Aktivní sledování jako prostředek pro omezení nadbytečné léčby karcinomu prostaty s nízkým rizikem:
novinky z posledního kongresu Americké urologické asociace (2014)

Czech version

Authors: S. Loeb
Authors‘ workplace: Assistant Professor of Urology and Population Health New York University, USA
Published in: Urol List 2015; 13(1): 6-7

Overview

Key words:
prostate cancer, active surveillance

Sources

1. Moyer VA. Screening for prostate cancer: U.S. Preventive Services Task Force recommendation statement. Ann Intern Med 2012; 157(2): 120–134. doi: 10.7326/0003-4819-157-2-201207170-00459.

2. Schröder FH, Hugosson J, Roobol MJ et al. Prostate-cancer mortality at 11 years of follow-up. N Engl J Med 2012; 366(11): 981–990. doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa1113135.

3. Murphy DG, Ahlering T, Catalona WJ et al. The Melbourne consensus statement on the early detection of prostate cancer. BJU Int 2014; 113(2): 186–188. doi: 10.1111/bju.12556.

4. Cooperberg MR, Broering JM, Kantoff PW et al. Contemporary trends in low risk prostate cancer: risk assessment and treatment. J Urol 2007; 178(3 Pt 2): S14–S19.

5. Hoffman KE, Niu J, Shen Y et al. Physician variation in management of low-risk prostate cancer: a population-based cohort study. JAMA Intern Med 2014; 174(9): 1450–1459. doi: 10.1001/jamainternmed.2014.3021.

6. Womble PR, Miller DC, Linsell SM et al. The incidence of active surveillance for primary management of low-risk prostate cancer in a state-wide quality improvement collaborative. Orlando: American Urological Association 2014.

7. Loeb S, Berglund A, Stattin P. Population-based study of use and determinants of active surveillance and watchful waiting for low and intermediate risk prostate cancer. J Urol 2013; 190(5): 1742–1749. doi: 10.1016/j.juro.2013.05.054.

8. Evans SM, Millar JL, Davis ID et al. Patterns of care for men diagnosed with prostate cancer in Victoria from 2008 to 2011. Med J Aust 2013; 198(10): 540–545.

9. Loeb S, Folkvaljon Y, Makarov DV et al. Five-year nationwide follow-up study of active surveillance for prostate cancer. Eur Urol 2014. doi: 10.1016/j.eur-uro.2014.06.010.

10. Loeb S, Folkvaljon Y, Robinson D et al. Does active surveillance miss the window for cure? Matched comparison of immediate versus delayed prostatectomy in a nationwide population-based cohort. Orlando: American Urological Association 2014: Abstract MP62-02.

11. Klotz L, Vesprini D, Loblaw A. Long term follow-up of a large active surveillance cohort. Orlando: American Urological Association 2014: Abstract PD14-03.

12. Ganz PA, Barry JM, Burke W et al. National institutes of health state-of-the-science conference: role of active surveillance in the management of men with localized prostate cancer. Ann Intern Med 2012; 156(8): 591–595. doi: 10.7326/0003-4819-156-8-201204170-00401.

13. Azmi A, Dillon RA, Borghesi S et al. Active surveillance for low-risk prostate cancer: diversity of practice across Europe. Ir J Med Sci 2014. [In press].

14. Tosoian JJ, Loeb S, Feng Z et al. Association of [-2]proPSA with biopsy reclassification during active surveillance for prostate cancer. J Urol 2012; 188(4): 1131–1136. doi: 10.1016/j.juro.2012.06.009.

15. Hirama H, Sugimoto M, Ito K 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. J Cancer Res Clin Oncol 2014; 140(2): 257–263. doi: 10.1007/s00432-013-1566-2.

16. Vargas HA, Akin O, Afaq A et al. Magnetic resonance imaging for predicting prostate biopsy findings in patients considered for active surveillance of clinically low risk prostate cancer. J Urol 2012; 188(5): 1732–1738. doi: 10.1016/j.juro.2012.07.024.