View Item 

Show simple item record

Conservative management of lowâ risk prostate cancer among young versus older men in the United States: Trends and outcomes from a novel national database
dc.contributor.authorMahal, Amandeep R.
dc.contributor.authorButler, Santino
dc.contributor.authorFranco, Idalid
dc.contributor.authorMuralidhar, Vinayak
dc.contributor.authorLarios, Dalia
dc.contributor.authorPike, Luke R. G.
dc.contributor.authorZhao, Shuang G.
dc.contributor.authorSanford, Nina N.
dc.contributor.authorDess, Robert T.
dc.contributor.authorFeng, Felix Y.
dc.contributor.authorD’amico, Anthony V.
dc.contributor.authorSpratt, Daniel E.
dc.contributor.authorYu, James B.
dc.contributor.authorNguyen, Paul L.
dc.contributor.authorRebbeck, Timothy R.
dc.contributor.authorMahal, Brandon A.
dc.date.accessioned2019-10-30T15:31:29Z
dc.date.availableWITHHELD_13_MONTHS
dc.date.available2019-10-30T15:31:29Z
dc.date.issued2019-10-01
dc.identifier.citationMahal, Amandeep R.; Butler, Santino; Franco, Idalid; Muralidhar, Vinayak; Larios, Dalia; Pike, Luke R. G.; Zhao, Shuang G.; Sanford, Nina N.; Dess, Robert T.; Feng, Felix Y.; D’amico, Anthony V. ; Spratt, Daniel E.; Yu, James B.; Nguyen, Paul L.; Rebbeck, Timothy R.; Mahal, Brandon A. (2019). "Conservative management of lowâ risk prostate cancer among young versus older men in the United States: Trends and outcomes from a novel national database." Cancer (19): 3338-3346.
dc.identifier.issn0008-543X
dc.identifier.issn1097-0142
dc.identifier.urihttps://hdl.handle.net/2027.42/151903
dc.publisherNational Cancer Institute
dc.publisherWiley Periodicals, Inc.
dc.subject.otherconservative treatment
dc.subject.otheractive surveillance
dc.subject.otherlowâ risk prostate cancer
dc.subject.otherprostatic neoplasms
dc.subject.otherwatchful waiting
dc.titleConservative management of lowâ risk prostate cancer among young versus older men in the United States: Trends and outcomes from a novel national database
dc.typeArticle
dc.rights.robotsIndexNoFollow
dc.subject.hlbsecondlevelOncology and Hematology
dc.subject.hlbsecondlevelPublic Health
dc.subject.hlbtoplevelHealth Sciences
dc.description.peerreviewedPeer Reviewed
dc.description.bitstreamurlhttps://deepblue.lib.umich.edu/bitstream/2027.42/151903/1/cncr32332.pdf
dc.description.bitstreamurlhttps://deepblue.lib.umich.edu/bitstream/2027.42/151903/2/cncr32332_am.pdf
dc.identifier.doi10.1002/cncr.32332
dc.identifier.sourceCancer
dc.identifier.citedreferencePinsky PF, Prorok PC, Kramer BS. Prostate cancer screeningâ a perspective on the current state of the evidence. N Engl J Med. 2017; 376: 1285 â 1289. doi: 10.1056/NEJMsb1616281
dc.identifier.citedreferenceCooperberg MR, Carroll PR. Trends in management for patients with localized prostate cancer, 1990â 2013. JAMA. 2015; 314: 80 â 82. doi: 10.1001/jama.2015.6036
dc.identifier.citedreferenceNational Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN). NCCN Clinical Practice Guidelines in Oncology (NCCN Guidelines): Prostate Cancer, version 2.2018. Available at: www.nccn.org/professionals/physician_gls/pdf/prostate.pdf. Accessed July 11, 2018.
dc.identifier.citedreferenceCarroll PH, Mohler JL. NCCN guidelines updates: prostate cancer and prostate cancer early detection. J Natl Compr Canc Netw. 2018; 16 ( 5S ): 620 â 623. doi: 10.6004/jnccn.2018.0036
dc.identifier.citedreferenceCooperberg MR, Carroll PR, Klotz L. Active surveillance for prostate cancer: progress and promise. J Clin Oncol. 2011; 29: 3669 â 3676. doi: 10.1200/JCO.2011.34.9738
dc.identifier.citedreferenceKlotz L, Vesprini D, Sethukavalan P, et al. Longâ term followâ up of a large active surveillance cohort of patients with prostate cancer. J Clin Oncol. 2015; 33: 272 â 277. doi: 10.1200/JCO.2014.55.1192
dc.identifier.citedreferenceParker C, Gillessen S, Heidenreich A, Horwich A; EMSO Guidelines Committee. Cancer of the prostate: ESMO Clinical Practice Guidelines for diagnosis, treatment and followâ up. Ann Oncol. 2015; 26 ( suppl 5 ): v69 â v77. doi: 10.1093/annonc/mdv222
dc.identifier.citedreferenceHamdy FC, Donovan JL, Lane JA, et al. 10â Year outcomes after monitoring, surgery, or radiotherapy for localized prostate cancer. N Engl J Med. 2016; 375: 1415 â 1424. doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa1606220
dc.identifier.citedreferenceDâ Amico AV. Active surveillance versus treatment of prostate cancer: should metastasis be the primary end point? J Clin Oncol. 2017; 35: 1638 â 1640. doi: 10.1200/JCO.2016.70.9527
dc.identifier.citedreferenceWilt TJ, Brawer MK, Jones KM, et al. Radical prostatectomy versus observation for localized prostate cancer. N Engl J Med. 2012; 367: 203 â 213. doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa1113162
dc.identifier.citedreferenceWilt TJ, Jones KM, Barry MJ, et al. Followâ up of prostatectomy versus observation for early prostate cancer. N Engl J Med. 2017; 377: 132 â 142. doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa1615869
dc.identifier.citedreferenceBillâ Axelson A, Holmberg L, Garmo H, et al. Radical prostatectomy or watchful waiting in early prostate cancer. N Engl J Med. 2014; 370: 932 â 942. doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa1311593
dc.identifier.citedreferenceLeapman MS, Cowan JE, Nguyen HG, et al. Active surveillance in younger men with prostate cancer. J Clin Oncol. 2017; 35: 1898 â 1904. doi: 10.1200/JCO.2016.68.0058
dc.identifier.citedreferenceDâ Amico AV. Treatment or monitoring for early prostate cancer. N Engl J Med. 2016; 375: 1482 â 1483. doi: 10.1056/NEJMe1610395
dc.identifier.citedreferenceMoyer VA; US Preventive Services Task Force. Screening for prostate cancer: US Preventive Services Task Force recommendation statement. Ann Intern Med. 2012; 157: 120 â 134. doi: 10.7326/0003-4819-157-2-201207170-00459
dc.identifier.citedreferenceUS Preventive Services Task Force, Grossman DC, Curry SJ, et al. Screening for prostate cancer: US Preventive Services Task Force recommendation statement. JAMA. 2018; 319: 1901 â 1913. doi: 10.1001/jama.2018.3710
dc.identifier.citedreferenceSammon JD, Abdollah F, Choueiri TK, et al. Prostateâ specific antigen screening after 2012 US Preventive Services Task Force recommendations. JAMA. 2015; 314: 2077 â 2079. doi: 10.1001/jama.2015.7273
dc.identifier.citedreferenceSurveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER) Program. Overview of the SEER Program. Bethesda, MD: National Cancer Institute; 2018. Available at: https://seer.cancer.gov/about/overview.html. Accessed July 1, 2018.
dc.identifier.citedreferenceSurveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER) Program. SEER Program Prostate with Active Surveillance/Watchful Waiting Database. Bethesda, MD: National Cancer Institute; 2018. Available at: https://seer.cancer.gov/seerstat/databases/prostate-ww/index.html. Accessed July 1, 2018.
dc.identifier.citedreferenceYost K, Perkins C, Cohen R, Morris C, Wright W. Socioeconomic status and breast cancer incidence in California for different race/ethnic groups. Cancer Causes Control. 2001; 12: 703 â 711.
dc.identifier.citedreferenceMaurice MJ, Abouassaly R, Kim SP, Zhu H. Contemporary nationwide patterns of active surveillance use for prostate cancer. JAMA Intern Med. 2015; 175: 1569 â 1571. doi: 10.1001/jamainternmed.2015.2835
dc.identifier.citedreferenceWong AT, Safdieh JJ, Rineer J, Weiner J, Schwartz D, Schreiber D. A populationâ based analysis of contemporary patterns of care in younger men (<60 years old) with localized prostate cancer. Int Urol Nephrol. 2015; 47: 1629 â 1634. doi: 10.1007/s11255-015-1096-8
dc.identifier.citedreferenceKlotz L, Zhang L, Lam A, Nam R, Mamedov A, Loblaw A. Clinical results of longâ term followâ up of a large, active surveillance cohort with localized prostate cancer. J Clin Oncol. 2010; 28: 126 â 131. doi: 10.1200/JCO.2009.24.2180
dc.identifier.citedreferenceMehralivand S, Shih JH, Raisâ Bahrami S, et al. A magnetic resonance imagingâ based prediction model for prostate biopsy risk stratification. JAMA Oncol. 2018; 4: 678 â 685. doi: 10.1001/jamaoncol.2017.5667
dc.identifier.citedreferenceDinh KT, Mahal BA, Ziehr DR, et al. Incidence and predictors of upgrading and up staging among 10,000 contemporary patients with low risk prostate cancer. J Urol. 2015; 194: 343 â 349. doi: 10.1016/j.juro.2015.02.015
dc.identifier.citedreferenceMoore CM, Robertson NL, Arsanious N, et al. Imageâ guided prostate biopsy using magnetic resonance imagingâ derived targets: a systematic review. Eur Urol. 2013; 63: 125 â 140. doi: 10.1016/j.eururo.2012.06.004
dc.identifier.citedreferenceGarzotto M. Is lowâ risk prostate cancer more indolent in younger patients? J Clin Oncol. 2017; 35: 1870 â 1871. doi: 10.1200/JCO.2017.72.3684
dc.identifier.citedreferenceAragonâ Ching JB. Active surveillance for prostate cancer: has the time finally come? J Clin Oncol. 2010; 28: e265 â e266; author reply e267. doi: 10.1200/JCO.2010.28.1584
dc.identifier.citedreferenceLane JA, Donovan JL, Davis M, et al. Active monitoring, radical prostatectomy, or radiotherapy for localised prostate cancer: study design and diagnostic and baseline results of the ProtecT randomised phase 3 trial. Lancet Oncol. 2014; 15: 1109 â 1118. doi: 10.1016/S1470-2045(14)70361-4
dc.identifier.citedreferenceLoeb S, Byrne N, Makarov DV, Lepor H, Walter D. Use of conservative management for lowâ risk prostate cancer in the Veterans Affairs Integrated Health Care System from 2005â 2015. JAMA. 2018; 319: 2231 â 2233. doi: 10.1001/jama.2018.5616
dc.owningcollnameInterdisciplinary and Peer-Reviewed


Files in this item

Name:
cncr32332.pdf
Size:
669.7KB
Format:
PDF
View/Open
Name:
cncr32332_am.pdf
Size:
788.8KB
Format:
PDF
View/Open

Show simple item record

Remediation of Harmful Language

The University of Michigan Library aims to describe library materials in a way that respects the people and communities who create, use, and are represented in our collections. Report harmful or offensive language in catalog records, finding aids, or elsewhere in our collections anonymously through our metadata feedback form. More information at Remediation of Harmful Language.

Accessibility

If you are unable to use this file in its current format, please select the Contact Us link and we can modify it to make it more accessible to you.