The role of active surveillance in the management of prostate cancer
From the aDepartment of Radiation Oncology, Roswell Park Cancer Institute, Buffalo, New York, and bDepartment of Urology, UCSF Helen Diller Family Comprehensive Cancer Center, University of California, San Francisco, California. Journal of the National Comprehensive Cancer Network: JNCCN
(Impact Factor: 4.18).
In 2010, NCCN incorporated active surveillance (AS) into the NCCN Clinical Practice Guidelines in Oncology for Prostate Cancer, and the 2012 update serves as an excellent resource with the most current evidence regarding treatment options for men with all stages of disease. However, the lack of clinical trials that directly compare various treatment modalities or identify the best management, especially for men with low-risk prostate cancer, makes the decision-making process difficult for both patients and physicians. Although general agreement exists on definitions of candidates for AS-men with low-volume and low-grade disease thought to be at low risk for rapid progression-several key issues remain in establishing and supporting the role of AS in the management of prostate cancer, such as optimal timing and appropriate triggers for active treatment. The decision to initially pursue AS rather than active treatment after prostate cancer diagnosis is complex and involves myriad factors, including estimation of life expectancy, consideration of quality of life, and assessment of ultimate oncologic outcome.
Available from: Gary Chien
The Journal of Urology 04/2014; 191(4):e57-e58. DOI:10.1016/j.juro.2014.02.239 · 4.47 Impact Factor
[Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
ABSTRACT: Physicians managing patients with prostate cancer play a critical role in subsequent specialist consultations and initial treatment choice, especially in cases for which no consensus exists regarding optimal treatment strategy. The NCCN Guidelines for Prostate Cancer recommend radiation as a therapy option for patients with locoregional prostate cancer.
The authors examined the association of urologist characteristics with the likelihood that patients would consult radiation oncologists.
A retrospective cohort of 39,934 patients aged 66 years or older who were diagnosed with locoregional prostate cancer between 2004 and 2007, and the 2405 urologists who performed the patient diagnostic biopsies were constructed using the SEER-Medicare linked database and the American Medical Association Physician Masterfile. Logistic multilevel regression analysis was used to evaluate the influence of urologists' characteristics on radiation oncologist consultation within 9 months of locoregional prostate cancer diagnosis.
Overall, 24,549 (61.5%) patients consulted a radiation oncologist. After adjusting for patient and urologist characteristics, patients diagnosed by urologists in noninstitutional settings (eg, physician office) were significantly more likely to consult a radiation oncologist (odds ratio [OR], 1.40; 95% CI, 1.17-1.67; P=.0002) compared with those diagnosed by urologists in institutional settings with a major medical school affiliation. In addition, patients diagnosed by urologists older than 57 years were significantly more likely to consult a radiation oncologist (OR, 1.21; 95% CI, 1.07-1.38, P=.003).
Copyright © 2015 by the National Comprehensive Cancer Network.
Journal of the National Comprehensive Cancer Network: JNCCN 03/2015; 13(3):303-9. · 4.18 Impact Factor
[Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
ABSTRACT: The aim of the present study was to examine the impact of low-frequency, low-intensity ultrasound (US)-stimulated microbubbles (USMB) on radiofrequency ablation (RFA) in the treatment of nude mice with human prostate cancer xenografts. The tumor‑bearing nude mice were divided into three groups: The USMB+RFA group was treated with USMB immediately followed by RFA, the RFA group was treated with RFA alone, and the control group remained untreated. The animals underwent enhanced US to calculate the tumor volumes, ablation volumes and ablation rates. Subsequently, the tumors were excised for hematoxylin and eosin staining, to identify necrosis in the tumors following the treatments, and immunohistochemical staining, to analyze the apoptotic index (AI), proliferative index (PI) and microvessel density (MVD) at 1, 4 and 7 days post-treatment. Each group contained five mice at each time‑point. Necrosis was apparent in the center of the tumors in the treatment groups. Ablation lesion volumes of the USMB+RFA group were larger than those in the RFA group at 1 and 4 days post‑treatment (P=0.002 and P=0.022, respectively), and the ablation rates of the USMB+RFA group were significantly higher, compared with the RFA group at the three time‑points (all P<0.001). There were fewer apoptotic cells and more proliferative cells in the RFA group, compared with the control group 1,4 and 7 days post‑treatment (all P<0.05). The AI of the USMB+RFA group was higher than that of the control group and lower than that of the RFA group 1 day post-treatment (P=0.034 and P=0.016, respectively). The PI of the USMB+RFA group was lower than that of the control group and higher than that of the RFA group 4 and 7 days post-treatment (all P<0.05). No significant differences were observed in MVD among the three groups throughout the experiment. In conclusion, exposure to USMB prior to RFA produced larger volumes of ablation, compared with treatment with RFA alone, and increased AI and reduced PI in the residual carcinoma cells induced by RFA.
Molecular Medicine Reports 10/2015; 12(5). DOI:10.3892/mmr.2015.4375 · 1.55 Impact Factor
Data provided are for informational purposes only. Although carefully collected, accuracy cannot be guaranteed. The impact factor represents a rough estimation of the journal's impact factor and does not reflect the actual current impact factor. Publisher conditions are provided by RoMEO. Differing provisions from the publisher's actual policy or licence agreement may be applicable.