Predictive Factors for Reclassification and Relapse in Prostate Cancer Eligible for Active Surveillance: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis.
暂无分享,去创建一个
S. Barni | F. Petrelli | A. Coinu | M. Ghilardi | M. Cabiddu | V. Lonati | K. Borgonovo | I. Vavassori
[1] D. Kuban,et al. Disease reclassification risk with stringent criteria and frequent monitoring in men with favourable‐risk prostate cancer undergoing active surveillance , 2016, BJU international.
[2] John T. Wei,et al. Outcomes of Active Surveillance for Clinically Localized Prostate Cancer in the Prospective, Multi-Institutional Canary PASS Cohort. , 2016, The Journal of urology.
[3] I. Gill,et al. Image-based monitoring of targeted biopsy-proven prostate cancer on active surveillance: 11-year experience , 2016, World Journal of Urology.
[4] P. Carroll,et al. Immediate versus delayed radical prostatectomy: updated outcomes following active surveillance of prostate cancer. , 2015, European urology.
[5] Mufaddal Mamawala,et al. Intermediate and Longer-Term Outcomes From a Prospective Active-Surveillance Program for Favorable-Risk Prostate Cancer. , 2015, Journal of clinical oncology : official journal of the American Society of Clinical Oncology.
[6] M. Roobol,et al. Predictive role of free prostate-specific antigen in a prospective active surveillance program (PRIAS) , 2015, World Journal of Urology.
[7] J. Oh,et al. Comparison of clinical outcomes between upgraded pathologic Gleason score 3 + 4 and non-upgraded 3 + 4 prostate cancer among patients who are candidates for active surveillance , 2015, World Journal of Urology.
[8] P. Stattin,et al. Five-year nationwide follow-up study of active surveillance for prostate cancer. , 2015, European urology.
[9] Danny Vesprini,et al. Long-term follow-up of a large active surveillance cohort of patients with prostate cancer. , 2015, Journal of clinical oncology : official journal of the American Society of Clinical Oncology.
[10] J. Hanley,et al. Factors influencing disease progression of prostate cancer under active surveillance: a McGill University Health Center cohort , 2014, BJU international.
[11] James E Ashfield,et al. Five-year follow-up of active surveillance for prostate cancer: A Canadian community-based urological experience. , 2014, Canadian Urological Association journal = Journal de l'Association des urologues du Canada.
[12] B. Vainer,et al. ERG protein expression in diagnostic specimens is associated with increased risk of progression during active surveillance for prostate cancer. , 2014, European urology.
[13] A. Evans,et al. Obesity is associated with risk of progression for low-risk prostate cancers managed expectantly. , 2014, European urology.
[14] J. Trachtenberg,et al. Active surveillance in patients with a PSA >10 ng/mL. , 2014, Canadian Urological Association journal = Journal de l'Association des urologues du Canada.
[15] A. D'Amico,et al. Racial disparities in prostate cancer-specific mortality in men with low-risk prostate cancer. , 2014, Clinical genitourinary cancer.
[16] A. Evans,et al. A negative confirmatory biopsy among men on active surveillance for prostate cancer does not protect them from histologic grade progression. , 2014, European urology.
[17] U. Capitanio,et al. The number of cores at first biopsy may suggest the need for a confirmatory biopsy in patients eligible for active surveillance-implication for clinical decision making in the real-life setting. , 2014, Urology.
[18] Sungroh Yoon,et al. The Use of Exome Genotyping to Predict Pathological Gleason Score Upgrade after Radical Prostatectomy in Low-Risk Prostate Cancer Patients , 2014, PloS one.
[19] M. Meng,et al. Prostate Cancer Predictors of Pathologic Progression on Biopsy Among Men on Active Surveillance for Localized Prostate Cancer : The Value of the Pattern of Surveillance Biopsies , 2013 .
[20] W. DeWolf,et al. Low free testosterone levels predict disease reclassification in men with prostate cancer undergoing active surveillance , 2014, BJU international.
[21] H. Jeon,et al. Role of multiparametric 3.0‐Tesla magnetic resonance imaging in patients with prostate cancer eligible for active surveillance , 2014, BJU international.
[22] M. Cooperberg,et al. Novel tools to improve patient selection and monitoring on active surveillance for low-risk prostate cancer: a systematic review. , 2014, European urology.
[23] G. Morgia,et al. Percentage of cancer involvement in positive cores can predict unfavorable disease in men with low-risk prostate cancer but eligible for the prostate cancer international: active surveillance criteria. , 2014, Urologic oncology.
[24] A. Partin,et al. Serum prostate‐specific antigen (PSA) concentration is positively associated with rate of disease reclassification on subsequent active surveillance prostate biopsy in men with low PSA density , 2014, BJU international.
[25] George F Borm,et al. The Hartung-Knapp-Sidik-Jonkman method for random effects meta-analysis is straightforward and considerably outperforms the standard DerSimonian-Laird method , 2014, BMC Medical Research Methodology.
[26] K. Ylitalo,et al. Active surveillance for low-risk prostate cancer in African American men: a multi-institutional experience. , 2014, Urology.
[27] D. Dearnaley,et al. Medium-term outcomes of active surveillance for localised prostate cancer. , 2013, European urology.
[28] S. Eggener,et al. Development and multi‐institutional validation of an upgrading risk tool for Gleason 6 prostate cancer , 2013, Cancer.
[29] L. Salomon,et al. Detailed biopsy pathologic features as predictive factors for initial reclassification in prostate cancer patients eligible for active surveillance. , 2013, Urologic oncology.
[30] M. Soloway,et al. Improving risk stratification in patients with prostate cancer managed by active surveillance: a nomogram predicting the risk of biopsy progression , 2013, BJU international.
[31] R. Marcos,et al. The Newcastle-Ottawa Scale (NOS) for assessing the quality of nonrandomized studies. , 2013 .
[32] T. Habuchi,et al. Pathological and biochemical outcomes after radical prostatectomy in men with low‐risk prostate cancer meeting the Prostate Cancer International: Active Surveillance criteria , 2013, BJU international.
[33] A. Partin,et al. Increased incidence of pathologically nonorgan confined prostate cancer in African-American men eligible for active surveillance. , 2013, Urology.
[34] A. Hoznek,et al. Analysis of outcomes after radical prostatectomy in patients eligible for active surveillance (PRIAS) , 2013, BJU international.
[35] J. Oh,et al. Prostate‐specific antigen vs prostate‐specific antigen density as a predictor of upgrading in men diagnosed with Gleason 6 prostate cancer by contemporary multicore prostate biopsy , 2012, BJU international.
[36] B. Trock,et al. Effect of treatment with 5‐α reductase inhibitors on progression in monitored men with favourable‐risk prostate cancer , 2012, BJU international.
[37] J. Lau,et al. Active Surveillance in Men With Localized Prostate Cancer , 2012, Annals of Internal Medicine.
[38] B. G. Blijenberg,et al. Prostate-cancer mortality at 11 years of follow-up. , 2012, The New England journal of medicine.
[39] A. Evans,et al. Impact of 5α-reductase inhibitors on men followed by active surveillance for prostate cancer. , 2011, European urology.
[40] Kirsten L. Greene,et al. Surgical management after active surveillance for low‐risk prostate cancer: pathological outcomes compared with men undergoing immediate treatment , 2011, BJU international.
[41] A. Billis. Active surveillance program for prostate cancer: an update of the Johns Hopkins experience , 2011 .
[42] J. Cuzick,et al. Measurements of cancer extent in a conservatively treated prostate cancer biopsy cohort , 2010, Virchows Archiv.
[43] P. Carroll,et al. Prostate cancer managed with active surveillance: role of anatomic MR imaging and MR spectroscopic imaging. , 2010, Radiology.
[44] A. Partin,et al. DNA content in the diagnostic biopsy for benign‐adjacent and cancer‐tissue areas predicts the need for treatment in men with T1c prostate cancer undergoing surveillance in an expectant management programme , 2010, BJU international.
[45] William J Catalona,et al. Treatment outcomes of radical prostatectomy in potential candidates for 3 published active surveillance protocols. , 2010, Urology.
[46] D. Dearnaley,et al. A study of diffusion-weighted magnetic resonance imaging in men with untreated localised prostate cancer on active surveillance. , 2009, European urology.
[47] A. Partin,et al. Pro–Prostate-Specific Antigen Measurements in Serum and Tissue Are Associated with Treatment Necessity among Men Enrolled in Expectant Management for Prostate Cancer , 2009, Clinical Cancer Research.
[48] J. Hugosson,et al. Ki-67 in screen-detected, low-grade, low-stage prostate cancer, relation to prostate-specific antigen doubling time, Gleason score and prostate-specific antigen relapse after radical prostatectomy , 2009, Scandinavian journal of urology and nephrology.
[49] M. Cooperberg,et al. Active surveillance for the management of prostate cancer in a contemporary cohort , 2008, Cancer.
[50] M. Terris,et al. Outcomes after radical prostatectomy among men who are candidates for active surveillance: results from the SEARCH database. , 2008, Urology.
[51] J. Epstein,et al. Change in prostate cancer grade over time in men followed expectantly for stage T1c disease. , 2008, The Journal of urology.
[52] R. V. D. van den Bergh,et al. Prospective validation of active surveillance in prostate cancer: the PRIAS study. , 2007, European urology.
[53] E. Metter,et al. Expectant management of prostate cancer with curative intent: an update of the Johns Hopkins experience , 2007 .
[54] M. Sydes,et al. Practical methods for incorporating summary time-to-event data into meta-analysis , 2007, Trials.
[55] L. Klotz. Active surveillance for prostate cancer: for whom? , 2005, Journal of clinical oncology : official journal of the American Society of Clinical Oncology.
[56] J. Crowley,et al. Prevalence of prostate cancer among men with a prostate-specific antigen level < or =4.0 ng per milliliter. , 2004, The New England journal of medicine.
[57] F. Song,et al. Evaluating non-randomised intervention studies. , 2003, Health technology assessment.
[58] D. Altman,et al. Measuring inconsistency in meta-analyses , 2003, BMJ : British Medical Journal.
[59] G. Smith,et al. Bias in meta-analysis detected by a simple, graphical test , 1997, BMJ.
[60] P. Walsh,et al. Pathologic and clinical findings to predict tumor extent of nonpalpable (stage T1c) prostate cancer. , 1994, JAMA.
[61] B. Trock,et al. Reclassification rates are higher among African American men than Caucasians on active surveillance. , 2015, Urology.
[62] J. Hugosson,et al. Outcome following active surveillance of men with screen-detected prostate cancer. Results from the Göteborg randomised population-based prostate cancer screening trial. , 2013, European urology.
[63] P. Carroll,et al. Eligibility for active surveillance and pathological outcomes for men undergoing radical prostatectomy in a large, community based cohort. , 2010, The Journal of urology.
[64] Alexandre Mamedov,et al. Clinical results of long-term follow-up of a large, active surveillance cohort with localized prostate cancer. , 2010, Journal of clinical oncology : official journal of the American Society of Clinical Oncology.