Hopkins cohort of patients whose disease recurred after radical prostatectomy (n = 963). Results were projected for a hypothetical cohort aged 40 to 90 years with low-risk prostate cancer (T-stage ≤ T2a, Gleason score ≤ 6, and prostate-specific antigen level ≤ 10 ng/mL). RESULTS: The model projected that 2.8% of men on active surveillance and 1.6% of men with immediate radical prostatectomy would die of their disease in 20 years. Corresponding lifetime estimates were 3.4% for active surveillance and 2.0% for immediate radical prostatectomy. The average projected increase in life expectancy associated with immediate radical prostatectomy was 1.8 months. On average, the model projected that men on active surveillance would remain free of treatment for an additional 6.4 years relative to men treated immediately. CONCLUSIONS: Active surveillance is likely to produce a very modest decline in prostate cancer-specific survival among men diagnosed with low-risk prostate cancer but could lead to significant benefits in terms of quality of life. Clin Cancer Res; 18(19); 5471-8. ©2012 AACR.Clinical Cancer Research 09/2012; 18(19):5471-5478. · 7.74 Impact Factor -
Article: Active Surveillance for Prostate Cancer: A Systematic Review of the Literature.
[show abstract] [hide abstract]
ABSTRACT: CONTEXT: Prostate cancer (PCa) remains an increasingly common malignancy worldwide. The optimal management of clinically localized, early-stage disease remains unknown, and profound quality of life issues surround PCa interventions. OBJECTIVE: To systematically summarize the current literature on the management of low-risk PCa with active surveillance (AS), with a focus on patient selection, outcomes, and future research needs. EVIDENCE ACQUISITION: A comprehensive search of the PubMed and Embase databases from 1980 to 2011 was performed to identify studies pertaining to AS for PCa. The search terms used included prostate cancer and active surveillance or conservative management or watchful waiting or expectant management. Selected studies for outcomes analysis had to provide a comprehensive description of entry characteristics, criteria for surveillance, and indicators for further intervention. EVIDENCE SYNTHESIS: Data from seven large AS series were reviewed. Inclusion criteria for surveillance vary among studies, and eligibility therefore varies considerably (4-82%). PCa-specific mortality remains low (0-1%), with the longest published median follow-up being 6.8 yr. Up to one-third of patients receive secondary therapy after a median of about 2.5 yr of surveillance. Surveillance protocols and triggers for intervention vary among institutions. Most patients are treated for histologic reclassification (27-100%) or prostate-specific antigen doubling time <3 yr (13-48%), while 7-13% are treated with no evidence of progression. Repeat prostate biopsy with a minimum of 12 cores appears to be important for monitoring patients for changes in tumor histology over time. CONCLUSIONS: AS for PCa offers an opportunity to limit intervention to patients who will likely benefit the most from radical treatment. This approach confers a low risk of disease-specific mortality in the short to intermediate term. An early, confirmatory biopsy is essential for limiting the risk of underestimating tumor grade and amount.European urology 06/2012; · 7.67 Impact Factor -
Article: Radical prostatectomy outcome in men 65 years old or older with low risk prostate cancer.
[show abstract] [hide abstract]
ABSTRACT: A recent update of the Scandinavian Prostate Cancer Group Study-4 concluded that men older than 65 years treated with radical prostatectomy had no survival advantage compared to men treated with watchful waiting. We examined the proportion and outcomes of men 65 years old or older with low risk disease who underwent radical prostatectomy at our institution. Our institutional radical prostatectomy database with more than 19,000 patients was queried for men 65 years old or older with low risk prostate cancer. Pathological and survival outcomes were assessed. Subanalysis was done on men 70 years old or older to determine whether outcomes among older men differed by age. A total of 1,560 men (8.1%) 65 years old or older with low risk prostate cancer underwent radical prostatectomy between 1983 and 2010. After radical prostatectomy 38.3% of the men had evidence of more aggressive cancer, including Gleason score 7 or greater, or extraprostatic extension. After radical prostatectomy actuarial 5, 10 and 15-year biochemical recurrence-free survival was 93.2%, 89.2% and 82.2%, prostate cancer specific survival was 99.7%, 98.4% and 97.2%, and overall survival was 96.1%, 83.5% and 60.2%, respectively. Fewer than 10% of men treated with radical prostatectomy at our institution were 65 years old or older with low risk prostate cancer. Despite a high prevalence of aggressive disease discovered at surgery these men experienced excellent long-term survival. Treatment recommendations in older men with low risk prostate cancer should be made after careful consideration of life expectancy based on comorbidities and potential adverse outcomes of treatment.The Journal of urology 03/2012; 187(5):1620-5. · 4.02 Impact Factor -
Article: Management of low (favourable)-risk prostate cancer.
[show abstract] [hide abstract]
ABSTRACT: What's known on the subject? and What does the study add? Most men who are diagnosed with favourable-risk prostate cancer undergo some form of active intervention, despite evidence that treatment will not improve health outcomes for many. The decision to undergo treatment after diagnosis is, in part, related to the inability to precisely determine the long-term risk of harm without treatment. Nevertheless, physicians should consider patient age, overall health, and preferences for living with cancer and the potential side effects of curative treatments, before recommending a management option. This is especially important for older men, given the high level of evidence that those with low-risk disease are unlikely to accrue any benefit from curative intervention. What is known on the subject: Over treatment of favourable-risk prostate cancer is common, especially among older men. What does the study add: A review of the natural history of favourable-risk prostate cancer in the context of choices for management of the disease. • The management of favourable-risk prostate cancer is controversial, and in the absence of controlled trials to inform best practice, choices are driven by personal beliefs with resultant wide variation in practice patterns. • Men with favourable-risk prostate cancer diagnosed today often undergo treatments that will not improve overall health outcomes. • A shared-decision approach for selecting optimal management of favourable-risk disease should account for patient age, overall health, and preferences for living with cancer and the potential side effects of curative treatments.BJU International 12/2011; 108(11):1684-95. · 2.84 Impact Factor
