Active Surveillance of Prostate Cancer: Use, Outcomes, Imaging, and Diagnostic Tools.
暂无分享,去创建一个
P. Choyke | J. Epstein | J. Tosoian | E. Schaeffer | B. Turkbey | S. Loeb | Jonathan I. Epstein | Edward M. Schaeffer | J. Tosoian | Peter L. Choyke | Stacy Loeb
[1] D. Gleason,et al. PREDICTION OF PROGNOSIS FOR PROSTATIC ADENOCARCINOMA BY COMBINED HISTOLOGICAL GRADING AND CLINICAL STAGING , 2017, The Journal of urology.
[2] M. Roobol,et al. Complications after prostate biopsies in men on active surveillance and its effects on receiving further biopsies in the Prostate cancer Research International: Active Surveillance (PRIAS) study , 2016, BJU international.
[3] Baris Turkbey,et al. Multiparametric prostate magnetic resonance imaging in the evaluation of prostate cancer , 2016, CA: a cancer journal for clinicians.
[4] Pär Stattin,et al. Evaluation of the 2015 Gleason Grade Groups in a Nationwide Population-based Cohort. , 2016, European urology.
[5] Jianbo Li,et al. Decipher Genomic Classifier Measured on Prostate Biopsy Predicts Metastasis Risk. , 2016, Urology.
[6] J. Tosoian,et al. Active surveillance for prostate cancer: current evidence and contemporary state of practice , 2016, Nature Reviews Urology.
[7] B. Trock,et al. Pathologic Outcomes in Favorable-risk Prostate Cancer: Comparative Analysis of Men Electing Active Surveillance and Immediate Surgery. , 2016, European urology.
[8] L. Egevad,et al. A Contemporary Prostate Cancer Grading System: A Validated Alternative to the Gleason Score. , 2016, European urology.
[9] A. D'Amico,et al. Which, when and why? Rational use of tissue-based molecular testing in localized prostate cancer , 2015, Prostate Cancer and Prostatic Disease.
[10] B. Delahunt,et al. The 2014 International Society of Urological Pathology (ISUP) Consensus Conference on Gleason Grading of Prostatic Carcinoma: Definition of Grading Patterns and Proposal for a New Grading System , 2015, The American journal of surgical pathology.
[11] Christopher J Kane,et al. Prostate Cancer, Version 1.2016. , 2016, Journal of the National Comprehensive Cancer Network : JNCCN.
[12] H. Hricak,et al. Updated prostate imaging reporting and data system (PIRADS v2) recommendations for the detection of clinically significant prostate cancer using multiparametric MRI: critical evaluation using whole-mount pathology as standard of reference , 2016, European Radiology.
[13] F. Gallagher,et al. Investigating the ability of multiparametric MRI to exclude significant prostate cancer prior to transperineal biopsy. , 2015, Canadian Urological Association journal = Journal de l'Association des urologues du Canada.
[14] P. Carroll,et al. Immediate versus delayed radical prostatectomy: updated outcomes following active surveillance of prostate cancer. , 2015, European urology.
[15] 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.
[16] Hartwig Huland,et al. Changing Trends in Surgical Management of Prostate Cancer: The End of Overtreatment? , 2015, European urology.
[17] S. Naito,et al. Current use of active surveillance for localized prostate cancer: A nationwide survey in Japan , 2015, International journal of urology : official journal of the Japanese Urological Association.
[18] M. Cooperberg,et al. Trends in Management for Patients With Localized Prostate Cancer, 1990-2013. , 2015, JAMA.
[19] E. Klein,et al. Applying precision medicine to the active surveillance of prostate cancer , 2015, Cancer.
[20] P. Febbo,et al. The Impact of a Biopsy Based 17‐Gene Genomic Prostate Score on Treatment Recommendations in Men with Newly Diagnosed Clinically Prostate Cancer Who are Candidates for Active Surveillance , 2015, Urology practice.
[21] Nan Zhang,et al. A Biopsy-based 17-gene Genomic Prostate Score Predicts Recurrence After Radical Prostatectomy and Adverse Surgical Pathology in a Racially Diverse Population of Men with Clinically Low- and Intermediate-risk Prostate Cancer. , 2015, European urology.
[22] J. Epstein,et al. Re: Nationwide prevalence of lymph node metastases in Gleason score 3 + 3 = 6 prostate cancer. , 2015, Pathology.
[23] P. Choyke,et al. Use of serial multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging in the management of patients with prostate cancer on active surveillance. , 2015, Urologic oncology.
[24] Michael Laviolette,et al. Trends in initial management of prostate cancer in New Hampshire , 2015, Cancer Causes & Control.
[25] N. Lawrentschuk,et al. The current use of active surveillance in an Australian cohort of men: a pattern of care analysis from the Victorian Prostate Cancer Registry , 2015, BJU international.
[26] M. Loda,et al. Development and Clinical Validation of an In Situ Biopsy-Based Multimarker Assay for Risk Stratification in Prostate Cancer , 2015, Clinical Cancer Research.
[27] Kirsten L. Greene,et al. Extended followup and risk factors for disease reclassification in a large active surveillance cohort for localized prostate cancer. , 2015, The Journal of urology.
[28] A. D. De Marzo,et al. Diagnostic challenges of clonal heterogeneity in prostate cancer. , 2015, Journal of clinical oncology : official journal of the American Society of Clinical Oncology.
[29] Baris Turkbey,et al. Comparison of MR/ultrasound fusion-guided biopsy with ultrasound-guided biopsy for the diagnosis of prostate cancer. , 2015, JAMA.
[30] 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.
[31] J. Hicks,et al. PTEN Loss is Associated with Upgrading of Prostate Cancer from Biopsy to Radical Prostatectomy , 2014, Modern Pathology.
[32] C. Catalano,et al. Multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging vs. standard care in men being evaluated for prostate cancer: a randomized study. , 2015, Urologic oncology.
[33] David C. Miller,et al. Contemporary use of initial active surveillance among men in Michigan with low-risk prostate cancer. , 2015, European urology.
[34] William L. Welbourn,et al. PTEN loss in biopsy tissue predicts poor clinical outcomes in prostate cancer , 2014, International journal of urology : official journal of the Japanese Urological Association.
[35] Y. Pawitan,et al. Operator Dependent Choice of Prostate Cancer Biopsy Has Limited Impact on a Gene Signature Analysis for the Highly Expressed Genes IGFBP3 and F3 in Prostate Cancer Epithelial Cells , 2014, PloS one.
[36] P. Febbo,et al. A 17-gene assay to predict prostate cancer aggressiveness in the context of Gleason grade heterogeneity, tumor multifocality, and biopsy undersampling. , 2014, European urology.
[37] Lawrence D. True,et al. The critical role of the pathologist in determining eligibility for active surveillance as a management option in patients with prostate cancer: consensus statement with recommendations supported by the College of American Pathologists, International Society of Urological Pathology, Association of D , 2014, Archives of pathology & laboratory medicine.
[38] William L. Welbourn,et al. Prognostic utility of the cell cycle progression score generated from biopsy in men treated with prostatectomy. , 2014, The Journal of urology.
[39] M. Loda,et al. Identification of proteomic biomarkers predicting prostate cancer aggressiveness and lethality despite biopsy-sampling error , 2014, British Journal of Cancer.
[40] David L Rimm,et al. Automated quantitative multiplex immunofluorescence in situ imaging identifies phospho-S6 and phospho-PRAS40 as predictive protein biomarkers for prostate cancer lethality , 2014, Proteome Science.
[41] F. Feng,et al. Genomic Prostate Cancer Classifier Predicts Biochemical Failure and Metastases in Patients After Postoperative Radiation Therapy , 2014, International journal of radiation oncology, biology, physics.
[42] John T. Wei,et al. Variation in use of active surveillance among men undergoing expectant treatment for early stage prostate cancer. , 2014, The Journal of urology.
[43] Wei Zhou,et al. Global transcriptome analysis of formalin-fixed prostate cancer specimens identifies biomarkers of disease recurrence. , 2014, Cancer research.
[44] 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.
[45] L. Marks,et al. Screening and detection advances in magnetic resonance image-guided prostate biopsy. , 2014, The Urologic clinics of North America.
[46] Sudhir Srivastava,et al. Addressing overdiagnosis and overtreatment in cancer: a prescription for change. , 2014, The Lancet. Oncology.
[47] William L. Welbourn,et al. Clinical utility of a biopsy-based cell cycle gene expression assay in localized prostate cancer , 2014, Current medical research and opinion.
[48] E. Crawford,et al. Cell cycle progression score and treatment decisions in prostate cancer: results from an ongoing registry , 2014, Current medical research and opinion.
[49] Hodgkin Lymphoma. NCCN Clinical Practice Guidelines in Oncology (NCCN Guidelines , 2014 .
[50] T. H. van der Kwast,et al. EAU guidelines on prostate cancer. part 1: screening, diagnosis, and local treatment with curative intent-update 2013. , 2014, European urology.
[51] Kazuto Ito,et al. The impact of baseline [−2]proPSA-related indices on the prediction of pathological reclassification at 1 year during active surveillance for low-risk prostate cancer: the Japanese multicenter study cohort , 2013, Journal of Cancer Research and Clinical Oncology.
[52] Anirban P. Mitra,et al. Validation of a genomic classifier that predicts metastasis following radical prostatectomy in an at risk patient population. , 2013, The Journal of urology.
[53] D. Dearnaley,et al. Medium-term outcomes of active surveillance for localised prostate cancer. , 2013, European urology.
[54] Yair Lotan,et al. Systematic review of complications of prostate biopsy. , 2013, European urology.
[55] P. Stattin,et al. Population based study of use and determinants of active surveillance and watchful waiting for low and intermediate risk prostate cancer. , 2013, The Journal of urology.
[56] D. Watson,et al. Analytical validation of the Oncotype DX prostate cancer assay – a clinical RT-PCR assay optimized for prostate needle biopsies , 2013, BMC Genomics.
[57] Jun Luo,et al. The mutational landscape of prostate cancer. , 2013, European urology.
[58] B. Trock,et al. Pathological outcomes in men with low risk and very low risk prostate cancer: implications on the practice of active surveillance. , 2013, The Journal of urology.
[59] P. Choyke,et al. Accuracy of multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging in confirming eligibility for active surveillance for men with prostate cancer , 2013, Cancer.
[60] William L. Welbourn,et al. Prognostic utility of cell cycle progression score in men with prostate cancer after primary external beam radiation therapy. , 2013, International journal of radiation oncology, biology, physics.
[61] J. Trachtenberg,et al. Oncologic outcomes following radical prostatectomy in the active surveillance era. , 2013, Canadian Urological Association journal = Journal de l'Association des urologues du Canada.
[62] Baris Turkbey,et al. Prostate cancer: can multiparametric MR imaging help identify patients who are candidates for active surveillance? , 2013, Radiology.
[63] J. Lindberg,et al. Genetic markers associated with early cancer‐specific mortality following prostatectomy , 2013, Cancer.
[64] Anirban P. Mitra,et al. Discovery and Validation of a Prostate Cancer Genomic Classifier that Predicts Early Metastasis Following Radical Prostatectomy , 2013, PloS one.
[65] J. Cuzick,et al. Prognostic value of PTEN loss in men with conservatively managed localised prostate cancer , 2013, British Journal of Cancer.
[66] 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.
[67] Jennifer L. Beebe-Dimmer,et al. Prognostic Gleason grade grouping : data based on the modified Gleason scoring system , 2013 .
[68] Eric A Singer,et al. Gleason score 6 adenocarcinoma: should it be labeled as cancer? , 2012, Journal of clinical oncology : official journal of the American Society of Clinical Oncology.
[69] H. Carter. Active surveillance for prostate cancer: an underutilized opportunity for reducing harm. , 2012, Journal of the National Cancer Institute. Monographs.
[70] M. Litwin,et al. Quality of life in men undergoing active surveillance for localized prostate cancer. , 2012, Journal of the National Cancer Institute. Monographs.
[71] B. Trock,et al. Association of [-2]proPSA with biopsy reclassification during active surveillance for prostate cancer. , 2012, The Journal of urology.
[72] Janet E Cowan,et al. Do Adenocarcinomas of the Prostate With Gleason Score (GS)⩽6 Have the Potential to Metastasize to Lymph Nodes? , 2012, The American journal of surgical pathology.
[73] C. Plass,et al. Genomic deletion of PTEN is associated with tumor progression and early PSA recurrence in ERG fusion-positive and fusion-negative prostate cancer. , 2012, The American journal of pathology.
[74] M. Kattan,et al. Preoperative nomograms incorporating magnetic resonance imaging and spectroscopy for prediction of insignificant prostate cancer , 2012, BJU international.
[75] J. Cuzick,et al. Prognostic value of a cell cycle progression signature for prostate cancer death in a conservatively managed needle biopsy cohort , 2012, British Journal of Cancer.
[76] Jianfeng Xu,et al. PTEN Protein Loss by Immunostaining: Analytic Validation and Prognostic Indicator for a High Risk Surgical Cohort of Prostate Cancer Patients , 2011, Clinical Cancer Research.
[77] Yousef Mazaheri,et al. Diffusion-weighted endorectal MR imaging at 3 T for prostate cancer: tumor detection and assessment of aggressiveness. , 2011, Radiology.
[78] J. Cuzick,et al. Prognostic value of an RNA expression signature derived from cell cycle proliferation genes in patients with prostate cancer: a retrospective study. , 2011, The Lancet. Oncology.
[79] Baris Turkbey,et al. Is apparent diffusion coefficient associated with clinical risk scores for prostate cancers that are visible on 3-T MR images? , 2011, Radiology.
[80] Kirsten L. Greene,et al. Outcomes of active surveillance for men with intermediate-risk prostate cancer. , 2011, Journal of clinical oncology : official journal of the American Society of Clinical Oncology.
[81] K. Markou,et al. National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN) Head and Neck Cancers NCCN Clinical Practice Guidelines in Oncology . 2010. , 2011 .
[82] Matthew R Cooperberg,et al. Time trends and local variation in primary treatment of localized prostate cancer. , 2010, Journal of clinical oncology : official journal of the American Society of Clinical Oncology.
[83] S. Raab. A Contemporary Study Correlating Prostate Needle Biopsy and Radical Prostatectomy Gleason Score , 2009 .
[84] L. Egevad,et al. Correlation of modified Gleason grading of prostate carcinoma with age, serum prostate specific antigen and tumor extent in needle biopsy specimens. , 2008, Analytical and quantitative cytology and histology.
[85] J. Epstein,et al. A contemporary study correlating prostate needle biopsy and radical prostatectomy Gleason score. , 2008, The Journal of urology.
[86] Matthew R Cooperberg,et al. Contemporary trends in low risk prostate cancer: risk assessment and treatment. , 2007, The Journal of urology.
[87] M. Kattan,et al. The utility of magnetic resonance imaging and spectroscopy for predicting insignificant prostate cancer: an initial analysis , 2007, BJU international.
[88] L. Egevad,et al. The 2005 International Society of Urological Pathology (ISUP) Consensus Conference on Gleason Grading of Prostatic Carcinoma , 2005, The American journal of surgical pathology.
[89] K. Grigor,et al. Trends in reporting Gleason score 1991 to 2001: changes in the pathologist's practice. , 2005, European urology.
[90] M. Crundwell. Pathology and genetics of tumours of the urinary system and male genital organs , 2004 .
[91] C. Downes,et al. PTEN function: how normal cells control it and tumour cells lose it. , 2004, The Biochemical journal.
[92] Steven Piantadosi,et al. Biochemical (prostate specific antigen) recurrence probability following radical prostatectomy for clinically localized prostate cancer. , 2003, The Journal of urology.
[93] Neil Fleshner,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. , 2002, The Journal of urology.
[94] P. Walsh,et al. Expectant management of nonpalpable prostate cancer with curative intent: preliminary results. , 2002, The Journal of urology.
[95] S. Piantadosi,et al. Correlation of prostate needle biopsy and radical prostatectomy Gleason grade in academic and community settings. , 1997, The American journal of surgical pathology.
[96] J. McNeal,et al. Spread of adenocarcinoma within prostatic ducts and acini. Morphologic and clinical correlations. , 1996, The American journal of surgical pathology.
[97] D. Gleason,et al. Histologic grading of prostate cancer: a perspective. , 1992, Human pathology.
[98] D. Gleason,et al. Histologic Grading and Staging of Prostatic Carcinoma , 1981 .