|
|||||
|
|
The contemporary concept of significant versus insignificant prostate cancer |
|
| Authors: | Ploussard Guillaume Epstein Jonathan I Montironi Rodolfo Carroll Peter R Wirth Manfred Grimm Marc-Oliver Bjartell Anders S Montorsi Francesco Freedland Stephen J Erbersdobler Andreas van der Kwast Theodorus H |
| Institution: | a Department of Urology, Saint-Louis Hospital, APHP, Paris, France b INSERM 955, Team 7, University Paris 12, Créteil, France c Department of Pathology, Johns Hopkins Medical Institutions, Baltimore, MD, USA d Institute of Pathological Anatomy and Histopathology, Polytechnic University of the Marche Region, Ancona, Italy e Arizona Cancer Centre, College of Medicine, University of Arizona Health Sciences Centre, Tucson, AZ, USA f Department of Urology, UCSF School of Medicine, Helen Diller Family Comprehensive Cancer Centre, San Francisco, CA, USA g Department of Urology, University Hospital Carl Gustav Carus, Technical University of Dresden, Dresden, Germany h Urologischen Klinik und Poliklinik, Universitätsklinikum Jena, Jena, Germany i Department of Urology, Skåne University Hospital, Malmö, Sweden j Department of Urology, Universita Vita Salute San Raffaele, Milan, Italy k Department of Surgery, Durham VA Medical Centre, and the Duke Prostate Centre, Division of Urological Surgery, Departments of Surgery and Pathology, Duke University, Durham, NC, USA l Institute of Pathology, University of Rostock, Rostock, Germany m Department of Pathology, University Health Network and University of Toronto, Toronto, ON, Canada |
| Abstract: | ContextThe notion of insignificant prostate cancer (Ins-PCa) has progressively emerged in the past two decades. The clinical relevance of such a definition was based on the fact that low-grade, small-volume, and organ-confined prostate cancer (PCa) may be indolent and unlikely to progress to biologic significance in the absence of treatment.ObjectiveTo review the definition of Ins-PCa, its incidence, and the clinical impact of Ins-PCa on the contemporary management of PCa.Evidence acquisitionA review of the literature was performed using the Medline, Scopus, and Web of Science databases with no restriction on language up to September 2010. The literature search used the following terms: insignificant, indolent, minute, microfocal, minimal, low volume, low risk, and prostate cancer.Evidence synthesisThe most commonly used criteria to define Ins-PCa are based on the pathologic assessment of the radical prostatectomy specimen: (1) Gleason score ≤6 without Gleason pattern 4 or 5, (2) organ-confined disease, and (3) tumour volume < 0.5 cm3. Several preoperative criteria and prognostication tools for predicting Ins-PCa have been suggested. Nomograms are best placed to estimate the risk of progression on an individualised basis, but a substantial proportion of men with a high probability of harbouring Ins-PCa are at risk for pathologic understaging and/or undergrading. Thus, there is an ongoing need for identifying novel and more accurate predictors of Ins-PCa to improve the distinction between insignificant versus significant disease and thus to promote the adequate management of PCa patients at low risk for progression.ConclusionsThe exciting challenge of obtaining the pretreatment diagnostic tools that can really distinguish insignificant from significant PCa should be one of the main objectives of urologists in the following years to decrease the risk of overtreatment of Ins-PCa. |
| Keywords: | Prostate cancer Insignificant Active surveillance Indolent Significant Prediction Tumour volume |
| 本文献已被 ScienceDirect PubMed 等数据库收录！ | |