scholarly journals Does extent of prostate-specific antigen fluctuation can predict Gleason score upgrading in low-risk prostate cancer patients?

2019 ◽  
Vol 45 (-1) ◽  
pp. 42-48
Author(s):  
Nurullah Hamidi ◽  
◽  
Ali Fuat Atmaca ◽  
Abdullah Erdem Canda ◽  
Murat Keske ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Prostate Cancer ◽  
Cancer Patients ◽  
Prostate Specific Antigen ◽  
Gleason Score ◽  
Specific Antigen ◽  
Low Risk ◽  
Risk Prostate Cancer ◽  
Low Risk Prostate Cancer

Neutrophil, Platelets, and Eosinophil to Lymphocyte Ratios Predict Gleason Score Upgrading in Low-Risk Prostate Cancer Patients

2018 ◽  
Vol 102 (1) ◽  
pp. 43-50 ◽  
Author(s):  
Matteo Ferro ◽  
Gennaro Musi ◽  
Alessandro Serino ◽  
Gabriele Cozzi ◽  
Francesco Alessandro Mistretta ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Prostate Cancer ◽  
Cancer Patients ◽  
Gleason Score ◽  
Low Risk ◽  
Risk Prostate Cancer ◽  
Low Risk Prostate Cancer

Lifelong Yearly Prostate Specific Antigen Surveillance is Not Necessary for Low Risk Prostate Cancer Treated With Radical Prostatectomy

2010 ◽  
Vol 184 (3) ◽  
pp. 925-929 ◽  
Author(s):  
Matthew K. Tollefson ◽  
Michael L. Blute ◽  
Laureano J. Rangel ◽  
R. Jeffrey Karnes ◽  
Igor Frank
Keyword(s):  
Prostate Cancer ◽  
Radical Prostatectomy ◽  
Prostate Specific Antigen ◽  
Specific Antigen ◽  
Low Risk ◽  
Risk Prostate Cancer ◽  
Low Risk Prostate Cancer

scholarly journals Can we expand the borders in active surveillance for low-risk prostate cancer?

2018 ◽  
Vol 12 (1) ◽  
pp. 54-59
Author(s):  
Ekrem Islamoglu ◽  
Erdem Kisa ◽  
Cem Yucel ◽  
Orcun Celik ◽  
Ozgur Cakmak ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Prostate Cancer ◽  
Prostate Specific Antigen ◽  
Active Surveillance ◽  
Specific Antigen ◽  
Low Risk ◽  
Significant Difference ◽  
Risk Prostate Cancer ◽  
Low Risk Prostate Cancer ◽  
The Mean

Purpose: We assessed the outcomes of men with low-risk prostate cancer enrolled in active surveillance. Methods: From January 2008, patients in our clinic who were classified as having low-risk prostate cancer according to the D’Amico classification were included in the protocol. Follow-up consisted of regular prostate-specific antigen tests, digital rectal examinations and biopsies. Outcomes were compared between men who progressed and those who did not, and survival analysis was obtained. Results: The mean follow-up period was 46 months. A total of six patients received curative treatment during follow-up as a result of meeting progression criteria. The mean follow-up time from the beginning of active surveillance until curative therapy was 27.1 months. Four of our 64 patients lost their lives due to diseases other than prostate cancer, none of the patients were lost due to prostate cancer. When patients who showed progression and those who did not were compared in terms of positive core numbers and the core tumour percentage we found no significant difference between the two groups ( P>0.05) Conclusion: Active surveillance seems to be a safe and feasible practice in men with low-risk prostate cancer. Gleason score, clinical stage and initial prostate-specific antigen seem to be the most definite criteria for the selection of patients, while it is thought that the number of positive cores is a matter that can be dealt with more flexibility. Level of evidence: Not applicable for this multicentre audit.

scholarly journals An assessment of Prostate Cancer Research International: Active Surveillance (PRIAS) criteria for active surveillance of clinically low-risk prostate cancer patients

2017 ◽  
Vol 11 (8) ◽  
pp. 238-43 ◽  
Author(s):  
Vitor Da Silva ◽  
Ilias Cagiannos ◽  
Luke T. Lavallée ◽  
Ranjeeta Mallick ◽  
Kelsey Witiuk ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Prostate Cancer ◽  
Cancer Research ◽  
Cancer Patients ◽  
Active Surveillance ◽  
Specific Antigen ◽  
Low Risk ◽  
Risk Prostate Cancer ◽  
Low Risk Prostate Cancer ◽  
Psa Recurrence ◽  
Prostate Cancer Research

Introduction: Active surveillance is a strategy to delay or prevent treatment of indolent prostate cancer. The Prostate Cancer Research International: Active Surveillance (PRIAS) criteria were developed to select patients for prostate cancer active surveillance. The objective of this study was to compare pathological findings from PRIAS-eligible and PRIAS-ineligible clinically low-risk prostate cancer patients.Methods: A D’Amico low-risk cohort of 1512 radical prostatectomy patients treated at The Ottawa Hospital or Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Centre between January 1995 and December 2007 was reviewed. Pathological outcomes (pT3 tumours, Gleason sum ≥7, lymph node metastases, or a composite) and clinical outcomes (prostate-specific antigen [PSA] recurrence, secondary cancer treatments, and death) were compared between PRIAS-eligible and PRIAS-ineligible cohorts.Results: The PRIAS-eligible cohort (n=945) was less likely to have Gleason score ≥7 (odds ratio [OR] 0.61; 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.49‒0.75), pT3 (OR 0.41; 95% CI 0.31‒0.55), nodal metastases (OR 0.37; 95% CI 0.10‒1.31), or any adverse feature (OR 0.56; 95% CI 0.45‒0.69) compared to the PRIAS-ineligible cohort. The probability of any adverse pathology in the PRIAS-eligible cohort was 41% vs. 56% in the PRIAS-ineligible cohort. At median followup of 3.7 years, 72 (4.8%) patients had a PSA recurrence, 24 (1.6%) received pelvic radiation, and 13 (0.9%) received androgen deprivation. No difference was detected for recurrence-free and overall survival between groups (recurrence hazard ratio [HR] 0.71; 95% CI 0.46–1.09 and survival HR 0.72; 95% CI 0.36–1.47).Conclusions: Low-risk prostate cancer patients who met PRIAS eligibility criteria are less likely to have higher-risk cancer compared to those who did not meet at least one of these criteria.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document