Comparative analysis of histological and remote oncological outcomes after radical prostatectomy in patients matching Johns Hopkins and the Royal Marsden Hospital criteria for active monitoring


Cite item

Full Text

Open Access Open Access
Restricted Access Access granted
Restricted Access Subscription or Fee Access

Abstract

A retrospective comparative analysis of results of treatment of patients with prostate cancer who met the most stringent (Johns Hopkins - JH; 74 patients) and the most mild (Royal Marsden Hospital - RMH; 263 patients) selection criteria for the management according to the strategy of active monitoring was performed. Significant differences in the frequency of detection of adverse histological features and biochemical recurrence-free survival after radical prostatectomy in patients eligible for JH and RMH criteria were not identified. Extracapsular extension occurred in 2.7 and 4.9% (P=0,33), seminal vesicle invasion - in 1.4 and 2,6% (P=0.43), positive surgical margins - in 6 , 8 and 7.2 % (P=0.56) , Gleason score increase - at 6.8 and 9.1 % (P=0.49), respectively. Five-year disease-free survival rates were 95.7 and 95,8% (P=0.41). Regardless of the protocol selection for active monitoring, precise examination of patients and staging of the disease are absolutely necessary, as well as the future well-designed studies on the comparative analysis of the effectiveness of active monitoring and early curative treatment in the settings of national health care.

Full Text

Restricted Access

About the authors

E. I Veliev

SPEI FPE Russian Medical Academy of Postgraduate Education of RMPH

Department of Urology and Surgical Andrology

E. A Sokolov

SPEI FPE Russian Medical Academy of Postgraduate Education of RMPH

Email: rmapo@yandex.ru; egsok@bk.ru
Department of Urology and Surgical Andrology postgraduate student

O. B Loran

SPEI FPE Russian Medical Academy of Postgraduate Education of RMPH

Department of Urology and Surgical Andrology

S. B Petrov

FSBI Russian national Center of Emergency and Radiation Medicine n.a. A.M. Nikiforov of MES of Russia

References

  1. Center M., Jemal A., Lortet-Tieulent J. et al. International variation in prostate cancer incidence and mortality rates. Eur. Urol. 2012;61:1079-1092.
  2. Чиссов В.И. Злокачественные новообразования в России в 2011 году (заболеваемость и смертность). В.И. Чиссов, В.В. Старинский, Г.В. Петрова. М.: ФГБУ «МНИОИ им. П.А. Герцена» Минздрава России. 2013. ил. 289 с.
  3. Чиссов В.И., Русаков И.Г. Заболеваемость раком предстательной железы в Российской Федерации. Экспериментальная и клиническая урология. 2011;2-3:6-7.
  4. Huang G.J., Sadetsky N., Penson D.F. Health related quality of life for men treated for localized prostate cancer with long-term follow up. J Urol. 2010; 183: 2206-2212.
  5. Klotz L. Cancer overdiagnosis and overtreatment. Curr. Opin. Urol. 2012; 22:203-209.
  6. Thompson I., Thrasher J.B., Aus G. et al. AUA Prostate cancer clinical guideline update panel. Guideline for management of clinically localized prostate cancer: 2007 update. J Urol. 2007;177: 2106-2131.
  7. Heidenreich A., Bellmunt J., Bolla M. et al. EAU guidelines on prostate cancer. Part 1: screening, diagnosis, and treatment of clinically localized disease. Eur Urol. 2011;59:61-71.
  8. Cooperberg M.R., Cowan J.E., Hilton J.F. et al. Outcomes of active surveillance for men with intermediate-risk prostate cancer. J Clin. Oncol. 2011; 29:228-234.
  9. Dall’Era M.A., Konety B.R., Cowan J.E. et al. Active surveillance for the management of prostate cancer in contemporary cohort. Cancer. 2008;112: 2664-70.
  10. Tosoian J.J., Trock B.J., Landis P. et al. Active surveillance program for prostate cancer: an update of the Johns Hopkins experience. J Clin. Oncol. 2011; 29: 2185-90.
  11. Klotz L., Zhang L., Lam A. et al. Clinical results of long-term follow-up of a large, active surveillance cohort with localized prostate cancer. J Clin. Oncol. 2010; 28:126-131.
  12. Cooperberg M.R., Carrol P.R., Klotz L. Active surveillance for prostate cancer: progress and promise. J Clin. Oncol. 2011; 29: 3669-3676.
  13. van As N.J., Norman A.R., Thomas K. et al. Predicting the probability of deferred radical treatment for localized prostate cancer managed by active surveillance. Eur. Urol. 2008; 54:1297-1305.
  14. van den Bergh R.C., Vasarainen H., van der Poel H.G. et al. Short-term outcomes of the prospective multicentre Prostate Cancer Research International: Active Surveillance study. BJU Int. 2010; 105: 956-962.
  15. Berglund R.K., Masterson T.A., Vora K.C. et al. Pathological upgrading and up staging with immediate repeat biopsy in patients eligible for active surveillance. J Urol. 2008; 180:1964-1967.
  16. Soloway M.S., Soloway C.T., Eldefrawy A. et al. Careful selection and close monitoring of low-risk prostate cancer patients on active surveillance minimizes the need for treatment. Eur. Urol. 2010; 58: 831-835.
  17. Lee D.H., Jung H.B., Lee S.H. et al. Comparison of pathological outcomes of active surveillance candidates who underwent radical prostatectomy using contemporary protocols at a high-volume Korean center. Jpn. J Clin. Oncol. 2012; 42:1079-1085.
  18. Mitsuzuka K., Narita S., Koie T. et al. Pathological and biochemical outcomes after radical prostatectomy in men with low-risk prostate cancer meeting the Prostate Cancer International: Active Surveillance criteria. BJU Int. 2013;111(6):914-920.
  19. Pinheiro L., Farinha R., Silva T. et al. Pathological features after radical prostatectomy for low risk prostate cancer candidates to active surveillance. Eur. Urol. Suppl. 2007; 6(2):279.
  20. Suardi N., Capitanio U., Briganti A. et al. Outcome of patients potentially suitable for active surveillance undergoing radical prostatectomy as first treatment choice. J Urol. Suppl. 2010;183(4):673.

Supplementary files

Supplementary Files
Action
1. JATS XML
Download

Copyright (c) 2014 Bionika Media

This website uses cookies

You consent to our cookies if you continue to use our website.

About Cookies