Page 152 - An Evidence Review of Active Surveillance in Men With Localized Prostate Cancer
P. 152
105. Draisma G, Etzioni R, Tsodikov A, et al. 115. Adamy A, Yee DS, Matsushita K, et al. Role
Lead time and overdiagnosis in prostate- of prostate specific antigen and immediate
specific antigen screening: importance of confirmatory biopsy in predicting
methods and context. J Natl Cancer Inst progression during active surveillance for
2009;101:374-383. low risk prostate cancer. J Urol
106. Patel MI, DeConcini DT, Lopez-Corona E, 2011;185:477-482.
et al. An analysis of men with clinically 116. Metcalfe C, Tilling K, Davis M, et al.
localized prostate cancer who deferred Current strategies for monitoring men with
definitive therapy. J Urol 2004;171:1520- localised prostate cancer lack a strong
1524. evidence base: observational longitudinal
study. Br J Cancer 2009;101:390-394.
107. Al OM, Ross P, Fahmy N, et al. Role of
repeated biopsy of the prostate in predicting 117. San F I, Werner L, Regan MM, et al. Risk
disease progression in patients with prostate stratification and validation of prostate
cancer on active surveillance. Cancer specific antigen density as independent
2008;113:286-292. predictor of progression in men with low
108. Ercole B, Marietti SR, Fine J, et al. risk prostate cancer during active
surveillance. J Urol 2011;185:471-476.
Outcomes following active surveillance of
men with localized prostate cancer 118. Kakehi Y, Kamoto T, Shiraishi T, et al.
diagnosed in the prostate specific antigen Prospective evaluation of selection criteria
era. J Urol 2008;180:1336-1339. for active surveillance in Japanese patients
with stage T1cN0M0 prostate cancer. Jpn J
109. Eggener SE, Mueller A, Berglund RK, et al. Clin Oncol 2008;38:122-128.
A multi-institutional evaluation of active
surveillance for low risk prostate cancer. J 119. Miocinovic R, Jones JS, Pujara AC, et al.
Urol 2009;181:1635-1641. Acceptance and durability of surveillance as
a management choice in men with screen-
110. Soloway MS, Soloway CT, Williams S, et detected, low-risk prostate cancer: improved
al. Active surveillance; a reasonable outcomes with stringent enrollment criteria.
management alternative for patients with Urology 2011;77:980-984.
prostate cancer: the Miami experience. BJU
Int 2008;101:165-169. 120. van den Bergh RC, Vasarainen H, van der
Poel HG, et al. Short-term outcomes of the
111. Dall’era MA, Konety BR, Cowan JE, et al. prospective multicentre 'Prostate Cancer
Active surveillance for the management of Research International: Active Surveillance'
prostate cancer in a contemporary cohort. study. BJU Int 2010;105:956-962.
Cancer 2008;112:2664-2670.
121. Newcomb LF, Brooks JD, Carroll PR, et al.
112. Hardie C, Parker C, Norman A, et al. Early Canary Prostate Active Surveillance Study:
outcomes of active surveillance for localized design of a multi-institutional active
prostate cancer. BJU Int 2005;95:956-960. surveillance cohort and biorepository.
113. Ross AE, Loeb S, Landis P, et al. Prostate- Urology 2010;75:407-413.
specific antigen kinetics during follow-up 122. Gorin MA, Soloway CT, Eldefrawy A, et al.
are an unreliable trigger for intervention in a Factors that influence patient enrollment in
prostate cancer surveillance program. J Clin active surveillance for low-risk prostate
Oncol 2010;28:2810-2816.
cancer. Urology 2011;77:588-591.
114. Choo R, Deboer G, Klotz L, et al. PSA 123. Soloway MS, Soloway CT, Eldefrawy A, et
doubling time of prostate carcinoma al. Careful selection and close monitoring of
managed with watchful observation alone. low-risk prostate cancer patients on active
Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 2001;50:615- surveillance minimizes the need for
620. treatment. Eur Urol 2010;58:831-835.
124. Venkitaraman R, Norman A, Woode-
Amissah R, et al. Prostate-specific antigen
velocity in untreated, localized prostate
cancer. BJU Int 2008;101:161-164.
98
