Predictive Factors for Reclassification and Relapse in Prostate Cancer Eligible for Active Surveillance: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis.

[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.