Seminars in Radiation Oncology
Volume 18, Issue 1 , Pages 2-6 , January 2008

Active Surveillance for Favorable Risk Prostate Cancer: What Are the Results, and How Safe Is It?

  • Laurence Klotz, MD

      Affiliations

    • Corresponding Author InformationAddress reprint requests to Laurence Klotz, MD, FRCSC, Division of Urology, University of Toronto, Sunnybrook Health Sciences Centre, 2075 Bayview Ave, #MG408, Toronto, Ontario M4N 3M5, Canada.

References 

  1. Welch HG, Schwartz LM, Woloshin S. Prostate-specific antigen levels in the United States: implications of various definitions for abnormal. J Natl Cancer Inst. 2005;97:1132–1137
  2. Sakr WA, Haas GP, Cassin BF, et al. The frequency of carcinoma and intraepithelial neoplasia of the prostate in young male patients. J Urol. 1993;150:379–385
  3. Jemal A, Tiwari RC, Murray T, et al. Cancer statistics, 2004. CA Cancer J Clin. 2004;54:8–29
  4. Etzioni R, Penson DF, Legler JM, et al. Overdiagnosis due to prostate-specific antigen screening: Lessons from U.S. prostate cancer incidence trends. J Natl Cancer Inst. 2002;94:981–990
  5. D’Amico AV, Whittington R, Malkowicz SB, et al. Biochemical outcome after radical prostatectomy, external beam radiation therapy, or interstitial radiation therapy for clinically localized prostate cancer. JAMA. 1998;280:969–974
  6. Albertsen P, Hanley JA, Fine J. 20-year outcomes following conservative management of clinically localized prostate cancer. JAMA. 2005;293:2095–2101
  7. Albertsen PC, Hanley JA, Barrows GH, et al. Prostate cancer and the Will Rogers phenomenon. Natl Cancer Inst. 2005;97:1248–1253
  8. Parker C. Active surveillance: Towards a new paradigm in the management of early prostate cancer. Lancet Oncol. 2004;5:101–106
  9. Parker C. Active surveillance: An individualized approach to early prostate cancer. BJU Int. 2003;92:2–3
  10. Presti JC. Prostate biopsy: how many cores are enough?. Urol Oncol. 2003;21:135–140
  11. Draisma G, Schroeder FH, et al. Lead times and overdetection due to PSA screening: Estimates from the European Randomized Study of Screening for Prostate Cancer. J Natl Cancer Inst. 2003;95:868–878
  12. Tornblom M, et al. Lead time associated with screening for prostate cancer. Int J Cancer. 2004;108:122–129
  13. Bill-Axelson A, Holmberg L. Radical prostatectomy versus watchful waiting (update). N Engl J Med. 2005;352:1977–1984
  14. Choo R, Klotz L, Danjoux C, et al. Feasibility study: Watchful waiting for localized low to intermediate grade prostate carcinoma with selective delayed intervention based on prostate specific antigen, histological and/or clinical progression. J Urol. 2002;167:1664–1669
  15. Choo R, DeBoer G, Klotz L, et al. PSA doubling time of prostate carcinoma managed with watchful observation alone. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2001;50:615–620
  16. Steineck G, Helgesen F, Adolfsson J, et al. Scandinavian Prostatic Cancer Group Study Number 4 (Quality of life after radical prostatectomy or watchful waiting). N Engl J Med. 2002;347:790–796
  17. Epstein JI, Walsh PC, Carter HB. Dedifferentiation of prostate cancer grade with time in men followed expectantly for stage T1c disease. J Urol. 2001;166:1688–1691

PII: S1053-4296(07)00073-2

doi: 10.1016/j.semradonc.2007.09.001

Seminars in Radiation Oncology
Volume 18, Issue 1 , Pages 2-6 , January 2008

Article Tools

* Image Usage & Resolution