TREATMENT OPTIONS FOR LOCALIZED PROSTATE CANCER: QUALITY-ADJUSTED LIFE YEARS AND THE EFFECTS OF LEAD-TIME
|
|
- Marybeth Cunningham
- 5 years ago
- Views:
Transcription
1 ADULT UROLOGY TREATMENT OPTIONS FOR LOCALIZED PROSTATE CANCER: QUALITY-ADJUSTED LIFE YEARS AND THE EFFECTS OF LEAD-TIME VIBHA BHATNAGAR, SUSAN T. STEWART, WILLIAM W. BONNEY, AND ROBERT M. KAPLAN ABSTRACT Objectives. The purposes of this study were to estimate the difference in quality-adjusted life-years between conservative management and prostatectomy or radiotherapy (RT) by clinical Gleason score (2 to 4, 5 to 6, 7, and 8 to 10) for patients aged 55 years and older with clinically localized prostate cancer and to adjust for and explore the effects of lead-time. For localized prostate cancer, it is not known whether treatment (prostatectomy or RT) results in longer quality-adjusted survival than conservative management. Observed survival benefits after treatment may be biased by the lead-time resulting from early diagnosis with prostate-specific antigen screening. Methods. A Markov simulation was developed, and transition probabilities were derived from a review of published studies. Utility weights were measured in male volunteers older than 60 years. Estimates of disease progression during conservative management were adjusted for lead-time. Sensitivity analyses were performed on all parameters (including estimates for lead-time). Results. For Gleason score 2 to 4 cancer, conservative management yielded the greatest number of quality-adjusted life-years. For Gleason score 5 to 6 cancer, any of the options appeared beneficial, depending on the estimates for disease progression. For Gleason score 7 to 10 cancer, prostatectomy and RT resulted in more quality-adjusted life-years than conservative management; with a lead-time adjustment of greater than 10 years, the outcomes with conservative management and prostatectomy were similar. The choice between prostatectomy and RT was sensitive to estimates of disease progression after treatment. Conclusions. Conservative management is a reasonable option for Gleason score 2 to 4 cancer and for some patients with Gleason score 5 to 6 cancer. Prostatectomy or RT is recommended for Gleason score 7 to 10 cancer. The survival benefits after treatment were not explained by the lead-time alone. UROLOGY 63: , Elsevier Inc. This study was supported by the NIH (training grant 5T32- CA81211), American Cancer Society (grant TPRH PBP), and Centers for Disease Control (grant U57-CCU ). From the Health Services Research and Development, Center for Patient Oriented Care, Veterans Affairs San Diego Healthcare System, San Diego, California; Department of Family and Preventive Medicine, University of California, San Diego, School of Medicine, La Jolla, California; and Harvard Interfaculty Program for Health Systems Improvement and National Bureau of Economic Research, Cambridge, Massachusetts Reprint requests: Vibha Bhatnagar, M.D., M.P.H., Health Services Research and Development, Center for Patient Oriented Care, Veterans Affairs San Diego Healthcare System, 3350 La Jolla Village Drive, 111N-1, San Diego, CA Submitted: February 27, 2003, accepted (with revisions): August 4, 2003 The management of prostate cancer remains controversial. Since the introduction of prostate-specific antigen (PSA) screening, prostate cancer is diagnosed at an earlier stage (potentially resulting in lead-time bias). 1 This shift has made it difficult to compare estimates of disease progression with conservative management from the pre- PSA era with the more recent estimates of disease progression after treatment (prostatectomy or radiotherapy [RT]) for patients diagnosed with prostate cancer by PSA screening. A recently published trial found better disease-free survival among patients randomized to prostatectomy (versus conservative management) but little difference in overall survival. Moreover, both treatment and conservative management were associated with significant complications. 2 Only a small portion of these patients, however, were diagnosed by PSA screening. A number of studies published within the past decade have continued to suggest a survival ben ELSEVIER INC /04/$30.00 ALL RIGHTS RESERVED doi: /j.urology
2 FIGURE 1. Schematic of model structure. With conservative management, patients faced probabilities of remaining well (no disease progression), dying of other causes, or developing symptomatic disease or metastases (followed by death from prostate cancer) in every 1-year cycle of the model. After treatment (prostatectomy or RT), patients faced probabilities of death, recovering without long-term complications, or recovering with one of, or any combination of, sexual, urinary, and bowel (RT only) symptoms. In any one cycle, patients had probabilities of remaining well, dying of other causes, or developing rising PSA levels. After a PSA rise, the simulation after treatment was similar to the simulation with conservative management. efit after prostatectomy and RT for patients diagnosed as a result of PSA screening. 3 7 Trials in the post-psa era are being conducted, but the results will not be available for several years. In the interim, patients and clinicians have to make decisions under conditions of considerable uncertainty. Previous models have been developed but were based on studies in the pre-psa era. 8,9 To compare the outcomes for patients managed conservatively with those treated surgically (retropubic or perineal prostatectomy) or with RT (external beam RT or conformal external beam RT) in the post-psa era, we designed a new model that adjusted for quality of life (QOL) and competing causes of death. Estimates of disease progression during conservative management were also adjusted for lead-time. MATERIAL AND METHODS THE MODEL A Markov model simulated outcomes for patients between the ages of 55 and 75 years with a diagnosis of clinically localized prostate cancer (Fig. 1). Markov states (health states) were chosen to account for the impact of long-term treatment complications or cancer progression on QOL. Under conservative management, hypothetical patients remained well until the onset of metastases. Hormone-sensitive disease was followed by hormone-refractory disease. 10,11 Disease progression after prostatectomy or RT sequenced biochemical failure (a rise in PSA of 0.2 to 0.4 ng/ml after prostatectomy or a sequential rise in PSA after RT) before metastatic disease. 3 7,12,13 Permanent treatment complications included one, or a combination of, sexual dysfunction, urinary symptoms, and bowel dysfunction (after RT only) Patients could exit this simulation as a result of death from prostate cancer, treatment, or other causes (taken from U.S. Life Tables) A 1-year Markov cycle and a half-year cycle correction were used; the model was run until gains in quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) were less than The model was developed and analyzed using DATA, version TRANSITION PROBABILITIES Transition probabilities (probabilities of moving from one health state to another) were derived from studies identified through a PubMed search for reports published in the past 15 years. Estimates for disease progression under conservative management (the annual probability of metastases) were only available from the pre-psa era. 10,11 To estimate disease progression after treatment (annual probabilities of biochemical failure and metastases after biochemical failure) in the post- PSA era, studies that followed patients diagnosed after the late 1980s were selected. Outcome measures from these studies also had to be determined from patients with clinically localized cancer and had to include the probabilities required for the model stratified by Gleason score or grade (Table I). The ranges for these estimates were also derived from the literature review 3 7,19 (Table I). Because prostate cancer is often restaged after surgery (this generally biases the results in favor of surgery), the estimates of disease progression after surgery were based on a study that included outcomes by clinical stage. 3 The ranges, however, were adjusted to include the estimates of disease progression derived from other studies. 3,4 The risks (and ranges) for treatment complications were derived from several institutional and population-based studies (Table II). Because about 20% of patients may develop sexual dysfunction independent of treatment, the literaturederived risk of sexual dysfunction was decreased by 20% UROLOGY 63 (1), 2004
3 Gleason Score TABLE I. Estimates for probabilities of disease progression Annual Probability of Developing Metastases Under Conservative Management (With and Without Lead-Time Adjustment) Annual Probability of Rising PSA After Treatment Prostatectomy Radiotherapy ( ) 10,11 With 5.5-yr lead-time: (0 0.03) 3, ( ) 5, ( ) 10,11 With 5-yr lead-time: ( ) ( ) ( ) 10,11 * With 4-yr lead-time: ( ) ( ) 5, ( ) 10,11 With 3.5-yr lead-time: ( ) ( ) 5,7 Annual Probability of Metastases After PSA Rise Conservative Management Prostatectomy Radiotherapy All Gleason scores 0.08 ( ) ( ) 4,12 Annual Probability of Death After Metastases Conservative Management Prostatectomy Radiotherapy All Gleason scores 0.23 ( ) 0.23 ( ) 0.23 ( ) KEY: PSA prostate-specific antigen. Data in parentheses are the range. * Gleason score 7 derived from average progression for Gleason score 5 7 and 8 10 cancers. 10 Upper bound assigned. Range derived from median time to metastases after PSA rise, Gleason score 6 and Gleason score 6. 4 Median time to death after metastases: 3 yr (range 1 5). Because estimates for transition probabilities were uncertain, one-way sensitivity analyses (changing estimates for one variable) were done on all model parameters. This was done to determine whether the model outcomes were sensitive (or changed as a result of) the uncertainty surrounding a particular estimate. ADJUSTMENT FOR LEAD-TIME Estimates for disease progression under conservative management were adjusted for lead-time. Lead-time ranged from 3.5 to 5.5 years for Gleason score 8 to 10 and Gleason score 2 to 4 cancers, respectively (Table I). 23 To determine whether the model was sensitive to estimates for lead-time, the model was run at the age of 65 years (about the median age of diagnosis for prostate cancer) to determine how rapid or slow disease progression under conservative management had to be to approximate the outcomes after prostatectomy. For Gleason score 2 to 4 (and 5 to 6) cancers, we questioned whether smaller estimates of leadtime (resulting in faster disease progression under conservative management) would favor treatment. Thus, estimates for leadtime started at zero (no adjustment for lead-time). For Gleason score 7 and 8 to 10 cancers, we examined whether greater leadtime estimates (resulting in slower disease progression under conservative management) would favor conservative management over treatment. The lead-time estimates for higher grade cancers, therefore, ranged up to 10 years. UTILITY WEIGHTS (QALYS), DISCOUNT RATE, AND MEDIAN SURVIVAL The time spent in each health-state (Markov state) was assigned a standard gamble utility weight measured in 162 men aged 60 years and older (one half of whom had prostate cancer), using a computer-based utility assessment program ( 24 This study was designed specifically to measure the health states within the model, including combinations of urinary, sexual, and bowel dysfunction. Utility weights adjusted the survival time for QOL. For example, the utility weight for bowel symptoms was 0.71; thus, each year with bowel symptoms was equal to 0.71 QALYs. Utility weights were varied by 1 standard deviation in the sensitivity analyses. (The main utility weights and standard deviations are also shown in the bottom left of Table II.) Future health outcomes were discounted at an annual rate of 3% (range 1% to 5% for the sensitivity analyses). The approximate median survival was calculated by running the model without adjusting for QOL and without discounting. RESULTS QALYS AND MEDIAN SURVIVAL The differences between QALYs after treatment and conservative management are shown in Figure 2. Conservative management yielded more QALYs than treatment for patients with Gleason score 2 to 4 and 5 to 6 cancers. In contrast, treatment appeared beneficial for patients with Gleason score 7 and 8 to 10 cancers. The median survival was greater than the quality-adjusted survival because of treatment complications. However, for Gleason score 2 to 4 cancer, only a marginal difference was found in median survival between conservative management and treatment. Patients with Gleason score 5 to 6 cancer gained about 0.5 year after treatment. Patients with Gleason score 8 to 10 cancer at age 55, 65, and 75 gained approximately 4.5, 3, and 2 years, respec- UROLOGY 63 (1),
4 TABLE II. Treatment complications and utility weights Treatment Complications (Main Health States) Probability of Treatment Complications with Utility Weights 25 Prostatectomy Radiotherapy Sexual dysfunction 0.89 (0.74 1) 0.47 ( ) ( ) 14,16,17 Urinary symptoms 0.87 (0.71 1) 0.2 ( ) ( ) 14,16,17 Bowel dysfunction 0.71 ( ) 0.07 ( ) 14,16,17 Death from treatment ( ) 19, (0 0.01) 20 Data in parentheses are the range. FIGURE 2. Net quality-adjusted life years at ages 55, 65, and 75. QALYs after prostatectomy or RT minus QALYs under conservative management for patients diagnosed at 55, 65, or 75 years old. Conservative management was preferred for Gleason score 2 to 4 and 5 to 6 cancers (negative net QALYs). Prostatectomy or RT was preferred over conservative management for Gleason score 7 and 8 to 10 cancers. Treatment benefit decreased with increasing age. tively. Similar gains were seen for Gleason score 7 cancer. SENSITIVITY ANALYSES Progression to Metastases Under Conservative Management and Adjustment for Lead-Time. Prostatectomy resulted in more QALYs than conservative management for patients with Gleason score 2 to 4 cancer if the annual progression to metastases under conservative management was significantly greater (around 0.04) than the baseline probability (0.01). With Gleason score 5 to 6 cancer, the model also suggested that prostatectomy would be beneficial if the probability of metastases were slightly greater (around 0.03) than baseline (0.02). For Gleason score 7 and 8 to 10 cancers, the QALYs remained greater after treatment even at the lower estimates of disease progression under conservative management. If the lead-time adjustment for Gleason score 2 to 4 cancer was less than 0.5 year (resulting in much faster disease progression under conservative management), prostatectomy would result in more QALYs than would conservative management. Prostatectomy also resulted in more QALYs if the lead-time adjustment was less than 3 years for Gleason score 5 to 6 cancer. In contrast, the model only began to favor conservative management for patients with Gleason score 7 and 8 to 10 cancers if a lead-time adjustment of greater than 10 years (resulting in much slower disease progression under conservative management) was used. Transition Probabilities After Treatment: Biochemical Failure, Progression to Metastases, and Long- Term Complications. More effective treatment results in lower risks of disease progression after treatment (progression to biochemical failure and then to metastases). However, conservative management continued to yield more QALYs with Gleason score 2 to 4 cancer even at lower estimates of disease progression after treatment. Conservative management also remained preferred at lower estimates of treatment complications. The model suggested that prostatectomy for Gleason score UROLOGY 63 (1), 2004
5 to 6 cancer may be preferred if lower estimates of disease progression after prostatectomy were used. Prostatectomy also yielded more QALYs than conservative management with lower risks of sexual dysfunction as a result of treatment. The choice between prostatectomy and RT for Gleason score 7 and 8 to 10 cancers was also sensitive to the estimates for treatment efficacy. For Gleason score 8 to 10 cancer, RT appeared preferable over prostatectomy if the risk of death after surgery was greater than approximately 0.06 and 0.02 at the age of 55 and 75 years, respectively. This choice was not otherwise sensitive to the risks of treatment complications (within the ranges tested). Utility Weights and Discount Rate. The model was not sensitive to utility weights for patients with Gleason score 2 to 4 cancer. For Gleason score 5 to 6 cancer, prostatectomy began to yield more QALYs (than conservative management) when significantly greater weights (greater than 0.94) were used for sexual dysfunction. For older (age 75) patients with Gleason score 7 and 8 to 10 cancers, either prostatectomy or RT could yield the most QALYs, depending on the utility weights. The model was not sensitive to the discount rate. COMMENT Conservative management resulted in the most QALYs for patients with Gleason score 2 to 4 cancer. Less of a difference was observed between conservative management and treatment for patients with Gleason score 5 to 6 cancers; the model was, therefore, sensitive to the uncertainty surrounding many of the model parameters. For higher grade cancers, either prostatectomy or RT could be preferred. The choice between the two options was sensitive to the estimates of disease progression after treatment (treatment efficacy). DISEASE PROGRESSION Estimates of disease progression were the main variables in the model. Either treatment could yield more QALYs (than conservative management) for patients with Gleason score 5 to 6 cancer at higher estimates of disease progression under conservative management. This is important because Gleason score 6 cancer may progress faster than Gleason 5 (and, therefore, treatment may be preferred for Gleason score 6 cancer). 25 Following a PSA rise after treatment, low and moderate-grade cancers may also progress to metastases more slowly than higher grade cancers 4 ; for Gleason score 5 to 6 cancers, the model favored treatment at these lower estimates. Conservative management remained beneficial for patients with Gleason score 2 to 4 cancer even with the best estimates for treatment efficacy after prostatectomy and RT. For higher grade cancers, the most beneficial treatment option (prostatectomy or RT) depended on the estimates for treatment efficacy. Because the model was quite sensitive to these estimates, we can only conclude that the outcomes after prostatectomy and RT are similar. LEAD-TIME By exploring the effects of lead-time, we were able to address some of the controversy surrounding treatment outcomes. 26 It is not known whether the benefit of treatment in the post-psa era (compared with conservatively managed patients in the pre-psa era) is the result of cancer diagnosis at an earlier stage (lead-time bias). Based upon our model, however, the lead-time for Gleason score 7 and 8 to 10 cancers would have to be greater than 10 years (ie, disease progression with conservative management would have to be much slower) before the outcomes for conservative management become similar to outcomes after prostatectomy. This would be unlikely for an aggressive cancer; thus, the benefit of treatment is probably not attributable to lead-time alone. 4,25 Alternatively, with Gleason score 2 to 4 cancer, prostatectomy appeared to be beneficial compared with conservative management with small (up to approximately 0.5 year) lead-time adjustments. Thus, because the lead-time for slow-growing cancers is probably greater than 0.5 year, it is possible that lead-time may explain the treatment effects observed in some studies for Gleason score 2 to 4 cancers. 4,25 MEDIAN SURVIVAL, TREATMENT COMPLICATIONS, AND UTILITY WEIGHTS Without adjusting for QOL and without discounting, the model approximates median survival. In this case, median survival was greater than survival adjusted for QOL because of treatment complications. Other interventions may not prolong life (or increase median survival) but may improve QOL. 27 As determined by our model for patients with Gleason score 2 to 4 cancer, only a marginal difference was found in median survival between conservative management and treatment; patients gained only about 0.5 year after treatment for Gleason score 5 to 6 cancer. In contrast, patients with higher grade cancers gained up to 2 additional years (over QALYs). QOL, however, is an important issue for patients considering treatment for prostate cancer. To integrate QOL, estimates of treatment complications and their corresponding utility weights are required. Because estimates for treatment complications vary within and between studies, relatively wide ranges for complication risks were used The utility weights for these symptoms were also directly measured for all health states in the model and were comparable to the weights found in other studies. 28 These weights were lower than the utility UROLOGY 63 (1),
6 weights used in the Fleming model, which were derived from expert opinion. 8 If greater utility weights for sexual dysfunction were used in the model, prostatectomy would be preferred for Gleason score 5 to 6 cancer; prostatectomy would also appear to be more beneficial for patients with Gleason score 7 and 8 to 10 cancers. COMPARISON WITH OTHER MODELS In addition, our results suggested stronger treatment effects for men with high-grade cancer compared with the Fleming model 8 (and a reanalysis of this model by Kattan et al. 9 ). This comparison, however, is problematic because of differences in model design and assumptions used to determine estimates for disease progression. Our estimates of disease progression after treatment were also derived from studies in the post-psa era. Although this biased outcomes in favor of treatment, we addressed this by adjusting for, and exploring the effects of, lead-time on our results. STUDY LIMITATIONS This analysis did not deal with the issue of PSA screening. Androgen ablation with a rise in PSA also was not included, because our overall conclusions were unlikely to change. 29 The publications used to derive the transition probabilities were limited to retrospective observational and cross-sectional studies. Finally, this analysis focused on the difference between management options and exploring the effects of lead-time on these outcomes. Individual patient risks and preferences, however, need to be considered to make individual recommendations. Because of this, future analyses will detail outcomes stratified by more specific risks and preferences. CONCLUSIONS Pending the completion of large randomized trials, this analysis should help to clarify some of the controversy surrounding treatment outcomes for clinically localized prostate cancer. 30 Conservative management is reasonable for patients with Gleason score 2 to 4 cancer. Patients (between 55 and 75 years old) with Gleason score 7 and 8 to 10 cancers, however, benefit from either prostatectomy or RT. The outcomes are similar for both treatments, and survival after treatment did not appear to be explained by lead-time alone. Most patients, however, will be diagnosed with Gleason score 5 to 6 cancer 1 ; informed decision-making is especially important for these patients because, in some cases, treatment appeared to be marginally beneficial. REFERENCES 1. Accessed 9/26/ Holmberg L, Bell-Axelson A, Helgesen E, et al: A randomized trial comparing radical prostatectomy with watchful waiting in early stage prostate cancer. N Engl J Med 347: , Amling CL, Blute ML, Bergstralh EJ, et al: Long-term hazard of progression after radical prostatectomy for clinically localized prostate cancer: continued risk of biochemical failure after 5 years. J Urol 164: , Pound CR, Partin AW, Eisenberger MA, et al: Natural history of progression after PSA elevation following radical prostatectomy. JAMA 281: , Shipley WU, Thames HD, Sandler HM, et al: Radiation therapy for clinically localized prostate cancer: a multi-institutional pooled analysis. JAMA 281: , Anderson PR, Hanlon AL, Horwitz E, et al: Outcome and predictive factors for patients with Gleason score 7 prostate carcinoma treated with three-dimensional conformal external beam radiation therapy. Cancer 89: , Kupelian PA, Elshaikh M, Reddy CA, et al: Comparison of the efficacy of local therapies for localized prostate cancer in the prostate-specific antigen era: a large single-institution experience with radical prostatectomy and external-beam radiotherapy. J Clin Oncol 20: , Fleming C, Wasson JH, Albertsen PC, et al, for the Prostate Patient Outcomes Research Team: A decision analysis of alternative treatment strategies for clinically localized prostate cancer. JAMA 269: , Kattan MW, Cowen ME, and Miles BJ: A decision analysis for treatment of clinically localized prostate cancer. J Gen Intern Med 12: , Chodak GW, Thisted RA, Gerber GS, et al: Results of conservative management of clinically localized prostate cancer. N Engl J Med 330: , Adolfsson J, Steineck G, and Hedlund PO: Deferred treatment of clinically localized low-grade prostate cancer: actual 10-year and projected 15-year follow-up of the Karolinska series. Urology 50: , Sandler HM, Dunn RL, McLaughlin PW, et al: Overall survival after prostate-specific-antigen-detected recurrence following conformal radiation therapy. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 48: , American Society for Therapeutic Radiology and Oncology Consensus Panel: Consensus statement: guidelines for PSA following radiation therapy. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 37: , Smith DS, Carvalhal GF, Schneider K, et al: Quality-oflife outcomes for men with prostate carcinoma detected by screening. Cancer 88: , Stanford JL, Feng Z, Hamilton AS, et al: Urinary and sexual function after radical prostatectomy for clinically localized prostate cancer: the Prostate Cancer Outcomes Study. JAMA 283: , Fowler FJ Jr, Barry MJ, Lu-Yao G, et al: Outcomes of external-beam radiation therapy for prostate cancer: a study of Medicare beneficiaries in three Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results areas. J Clin Oncol 14: , Hamilton AS, Stanford JL, Gilliland FD, et al: Health outcomes after external-beam radiation therapy for clinically localized prostate cancer: results from the Prostate Cancer Outcomes Study. J Clin Oncol 19: , Walsh PC: Radical prostatectomy for localized prostate cancer provides durable cancer control with excellent quality of life: a structured debate. J Urol 163: , Arai Y: Radical prostatectomy: time trends, morbidity and quality of life. Int J Urol 8: S15 S18, Walsh PC, Retik AB, Vaughan ED Jr, et al (Eds): Campbell s Urology. 7th ed. WB Saunders, Philadelphia, ULT Treeage Software Inc. DATA 4.0 for Healthcare. Treeage Software, Inc., Williamstown, Massachusetts, UROLOGY 63 (1), 2004
7 23. Gann PH, Hennekens CH, and Stampfer MJ: A prospective evaluation of plasma prostate-specific antigen for detection of prostatic cancer. JAMA 273: , Stewart ST, Bhatnagar V, Bonney WW, et al: Utilities for health states associated with prostate cancer in men age 60 and over. MDM 21(6): Albertsen PC, Hanley JA, Gleason DF, et al: Competing risk analysis of men aged 55 to 74 years at diagnosis managed conservatively for clinically localized prostate cancer. JAMA 280: , Wilt TJ: Prostate carcinoma practice patterns: what do they tell us about the diagnosis, treatment, and outcomes of patients with prostate carcinoma? Cancer 88: , National Emphysema Treatment Trial Research Group: A randomized trial comparing lung-volume reduction surgery with medical therapy for severe emphysema. N Engl J Med 348: , Saigal CS, Gornbein J, Nease R, et al: Predictors of utilities for health states in early stage prostate cancer. J Urol 166: , Carroll PR, Kantoff PW, Balk SP, et al: Overview consensus statement. Urology 60: 1 6, Wilt TJ, and Brawer MK, for the Prostate Cancer Intervention Versus Observation Trial: A randomized trial comparing radical prostatectomy versus expectant management for the treatment of clinically localized prostate cancer. J Urol 152(5 Pt 2): , UROLOGY 63 (1),
When PSA fails. Urology Grand Rounds Alexandra Perks. Rising PSA after Radical Prostatectomy
When PSA fails Urology Grand Rounds Alexandra Perks Rising PSA after Radical Prostatectomy Issues Natural History Local vs Metastatic Treatment options 1 10 000 men / year in Canada 4000 RRP 15-year PSA
More informationFumitaka Shimizu 1, Ataru Igarashi 2, Takashi Fukuda 2, Yoshio Kawachi 3, Shigeru Minowada 4, Yasuo Ohashi 5 and Makoto Fujime 1 INTRODUCTION
Decision Analyses in Consideration of Treatment Strategies for Patients with Biochemical Failure After Curative Therapy on Clinically Localized Prostate Cancer in the Prostate-Specific Antigen Era Fumitaka
More informationPrognostic value of the Gleason score in prostate cancer
BJU International (22), 89, 538 542 Prognostic value of the Gleason score in prostate cancer L. EGEVAD, T. GRANFORS*, L. KARLBERG*, A. BERGH and P. STATTIN Department of Pathology and Cytology, Karolinska
More informationInformation Content of Five Nomograms for Outcomes in Prostate Cancer
Anatomic Pathology / NOMOGRAMS IN PROSTATE CANCER Information Content of Five Nomograms for Outcomes in Prostate Cancer Tarek A. Bismar, MD, 1 Peter Humphrey, MD, 2 and Robin T. Vollmer, MD 3 Key Words:
More informationORIGINAL INVESTIGATION. Impact of Biochemical Recurrence in Prostate Cancer Among US Veterans. having prostate cancer, assessment
ORIGINAL INVESTIGATION Impact of Biochemical Recurrence in Prostate Cancer Among US Veterans Edward M. Uchio, MD; Mihaela Aslan, PhD; Carolyn K. Wells, MPH; Juan Calderone, MD; John Concato, MD, MS, MPH
More informationABOUT MEN WILL BE
ORIGINAL CONTRIBUTION Comparison of ations by Urologists and Oncologists for Treatment of Clinically Localized Prostate Cancer Floyd J. Fowler, Jr, PhD Mary McNaughton Collins, MD, MPH Peter C. Albertsen,
More informationOutcomes Following Negative Prostate Biopsy for Patients with Persistent Disease after Radiotherapy for Prostate Cancer
Clinical Urology Post-radiotherapy Prostate Biopsy for Recurrent Disease International Braz J Urol Vol. 36 (1): 44-48, January - February, 2010 doi: 10.1590/S1677-55382010000100007 Outcomes Following Negative
More informationSince the beginning of the prostate-specific antigen (PSA) era in the. Characteristics of Insignificant Clinical T1c Prostate Tumors
2001 Characteristics of Insignificant Clinical T1c Prostate Tumors A Contemporary Analysis Patrick J. Bastian, M.D. 1 Leslie A. Mangold, B.A., M.S. 1 Jonathan I. Epstein, M.D. 2 Alan W. Partin, M.D., Ph.D.
More informationTreatment Failure After Primary and Salvage Therapy for Prostate Cancer
307 Treatment Failure After Primary and Salvage Therapy for Prostate Cancer Likelihood, Patterns of Care, and Outcomes Piyush K. Agarwal, MD 1 Natalia Sadetsky, MD, MPH 2 Badrinath R. Konety, MD, MBA 2
More informationA Decision Analysis Using Individual Patient Preferences to Determine Optimal Treatment for Localized Prostate Cancer
This is a preprint of an article accepted for publication in CANCER Copyright (2007), American Cancer Society, Inc. A Decision Analysis Using Individual Patient Preferences to Determine Optimal Treatment
More informationJ Clin Oncol 23: by American Society of Clinical Oncology INTRODUCTION
VOLUME 23 NUMBER 28 OCTOBER 1 2005 JOURNAL OF CLINICAL ONCOLOGY O R I G I N A L R E P O R T Predictors of Prostate Cancer Specific Mortality After Radical Prostatectomy or Radiation Therapy Ping Zhou,
More informationjournal of medicine The new england Preoperative PSA Velocity and the Risk of Death from Prostate Cancer after Radical Prostatectomy abstract
The new england journal of medicine established in 1812 july 8, 4 vol. 31 no. 2 Preoperative PSA Velocity and the Risk of Death from Prostate Cancer after Radical Prostatectomy Anthony V. D Amico, M.D.,
More informationOutcomes With "Watchful Waiting" in Prostate Cancer in US Now So Good, Active Treatment May Not Be Better
1 sur 5 19/09/2009 07:02 www.medscape.com From Medscape Medical News Outcomes With "Watchful Waiting" in Prostate Cancer in US Now So Good, Active Treatment May Not Be Better Zosia Chustecka September
More informationOutcomes of Radical Prostatectomy in Thai Men with Prostate Cancer
Original Article Outcomes of Radical Prostatectomy in Thai Men with Prostate Cancer Sunai Leewansangtong, Suchai Soontrapa, Chaiyong Nualyong, Sittiporn Srinualnad, Tawatchai Taweemonkongsap and Teerapon
More informationProstate Cancer: Is There Standard Treatment? Who has prostate cancer? In this article:
Focus on CME at l Université de Montréal Prostate Cancer: Is There Standard Treatment? Pierre I. Karakiewicz, MD, FRCSC; Paul Perrotte, MD, FRCSC; Fred Saad, MD, FRCSC In this article: 1. Risk factors
More informationIs proton beam therapy cost effective in the treatment of adenocarcinoma of the prostate? Konski A, Speier W, Hanlon A, Beck J R, Pollack A
Is proton beam therapy cost effective in the treatment of adenocarcinoma of the prostate? Konski A, Speier W, Hanlon A, Beck J R, Pollack A Record Status This is a critical abstract of an economic evaluation
More informationNIH Public Access Author Manuscript World J Urol. Author manuscript; available in PMC 2012 February 1.
NIH Public Access Author Manuscript Published in final edited form as: World J Urol. 2011 February ; 29(1): 11 14. doi:10.1007/s00345-010-0625-4. Significance of preoperative PSA velocity in men with low
More informationA Decision Analysis for Treatment of Clinically Localized Prostate Cancer
A Decision Analysis for Treatment of Clinically Localized Prostate Cancer Michael W. Kattan, PhD, Mark E. Cowen, MD, MSc, Brian J. Miles, MD OBJECTIVE: To determine the preferred treatment of clinically
More informationA Competing Risk Analysis of Men Age Years at Diagnosis Managed Conservatively for Clinically Localized Prostate Cancer
A Competing Risk Analysis of Men Age 55-74 Years at Diagnosis Managed Conservatively for Clinically Localized Prostate Cancer Peter C. Albertsen, MD 1 James A. Hanley, PhD 2 Donald F.Gleason, MD, PhD 3
More informationProstate Cancer Incidence
Prostate Cancer: Prevention, Screening and Treatment Philip Kantoff MD Dana-Farber Cancer Institute Professor of fmedicine i Harvard Medical School Prostate Cancer Incidence # of patients 350,000 New Cases
More informationPREVALENCE OF PROSTATE CANCER AMONG HYPOGONADAL MEN WITH PROSTATE-SPECIFIC ANTIGEN LEVELS OF 4.0 ng/ml OR LESS
ADULT UROLOGY PREVALENCE OF PROSTATE CANCER AMONG HYPOGONADAL MEN WITH PROSTATE-SPECIFIC ANTIGEN LEVELS OF 4.0 ng/ml OR LESS ABRAHAM MORGENTALER AND ERNANI LUIS RHODEN ABSTRACT Objectives. To determine
More informationRadiation dose has been reported to be an important determinant
538 The Relationship of Increasing Radiotherapy Dose to Reduced Distant Metastases and Mortality in Men with Prostate Cancer Rojymon Jacob, M.D. 1 Alexandra L. Hanlon, Ph.D. 2 Eric M. Horwitz, M.D. 1 Benjamin
More informationHormone Therapy for Prostate Cancer: Guidelines versus Clinical Practice
european urology supplements 5 (2006) 362 368 available at www.sciencedirect.com journal homepage: www.europeanurology.com Hormone Therapy for Prostate Cancer: Guidelines versus Clinical Practice Antonio
More informationJ Clin Oncol 28: by American Society of Clinical Oncology INTRODUCTION
VOLUME 28 NUMBER 1 JANUARY 1 2010 JOURNAL OF CLINICAL ONCOLOGY O R I G I N A L R E P O R T Clinical Results of Long-Term Follow-Up of a Large, Active Surveillance Cohort With Localized Prostate Cancer
More informationIntroduction. Original Article
bs_bs_banner International Journal of Urology (2015) 22, 363 367 doi: 10.1111/iju.12704 Original Article Prostate-specific antigen level, stage or Gleason score: Which is best for predicting outcomes after
More informationA Decision Analysis Using Patient Preferences to Determine Optimal Treatment for Localized Prostate Cancer
A Decision Analysis Using Patient Preferences to Determine Optimal Treatment for Localized Prostate Cancer Benjamin D. Sommers, Ph.D., Clair J. Beard, M.D., Anthony V. D Amico, M.D., Ph.D., Douglas Dahl,
More informationPredictive factors of late biochemical recurrence after radical prostatectomy
JJCO Japanese Journal of Clinical Oncology Japanese Journal of Clinical Oncology, 2017, 47(3) 233 238 doi: 10.1093/jjco/hyw181 Advance Access Publication Date: 9 December 2016 Original Article Original
More informationPROSTATE CANCER SURVEILLANCE
PROSTATE CANCER SURVEILLANCE ESMO Preceptorship on Prostate Cancer Singapore, 15-16 November 2017 Rosa Nadal National Cancer Institute, NIH Bethesda, USA DISCLOSURE No conflicts of interest to declare
More informationestimating risk of BCR and risk of aggressive recurrence after RP was assessed using the concordance index, c.
. JOURNAL COMPILATION 2008 BJU INTERNATIONAL Urological Oncology PREDICTION OF AGGRESSIVE RECURRENCE AFTER RP SCHROECK et al. BJUI BJU INTERNATIONAL Do nomograms predict aggressive recurrence after radical
More informationCorrelation of Gleason Scores Between Needle-Core Biopsy and Radical Prostatectomy Specimens in Patients with Prostate Cancer
ORIGINAL ARTICLE Correlation of Gleason Scores Between Needle-Core Biopsy and Radical Prostatectomy Specimens in Patients with Prostate Cancer Teng-Fu Hsieh, Chao-Hsian Chang, Wen-Chi Chen, Chien-Lung
More informationProstate Cancer Treatment for Economically Disadvantaged Men
Prostate Cancer Treatment for Economically Disadvantaged Men A Comparison of County Hospitals and Private Providers J. Kellogg Parsons, MD, MHS 1,2 ; Lorna Kwan, MPH 3 ; Sarah E. Connor, MPH 4 ; David
More informationProstate Cancer: 2010 Guidelines Update
Prostate Cancer: 2010 Guidelines Update James L. Mohler, MD Chair, NCCN Prostate Cancer Panel Associate Director for Translational Research, Professor and Chair, Department of Urology, Roswell Park Cancer
More informationThe Phoenix Definition of Biochemical Failure Predicts for Overall Survival in Patients With Prostate Cancer
55 The Phoenix Definition of Biochemical Failure Predicts for Overall Survival in Patients With Prostate Cancer Matthew C. Abramowitz, MD 1 Tiaynu Li, MA 2 Mark K. Buyyounouski, MD 1 Eric Ross, PhD 2 Robert
More information2/14/09. Why Discuss this topic? Managing Local Recurrences after Radiation Failure. PROSTATE CANCER Second Treatment
Why Discuss this topic? Mack Roach III, MD Professor and Chair Radiation Oncology UCSF Managing Local Recurrences after Radiation Failure 1. ~15 to 75% of CaP pts recur after definitive RT. 2. Heterogeneous
More informationPreoperative Gleason score, percent of positive prostate biopsies and PSA in predicting biochemical recurrence after radical prostatectomy
JBUON 2013; 18(4): 954-960 ISSN: 1107-0625, online ISSN: 2241-6293 www.jbuon.com E-mail: editorial_office@jbuon.com ORIGINAL ARTICLE Gleason score, percent of positive prostate and PSA in predicting biochemical
More informationPSA Screening and Prostate Cancer. Rishi Modh, MD
PSA Screening and Prostate Cancer Rishi Modh, MD ABOUT ME From Tampa Bay Went to Berkeley Prep University of Miami for Undergraduate - 4 years University of Miami for Medical School - 4 Years University
More informationUnderstanding the risk of recurrence after primary treatment for prostate cancer. Aditya Bagrodia, MD
Understanding the risk of recurrence after primary treatment for prostate cancer Aditya Bagrodia, MD Aditya.bagrodia@utsouthwestern.edu 423-967-5848 Outline and objectives Prostate cancer demographics
More informationRADICAL PROSTATECTOMY IS ONE
ORIGINAL CONTRIBUTION Risk of Prostate Cancer Specific Mortality Following Biochemical Recurrence After Radical Prostatectomy Stephen J. Freedland, MD Elizabeth B. Humphreys, BS Leslie A. Mangold, MS Mario
More informationNICE BULLETIN Diagnosis & treatment of prostate cancer
Diagnosis & treatment of prostate cancer NICE provided the content for this booklet which is independent of any company or product advertised Diagnosis and treatment of prostate cancer Introduction In
More informationVALUE AND ROLE OF PSA AS A TUMOUR MARKER OF RESPONSE/RELAPSE
Session 3 Advanced prostate cancer VALUE AND ROLE OF PSA AS A TUMOUR MARKER OF RESPONSE/RELAPSE 1 PSA is a serine protease and the physiological role is believed to be liquefying the seminal fluid PSA
More informationof Nebraska - Lincoln
University of Nebraska - Lincoln DigitalCommons@University of Nebraska - Lincoln U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs Staff Publications U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs 8-2000 Detection, Characterization,
More informationPredictors of time to biochemical recurrence in a radical prostatectomy cohort within the PSA-era
ORIGINAL RESEARCH Predictors of time to biochemical recurrence in a radical prostatectomy cohort within the PSA-era Ahva Shahabi, MPH, PhD; 1* Raj Satkunasivam, MD; 2* Inderbir S. Gill, MD; 2 Gary Lieskovsky,
More informationControversies in Prostate Cancer Screening
Controversies in Prostate Cancer Screening William J Catalona, MD Northwestern University Chicago Disclosure: Beckman Coulter, a manufacturer of PSA assays, provides research support PSA Screening Recommendations
More informationComparison of external radiation therapy vs radical prostatectomy in lymph node positive prostate cancer patients
Comparison of external radiation therapy vs radical prostatectomy in lymph node positive prostate cancer patients R Kuefer 1, BG Volkmer 1, M Loeffler 1, RL Shen 2, L Kempf 3, AS Merseburger 4, JE Gschwend
More informationVol. 36, pp , 2008 T1-3N0M0 : T1-3. prostate-specific antigen PSA. 68 Gy National Institutes of Health 10
25 Vol. 36, pp. 25 32, 2008 T1-3N0M0 : 20 2 18 T1-3 N0M0 1990 2006 16 113 59.4-70 Gy 68 Gy 24 prostate-specific antigen PSA 1.2 17.2 6.5 5 91 95 5 100 93 p 0.04 T3 PSA60 ng ml 68 Gy p 0.0008 0.03 0.04
More informationHigh Risk Localized Prostate Cancer Treatment Should Start with RT
High Risk Localized Prostate Cancer Treatment Should Start with RT Jason A. Efstathiou, M.D., D.Phil. Assistant Professor of Radiation Oncology Massachusetts General Hospital Harvard Medical School 10
More informationHelping you make better-informed decisions 1-5
Helping you make better-informed decisions 1-5 The only test that provides an accurate assessment of prostate cancer aggressiveness A prognostic medicine product for prostate cancer. A common diagnosis
More informationProtocol. This trial protocol has been provided by the authors to give readers additional information about their work.
Protocol This trial protocol has been provided by the authors to give readers additional information about their work. Protocol for: Wilt TJ, Brawer MK, Jones KM, et al. Radical prostatectomy versus observation
More informationLong-Term Risk of Clinical Progression After Biochemical Recurrence Following Radical Prostatectomy: The Impact of Time from Surgery to Recurrence
EUROPEAN UROLOGY 59 (2011) 893 899 available at www.sciencedirect.com journal homepage: www.europeanurology.com Platinum Priority Prostate Cancer Editorial by Bertrand D. Guillonneau and Karim Fizazi on
More informationDivision of Urologic Surgery and Duke Prostate Center (DPC), Duke University School of Medicine, Durham, NC
LHRH AGONISTS: CONTEMPORARY ISSUES The Evolving Definition of Advanced Prostate Cancer Judd W. Moul, MD, FACS Division of Urologic Surgery and Duke Prostate Center (DPC), Duke University School of Medicine,
More informationTITLE: Prognostic Value of Allelic Imbalance in Prostate Biopsy. CONTRACTING ORGANIZATION: University of New Mexico Albuquerque, NM 87131
AD Award Number: W81XWH-04-1-0831 TITLE: Prognostic Value of Allelic Imbalance in Prostate Biopsy PRINCIPAL INVESTIGATOR: Jeffrey K. Griffith, Ph.D. CONTRACTING ORGANIZATION: University of New Mexico Albuquerque,
More informationUse of early PSA velocity to predict eventual abnormal PSA values in men at risk for prostate cancer {
Use of early PSA velocity to predict eventual abnormal PSA values in men at risk for prostate cancer { (2003) 6, 39 44 ß 2003 Nature Publishing Group All rights reserved 1365 7852/03 $25.00 www.nature.com/pcan
More informationProstate cancer is one of the most commonly diagnosed
ORIGINAL ARTICLE Utilities For Prostate Cancer Health States in Men Aged 60 and Older Susan T. Stewart, PhD,* Leslie Lenert, MD, Vibha Bhatnagar, MD, MPH, and Robert M. Kaplan, PhD Purpose: We sought to
More informationFollow-up of Prostatectomy versus Observation for Early Prostate Cancer
The new england journal of medicine Original Article Follow-up of Prostatectomy versus Observation for Early Prostate Cancer Timothy J. Wilt, M.D., M.P.H., Karen M. Jones, M.S., Michael J. Barry, M.D.,
More informationActive surveillance for low-risk Prostate Cancer Compared with Immediate Treatment: A Canadian cost evaluation
Active surveillance for low-risk Prostate Cancer Compared with Immediate Treatment: A Canadian cost evaluation Alice Dragomir, PhD Fabio Cury, MD Armen Aprikian, MD Introduction Clinical and economic burden
More informationPost Radical Prostatectomy Radiation in Intermediate and High Risk Group Prostate Cancer Patients - A Historical Series
Post Radical Prostatectomy Radiation in Intermediate and High Risk Group Prostate Cancer Patients - A Historical Series E. Z. Neulander 1, Z. Wajsman 2 1 Department of Urology, Soroka UMC, Ben Gurion University,
More informationSurvivorship Beyond Convalescence: 48-Month Quality-of-Life Outcomes After Treatment for Localized Prostate Cancer
BRIEF COMMUNICATION Survivorship Beyond Convalescence: 48-Month Quality-of-Life Outcomes After Treatment for Localized Prostate Cancer John L. Gore, Lorna Kwan, Steve P. Lee, Robert E. Reiter, Mark S.
More informationSupported by M. D. Anderson Cancer Center physician investigator funds. We thank Gerald E. Hanks, MD, for help and guidance with this project.
1496 Biochemical and Clinical Significance of the Posttreatment Prostate-Specific Antigen Bounce for Prostate Cancer Patients Treated With External Beam Radiation Therapy Alone A Multiinstitutional Pooled
More informationProstate-Specific Antigen Testing of Older Men
Prostate-Specific Antigen Testing of Older Men H. Ballentine Carter, Patricia K. Landis, E. Jeffrey Metter, Lee A. Fleisher, Jay D. Pearson Background: Elevated serum prostate-specific antigen (PSA) levels
More informationRisk Migration ( ct2c=high)
Risk Migration ( ctc=high) Prostate Cancer Over- Detection, but Selective Treatment Active Surveillance Peter R. Carroll, MD, MPH Department of Urology University of California, San Francisco February,
More informationRadiation Therapy After Radical Prostatectomy
Articles ISSN 1537-744X; DOI 10.1100/tsw.2004.93 Radiation Therapy After Radical Ali M. Ziada, M.D. and E. David Crawford, M.D. Division of Urology, University of Colorado, Denver, Colorado E-mails: aziada@mednet3.camed.eun.eg
More informationPSA is rising: What to do? After curative intended radiotherapy: More local options?
Klinik und Poliklinik für Urologie und Kinderurologie Direktor: Prof. Dr. H. Riedmiller PSA is rising: What to do? After curative intended radiotherapy: More local options? Klinische und molekulare Charakterisierung
More informationReconsidering adjuvant versus salvage radiation therapy for prostate cancer in the genomics era
For reprint orders, please contact: reprints@futuremedicine.com Reconsidering adjuvant versus salvage radiation therapy for prostate cancer in the genomics era Aim: We developed a decision analysis framework
More informationIrreversible Electroporation for the Treatment of Recurrent Prostate Cancer
Irreversible Electroporation for the Treatment of Recurrent Prostate Cancer after prostatectomy, radiation therapy and HiFU R. Schwartzberg, E. Günther, N. Klein, S. Zapf, R. El-Idrissi, J. Cooper, B.
More informationFactors Associated with Initial Treatment for Clinically Localized Prostate Cancer
Factors Associated with Initial Treatment for Clinically Localized Prostate Cancer Preliminary Results from the National Program of Cancer Registries Patterns of Care Study (PoC1) NAACCR Annual Meeting
More informationA Design of Efficient Medical Information System to Enhance Health Behaviors after Radical Prostatectomy
, pp.24-29 http://dx.doi.org/10.14257/astl.2014.63.06 A Design of Efficient Medical Information System to Enhance Health Behaviors after Radical Prostatectomy Seong-Ran Lee Department of Medical Information,
More informationElevated PSA. Dr.Nesaretnam Barr Kumarakulasinghe Associate Consultant Medical Oncology National University Cancer Institute, Singapore 9 th July 2017
Elevated PSA Dr.Nesaretnam Barr Kumarakulasinghe Associate Consultant Medical Oncology National University Cancer Institute, Singapore 9 th July 2017 Issues we will cover today.. The measurement of PSA,
More informationeuropean urology 51 (2007)
european urology 51 (2007) 366 374 available at www.sciencedirect.com journal homepage: www.europeanurology.com Prostate Cancer Overall and Disease-Specific Survival of Patients with Screen-Detected Prostate
More informationMATERIALS AND METHODS
Primary Triple Androgen Blockade (TAB) followed by Finasteride Maintenance (FM) for clinically localized prostate cancer (CL-PC): Long term follow-up and quality of life (QOL) SJ Tucker, JN Roundy, RL
More informationOverview of Radiotherapy for Clinically Localized Prostate Cancer
Session 16A Invited lectures: Prostate - H&N. Overview of Radiotherapy for Clinically Localized Prostate Cancer Mack Roach III, MD Department of Radiation Oncology UCSF Helen Diller Family Comprehensive
More information1. CyberKnife Centers of San Diego, CA 2. Coast Urology La Jolla, CA 3. Sletten Cancer Center Great Falls, MT
Donald B. Fuller, M.D. 1, John Naitoh, M.D. 2, Mark Reilly, M.D. 3, Chad Lee, Ph.D 1. 1. CyberKnife Centers of San Diego, CA 2. Coast Urology La Jolla, CA 3. Sletten Cancer Center Great Falls, MT Typically,
More informationProstate cancer: intervention comparisons
National Institute for Health and Care Excellence Guideline version (Draft) Prostate cancer: intervention comparisons [G] Evidence reviews for active surveillance, radical prostatectomy or radical radiotherapy
More informationCost-effectiveness of androgen suppression therapies in advanced prostate cancer Bayoumi A M, Brown A D, Garber A M
Cost-effectiveness of androgen suppression therapies in advanced prostate cancer Bayoumi A M, Brown A D, Garber A M Record Status This is a critical abstract of an economic evaluation that meets the criteria
More informationThe effect of the frequency and duration of PSA measurement on PSA doubling time calculations in men with biochemically recurrent prostate cancer
Prostate Cancer and Prostatic Disease (2014) 17, 28 33 & 2014 Macmillan Publishers Limited All rights reserved 1365-7852/14 www.nature.com/pcan ORIGINAL ARTICLE The effect of the frequency and duration
More informationConsensus and Controversies in Cancer of Prostate BASIS FOR FURHTER STUDIES. Luis A. Linares MD FACRO Medical Director
BASIS FOR FURHTER STUDIES Main controversies In prostate Cancer: 1-Screening 2-Management Observation Surgery Standard Laparoscopic Robotic Radiation: (no discussion on Cryosurgery-RF etc.) Standard SBRT
More informationProposed prognostic scoring system evaluating risk factors for biochemical recurrence of prostate cancer after salvage radiation therapy
Proposed prognostic scoring system evaluating risk factors for biochemical recurrence of prostate cancer after salvage radiation therapy Richard J. Lee, Katherine S. Tzou, Michael G. Heckman*, Corey J.
More informationPROSTATE CANCER Amit Gupta MD MPH
PROSTATE CANCER Amit Gupta MD MPH Depts. of Urology and Epidemiology Amit-Gupta-1@uiowa.edu dramitgupta@gmail.com Tel: 319-384-5251 OUTLINE PSA screening controversy How to use PSA more effectively Treatment
More informationChapter 6. Long-Term Outcomes of Radical Prostatectomy for Clinically Localized Prostate Adenocarcinoma. Abstract
Chapter 6 Long-Term Outcomes of Radical Prostatectomy for Clinically Localized Prostate Adenocarcinoma Vijaya Raj Bhatt 1, Carl M Post 2, Sumit Dahal 3, Fausto R Loberiza 4 and Jue Wang 4 * 1 Department
More informationMultiinstitutional Validation of the UCSF Cancer of the Prostate Risk Assessment for Prediction of Recurrence After Radical Prostatectomy
2384 Multiinstitutional Validation of the UCSF Cancer of the Prostate Risk Assessment for Prediction of Recurrence After Radical Prostatectomy Matthew R. Cooperberg, MD, MPH 1 Stephen J. Freedland, MD
More informationBIOCHEMICAL RECURRENCE POST RADICAL PROSTATECTOMY
BIOCHEMICAL RECURRENCE POST RADICAL PROSTATECTOMY AZHAN BIN YUSOFF AZHAN BIN YUSOFF 2013 SCENARIO A 66 year old man underwent Robotic Radical Prostatectomy for a T1c Gleason 4+4, PSA 15 ng/ml prostate
More informationNothing to disclose. Disclosures
Low Dose-Rate Brachytherapy vs. Standard External Beam Radiotherapy vs. Stereotactic Body Radiotherapy for Low Risk Prostate Cancer: A Cost-Utility Analysis Joelle Helou, Sofia Torres, Hima Bindu Musunuru,
More informationEarly outcomes of active surveillance for localized prostate cancer
Original Article ACTIVE SURVEILLANCE FOR LOCALIZED PROSTATE CANCER HARDIE et al. Early outcomes of active surveillance for localized prostate cancer CLAIRE HARDIE, CHRIS PARKER, ANDREW NORMAN*, ROS EELES,
More informationBest Papers. F. Fusco
Best Papers UROLOGY F. Fusco Best papers - 2015 RP/RT Oncological outcomes RP/RT IN ct3 Utilization trends RP/RT Complications Evolving role of elnd /Salvage LND This cohort reflects the current clinical
More informationThe cost of prostate cancer chemoprevention: a decision analysis model Svatek R S, Lee J J, Roehrborn C G, Lippman S M, Lotan Y
The cost of prostate cancer chemoprevention: a decision analysis model Svatek R S, Lee J J, Roehrborn C G, Lippman S M, Lotan Y Record Status This is a critical abstract of an economic evaluation that
More informationHIGH DOSE RADIATION DELIVERED BY INTENSITY MODULATED CONFORMAL RADIOTHERAPY IMPROVES THE OUTCOME OF LOCALIZED PROSTATE CANCER
0022-5347/01/1663-0876/0 THE JOURNAL OF UROLOGY Vol. 166, 876 881, September 2001 Copyright 2001 by AMERICAN UROLOGICAL ASSOCIATION, INC. Printed in U.S.A. HIGH DOSE RADIATION DELIVERED BY INTENSITY MODULATED
More informationProstate Cancer: from Beginning to End
Prostate Cancer: from Beginning to End Matthew D. Katz, M.D. Assistant Professor Urologic Oncology Robotic and Laparoscopic Surgery University of Arkansas for Medical Sciences Winthrop P. Rockefeller Cancer
More informationInt. J. Cancer: 120, (2006)
Int. J. Cancer: 120, 170 174 (2006) ' 2006 Wiley-Liss, Inc. PSA doubling time predicts the outcome after active surveillance in screening-detected prostate cancer: Results from the European randomized
More informationTreatment of localized prostate cancer in elderly patients
Editorial Treatment of localized prostate cancer in elderly patients Mohammed Haseebuddin, Marc C. Smaldone Department of Urologic Oncology, Fox Chase Cancer Center, Philadelphia, PA, USA Correspondence
More informationBenefits, Risks, and Costs of Screening
CHAPTER 5 Benefits, Risks, and Costs of Screening his chapter draws from the literature reviewed in the previous three chapters to analyze the impact of a hypothetical prostate cancer screening program
More informationin 32%, T2c in 16% and T3 in 2% of patients.
BJUI Gleason 7 prostate cancer treated with lowdose-rate brachytherapy: lack of impact of primary Gleason pattern on biochemical failure Richard G. Stock, Joshua Berkowitz, Seth R. Blacksburg and Nelson
More informationProstate Cancer Dashboard
Process Risk Assessment Risk assessment: family history assessment of family history of prostate cancer Best Observed: 97 %1 ; Ideal Benchmark:100% measure P8 2 Process Appropriateness of Care Pre-treatment
More informationPSA testing in New Zealand general practice
PSA testing in New Zealand general practice Ross Lawrenson, Charis Brown, Fraser Hodgson. On behalf of the Midland Prostate Cancer Study Group Academic Steering Goup: Zuzana Obertova, Helen Conaglen, John
More informationImpact of PSA Screening on Prostate Cancer Incidence and Mortality in the US
Impact of PSA Screening on Prostate Cancer Incidence and Mortality in the US Deaths per 100,000 Ruth Etzioni Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center JASP Symposium, Montreal 2006 Prostate Cancer Incidence
More informationTiming of Androgen Deprivation: The Modern Debate Must be conducted in the following Contexts: 1. Clinical States Model
Timing and Type of Androgen Deprivation Charles J. Ryan MD Associate Professor of Clinical Medicine UCSF Comprehensive Cancer Center Timing of Androgen Deprivation: The Modern Debate Must be conducted
More informationORIGINAL INVESTIGATION
ORIGINAL INVESTIGATION LESS IS MORE Risk Profiles and Treatment Patterns Among Men Diagnosed as Having Prostate Cancer and a Prostate-Specific Antigen Level Below 4. ng/ml Yu-Hsuan Shao, PhD; Peter C.
More informationCauses of death in men with prostate cancer: an analysis of men from the Thames Cancer Registry
Causes of death in men with prostate cancer: an analysis of 5 men from the Thames Cancer Registry Simon Chowdhury, David Robinson, Declan Cahill*, Alejo Rodriguez-Vida, Lars Holmberg and Henrik Møller
More informationJAMA. 1998;280:
Original Contributions Biochemical Outcome After Radical Prostatectomy, Radiation Therapy, or Interstitial for Clinically Localized Prostate Cancer Anthony V. D Amico, MD, PhD; Richard Whittington, MD;
More informationUse of the cell cycle progression (CCP) score for predicting systemic disease and response to radiation of biochemical recurrence
Cancer Biomarkers 17 (2016) 83 88 83 DOI 10.3233/CBM-160620 IOS Press Use of the cell cycle progression (CCP) score for predicting systemic disease and response to radiation of biochemical recurrence Michael
More informationProstate Cancer. Axiom. Overdetection Is A Small Issue. Reducing Morbidity and Mortality
Overdetection Is A Small Issue (in the context of decreasing prostate cancer mortality rates and with appropriate, effective, and high-quality treatment) Prostate Cancer Arises silently Dwells in a curable
More informationStereotactic Ablative Radiotherapy for Prostate Cancer
Stereotactic Ablative Radiotherapy for Prostate Cancer Laurie Cuttino, MD Associate Professor of Radiation Oncology VCU Massey Cancer Center Director of Radiation Oncology Sarah Cannon Cancer Center at
More information