scholarly journals MP77-16 FIRST REPEATED BIOPSY REPRESENTS THE MOST INFORMATIVE PREDICTOR OF PROGRESSION-FREE SURVIVAL AT 3 YEARS FOLLOW-UP IN PATIENTS INCLUDED IN AN ACTIVE SURVEILLANCE PROTOCOL FOR LOW-RISK PROSTATE CANCER

2017 ◽  
Vol 197 (4S) ◽  
Author(s):  
Stefano Luzzago ◽  
Nazareno Suardi ◽  
Paolo Dell'Oglio ◽  
Nicola Fossati ◽  
Umberto Capitanio ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Prostate Cancer ◽  
Active Surveillance ◽  
Progression Free Survival ◽  
Low Risk ◽  
Free Survival ◽  
Risk Prostate Cancer ◽  
Low Risk Prostate Cancer ◽  
Surveillance Protocol

scholarly journals Stereotactic body radiotherapy for low-risk prostate cancer: Five-year outcomes.

2011 ◽  
Vol 29 (7_suppl) ◽  
pp. 94-94
Author(s):  
D. Freeman ◽  
C. R. King
Keyword(s):  
Prostate Cancer ◽  
Stereotactic Body Radiotherapy ◽  
Progression Free Survival ◽  
Low Risk ◽  
Free Survival ◽  
Risk Prostate Cancer ◽  
Low Risk Prostate Cancer ◽  
Biochemical Progression ◽  
Grade 3

94 Background: Hypofractionated, stereotactic body radiotherapy (SBRT) is an emerging treatment approach for prostate cancer. We present the outcomes for low-risk prostate cancer patients with a median follow-up of 5 years after SBRT. Methods: Between Dec. 2003 and Dec. 2005, a pooled cohort of 41 consecutive patients from Stanford, CA and Naples, FL received SBRT with CyberKnife for clinically localized, low-risk prostate cancer. Prescribed dose was 35–36.25 Gy in five fractions. No patient received hormone therapy. Kaplan-Meier biochemical progression-free survival (defined using the Phoenix method) and RTOG toxicity outcomes were assessed. Results: At a median follow-up of 5 years the biochemical progression-free survival was 93% (95% CI = 84.7% to 100%). Acute side effects resolved within 1–3 months of treatment completion. There were no grade 4 toxicities. No late grade 3 rectal toxicity and only one late grade 3 genitourinary toxicity occurred following repeated urologic instrumentation. Conclusions: Five-year results of SBRT for localized prostate cancer demonstrate the effectiveness and safety of shorter courses of high dose per fraction radiation delivered with SBRT technique. Ongoing clinical trials are expected to further support this experience. [Table: see text]

scholarly journals MP48-17 DO PROGRESSION RATES ON FOLLOW UP BIOPSY OVER TIME DIFFER BETWEEN MEN WITH VERY LOW RISK AND LOW RISK PROSTATE CANCER ON ACTIVE SURVEILLANCE?

2019 ◽  
Vol 201 (Supplement 4) ◽  
Author(s):  
Srinath Kotamarti* ◽  
Andrew Wood ◽  
Alyssa Yee ◽  
Daniel Rabinowitz ◽  
Allison Marziliano ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Prostate Cancer ◽  
Active Surveillance ◽  
Low Risk ◽  
Risk Prostate Cancer ◽  
Low Risk Prostate Cancer ◽  
Over Time

Evaluation of Diffusion-Weighted MR Imaging at Inclusion in an Active Surveillance Protocol for Low-Risk Prostate Cancer

2013 ◽  
Vol 48 (3) ◽  
pp. 152-157 ◽  
Author(s):  
Diederik M. Somford ◽  
Caroline M. Hoeks ◽  
Christina A. Hulsbergen-van de Kaa ◽  
Thomas Hambrock ◽  
Jurgen J. Fütterer ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Prostate Cancer ◽  
Mr Imaging ◽  
Active Surveillance ◽  
Low Risk ◽  
Diffusion Weighted ◽  
Risk Prostate Cancer ◽  
Low Risk Prostate Cancer ◽  
Surveillance Protocol

Value of multimodality MRI and MR-guided biopsy at inclusion in an active surveillance protocol for prostate cancer.

2012 ◽  
Vol 30 (5_suppl) ◽  
pp. 105-105
Author(s):  
Diederik Meindert Somford ◽  
Caroline M. Hoeks ◽  
Roderick C. van den Bergh ◽  
Henk Vergunst ◽  
Inge M van Oort ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Prostate Cancer ◽  
Active Surveillance ◽  
Prostate Carcinoma ◽  
Clinical Stage ◽  
Low Risk ◽  
Definitive Treatment ◽  
Guided Biopsy ◽  
Risk Prostate Cancer ◽  
Low Risk Prostate Cancer ◽  
Surveillance Protocol

105 Background: To prevent overtreatment of insignificant and/or low-risk prostate carcinoma in the PSA screening era, active surveillance is emerging as a treatment strategy for selected patients. In our series we aim to establish whether MRI could aid in correct risk assessment for these patients within the framework of the Prostate Cancer Research International Active Surveillance (PRIAS) study. Methods: We included patients in our protocol based on contemporary criteria for active surveillance: - Diagnosis of prostate cancer by TRUS-guided biopsy. - PSA ≤10 ng/mL, PSA density <0.2 ng/mL/mL - Clinical stage ≤ T2 - Gleason score (GS) ≤3+3=6 - ≤ 2 biopsy cores with cancer All patients underwent multimodality MRI of the prostate, including T2-weighted, diffusion-weighted and dynamic contrast-enhanced MR sequences. When a tumor-suspicious region (TSR) could be identified a targeted MR-guided biopsy (MRGB) was performed to obtain pathology. Patients were referred for definitive treatment in case of GS > 3+3=6 upon MRGB or T3 stage at MRI. Results: In 48 of 49 included patients at least one TSR was identified, with a median of 2 TSRs (range1-4) per patient. MRGB was obtained from every TSR, with a median of 4 MRGBs taken per patient. Five patients had a GS >3+3=6 upon MRGB and were excluded. Three patients were excluded due to suspicion of T3 stage on MRI. Five patient were excluded upon physician’s discretion due to multifocal prostate cancer upon MRGB. Combined multimodality MRI/MRGB in our active surveillance cohort thus excluded 27% (13/49) of patients who were incorrectly stratified as low-risk prostate carcinoma by contemporary criteria. Conclusions: Application of multimodality MRI and MRGB in an active surveillance protocol improves risk stratification, adding onto contemporary PSA and TRUS-guided biopsy criteria for low-risk prostate cancer. This approach might increase safety and reliability of active surveillance for prostate cancer and deserves ongoing prospective evaluation.

Perspectives of health care professionals on active surveillance for the management of prostate cancer.

2018 ◽  
Vol 36 (6_suppl) ◽  
pp. 81-81
Author(s):  
Fred Saad ◽  
Kittie Pang ◽  
Margaret Fitch ◽  
Veronique Ouellet ◽  
Simone Chevalier ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Prostate Cancer ◽  
Health Care ◽  
Active Surveillance ◽  
Health Care Providers ◽  
Low Risk ◽  
Care Providers ◽  
Radiation Oncologists ◽  
Risk Prostate Cancer ◽  
Low Risk Prostate Cancer

81 Background: Active surveillance has gained widespread acceptance as a safe approach for patients with low risk prostate cancer. Despite presenting several advantages for both patients and the health care system, active surveillance is not adopted by all eligible patients. In this study, we evaluated the factors that influence physicians to recommend active surveillance and the barriers that impact adherence to this approach. Methods: We conducted five focus groups with a total of 48 health care providers (HCP) including family physicians, urologists, surgeons, radiation oncologists, fellows, and residents/medical students. These participants were all providing care for men with low risk prostate cancer and had engaged in conversations with men and their families about active surveillance. The experience of these HCP from academic hospitals in four Canadian provinces was captured. A content and theme analysis was performed on the verbatim transcripts to understand HCP decisions in proposing active surveillance and reveal the facilitators that affect the adherence to this approach. Results: Participants agreed that active surveillance is a suitable approach for low risk prostate cancer patients, but expressed concerns on the rapidly evolving and non-standardized guidelines for patient follow-up. They raised the need for additional tools to appropriately identify the patients best suited for active surveillance. Collaborations between urologists, radiation-oncologists, and medical oncologists were favoured, however, the role of general practitioners remained controversial once patients were referred to a specialist. Conclusions: Integration of more reliable tools and/or markers, and more specific guidelines for patient follow-up would help both patients and physicians in the decision-making for active surveillance.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document