Métodos óptimos según la evidencia actual | 01 JUN 21

Diagnóstico y tratamiento del cáncer de próstata

El cáncer de próstata es el cáncer más frecuente en los hombres y a pesar que suele ser de evolución lenta es la tercera causa de muerte en esta población
Autor/a: Litwin MS,Tan HJ JAMA. 2017;317(24):2532-2542.
INDICE:  1. Página 1 | 2.  Referencias bilibiográficas
Referencias bilibiográficas

1. Miller KD, Siegel RL, Lin CC, et al. Cancer treatment and survivorship statistics, 2016. CA Cancer J Clin. 2016; 66(4):271-289.

2. Siegel RL, Miller KD, Jemal A. Cancer statistics, 2017. CA Cancer J Clin. 2017; 67(1):7-30.

3. Hayes JH, BarryMJ. Screening for prostate cancer with the prostate-specific antigen test: a review of current evidence. JAMA. 2014; 311(11): 1143-1149.

4. Eggener SE, Cifu AS, Nabhan C. Prostate cancer screening. JAMA. 2015; 314(8):825-826.

5. BarryMJ, Hayes JH. Evaluating an elevated screening PSA test. JAMA. 2015; 314(19):2073-2074.

6. Hayes JH, BarryMJ. Screening for prostate cancer with the prostate-specific antigen test: a review of current evidence. JAMA. 2014; 311(11): 1143-1149.

7. Mohler JL, Armstrong AJ, Bahnson RR, et al. Prostate cancer, version 1.2016. J Natl Compr Canc Netw. 2016; 14(1):19-30.

8. Stephenson AJ, Scardino PT, Eastham JA, et al. Preoperative nomogram predicting the 10-year probability of prostate cancer recurrence after radical prostatectomy. J Natl Cancer Inst. 2006; 98 (10):715-717.

9. Stephenson AJ, KattanMW, Eastham JA, et al. Prostate cancer-specific mortality after radical prostatectomy for patients treated in the prostate-specific antigen era. J Clin Oncol. 2009; 27 (26):4300-4305.

10. Koh H, KattanMW, Scardino PT, et al. A nomogram to predict seminal vesicle invasion by the extent and location of cancer in systematic biopsy results. J Urol. 2003; 170(4 pt 1):1203-1208.

11. Ohori M, KattanMW, Koh H, et al. Predicting the presence and side of extracapsular extension: a nomogram for staging prostate cancer. J Urol. 2004; 171(5):1844-1849.

12. Cooperberg MR, Pasta DJ, Elkin EP, et al. The University of California, San Francisco Cancer of the Prostate Risk Assessment score: a straightforward and reliable preoperative predictor of disease recurrence after radical prostatectomy. J Urol. 2005; 173(6):1938-1942.

13. Epstein JI, Egevad L, Amin MB, Delahunt B, Srigley JR, Humphrey PA; Grading Committee. 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. Am J Surg Pathol. 2016; 40(2):244-252.

14. Epstein JI, Zelefsky MJ, Sjoberg DD, et al. A contemporary prostate cancer grading system: a validated alternative to the Gleason score. Eur Urol. 2016; 69(3):428-435.

15. Bjurlin MA, Carter HB, Schellhammer P, et al. Optimization of initial prostate biopsy in clinical practice: sampling, labeling and specimen processing. J Urol. 2013; 189(6):2039-2046.

16. Gupta A, Roobol MJ, Savage CJ, et al. A four-kallikrein panel for the prediction of repeat prostate biopsy: data from the European Randomized Study of Prostate Cancer screening in Rotterdam, Netherlands. Br J Cancer. 2010; 103 (5):708-714.

17. Scattoni V, Lazzeri M, Lughezzani G, et al. Head-to-head comparison of prostate health index and urinary PCA3 for predicting cancer at initial or repeat biopsy. J Urol. 2013; 190(2):496-501.

18. Wei JT, Feng Z, Partin AW, et al. Can urinary PCA3 supplement PSA in the early detection of prostate cancer? J Clin Oncol. 2014; 32(36):4066-4072.

19. Partin AW, Van Neste L, Klein EA, et al. Clinical validation of an epigenetic assay to predict negative histopathological results in repeat prostate biopsies. J Urol. 2014; 192(4):1081-1087.

20. Weinreb JC, Barentsz JO, Choyke PL, et al. PI-RADS prostate imaging—reporting and data system: 2015, version 2. Eur Urol. 2016; 69(1):16-40.

21. Woo S, Suh CH, Kim SY, Cho JY, Kim SH. Diagnostic performance of prostate imaging reporting and data system version 2 for detection of prostate cancer: a systematic review and diagnostic meta-analysis [published online February 11, 2017]. Eur Urol. doi:10.1016/j.eururo .2017.01.042

22. Siddiqui MM, Rais-Bahrami S, Turkbey B, et al. Comparison of MR/ultrasound fusion-guided biopsy with ultrasound-guided biopsy for the diagnosis of prostate cancer. JAMA. 2015; 313(4):390-397.

23. Filson CP, Natarajan S, Margolis DJ, et al. Prostate cancer detection with magnetic resonance-ultrasound fusion biopsy: the role of systematic and targeted biopsies. Cancer. 2016; 122 (6):884-892.

24. Rosenkrantz AB, Verma S, Choyke P, et al. Prostate magnetic resonance imaging and magnetic resonance imaging targeted biopsy in patients with a prior negative biopsy: a consensus statement by AUA and SAR. J Urol. 2016; 196(6):1613-1618.

25. Sommariva S, Tarricone R, Lazzeri M, Ricciardi W, Montorsi F. Prognostic value of the cell cycle progression score in patients with prostate cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Eur Urol. 2016; 69(1):107-115.

26. Klein EA, Cooperberg MR,Magi-Galluzzi C, et al. A 17-gene assay to predict prostate cancer aggressiveness in the context of Gleason grade heterogeneity, tumor multifocality, and biopsy undersampling. Eur Urol. 2014; 66(3):550-560.

27. Knudsen BS, Kim HL, Erho N, et al. Application of a clinical whole-transcriptome assay for staging and prognosis of prostate cancer diagnosed in needle core biopsy specimens. J Mol Diagn. 2016;18 (3):395-406.

28. Hu JC, Chang E, Natarajan S, et al. Targeted prostate biopsy in select men for active surveillance: do the Epstein criteria still apply? J Urol. 2014; 192(2):385-390.

29. Thompson IM, Valicenti RK, Albertsen P, et al. Adjuvant and salvage radiotherapy after prostatectomy: AUA/ASTRO guideline. J Urol. 2013; 190(2):441-449.

30. Lindenberg ML, Turkbey B, Mena E, Choyke PL. Imaging locally advanced, recurrent, and metastatic prostate cancer: a review [published online January 12, 2017]. JAMA Oncol. doi:10.1001/jamaoncol.2016.5840

31. Wilt TJ, Brawer MK, Jones KM, et al; Prostate Cancer Intervention versus Observation Trial (PIVOT) Study Group. Radical prostatectomy versus observation for localized prostate cancer. N Engl J Med. 2012; 367(3):203-213.

32. Bill-Axelson A, Holmberg L, Garmo H, et al. Radical prostatectomy or watchful waiting in early prostate cancer. N Engl J Med. 2014; 370(10):932-942.

33. Daskivich TJ, Fan KH, Koyama T, et al. Effect of age, tumor risk, and comorbidity on competing risks for survival in a US population-based cohort of men with prostate cancer. Ann Intern Med. 2013; 158 (10):709-717.

34. Carter HB, Albertsen PC, BarryMJ, et al. Early detection of prostate cancer: AUA guideline. J Urol. 2013; 190(2):419-426.

35. Violette PD, Agoritsas T, Alexander P, et al. Decision aids for localized prostate cancer treatment choice: systematic review and

meta-analysis. CA Cancer J Clin. 2015; 65(3):239-251.

36. Filson CP, Marks LS, Litwin MS. Expectant management for men with early stage prostate cancer. CA Cancer J Clin. 2015; 65(4):265-282.

37. Klotz L, Vesprini D, Sethukavalan P, et al. Long-term follow-up of a large active surveillance cohort of patients with prostate cancer. J Clin Oncol. 2015; 33(3):272-277.

38. Welty CJ, Cowan JE, Nguyen H, et al. Extended followup and risk factors for disease reclassification in a large active surveillance cohort for localized prostate cancer. J Urol. 2015; 193(3):807-811.

39. Tosoian JJ, Mamawala M, Epstein JI, et al. Intermediate and longer-term outcomes from a prospective active-surveillance program for favorable-risk prostate cancer. J Clin Oncol. 2015; 33 (30):3379-3385.

40. Godtman RA, Holmberg E, Khatami A, Pihl CG, Stranne J, Hugosson J. Long-term results of active surveillance in the Goteborg randomized, population-based prostate cancer screening trial. Eur Urol. 2016; 70(5):760-766.

41. Hamdy FC, Donovan JL, Lane JA, et al; ProtecT Study Group. 10-year outcomes after monitoring, surgery, or radiotherapy for localized prostate cancer. N Engl J Med. 2016; 375(15):1415-1424.

42. Donovan JL, Hamdy FC, Lane JA, et al; ProtecT Study Group. Patient-reported outcomes after monitoring, surgery, or radiotherapy for prostate cancer. N Engl J Med. 2016; 375(15):1425-1437.

43. Chen RC, Rumble RB, Loblaw DA, et al. Active surveillance for the management of localized prostate cancer (Cancer Care Ontario Guideline): American Society of Clinical Oncology clinical practice guideline endorsement. J Clin Oncol. 2016;34(18): 2182-2190.

44. Wallis CJ, Saskin R, Choo R, et al. Surgery versus radiotherapy for clinically-localized prostate cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Eur Urol. 2016; 70(1):21-30.

45. Barocas DA, Alvarez J, Resnick MJ, et al. Association between radiation therapy, surgery, or observation for localized prostate cancer and patient-reported outcomes after 3 years. JAMA. 2017; 317(11):1126-1140.

46. Chen RC, Basak R, Meyer AM, et al. Association between choice of radical prostatectomy, external beam radiotherapy, brachytherapy, or active surveillance and patient-reported quality of life among men with localized prostate cancer. JAMA. 2017; 317(11):1141-1150.

47. Ficarra V, Novara G, Rosen RC, et al. Systematic review and meta-analysis of studies reporting urinary continence recovery after robot-assisted radical prostatectomy. Eur Urol. 2012; 62(3):405-417.

48. Ficarra V, Novara G, Ahlering TE, et al. Systematic review and meta-analysis of studies reporting potency rates after robot-assisted radical prostatectomy. Eur Urol. 2012; 62(3):418-430.

49. Yaxley JW, Coughlin GD, Chambers SK, et al. Robot-assisted laparoscopic prostatectomy versus open radical retropubic prostatectomy: early outcomes from a randomised controlled phase 3 study. Lancet. 2016; 388(10049):1057-1066.

50. Wortel RC, Incrocci L, Pos FJ, et al. Acute toxicity after image-guided intensity modulated radiation therapy compared to 3D conformal radiation therapy in prostate cancer patients. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2015; 91(4):737-744.

51. Viani GA, Viana BS, Martin JE, Rossi BT, Zuliani G, Stefano EJ. Intensity-modulated radiotherapy reduces toxicity with similar biochemical control compared with 3-dimensional conformal radiotherapy for prostate cancer: a randomized clinical trial. Cancer. 2016; 122(13):2004-2011.

52. Dearnaley DP, Jovic G, Syndikus I, et al. Escalated-dose versus control-dose conformal radiotherapy for prostate cancer: long-term results from the MRC RT01 randomised controlled trial. Lancet Oncol. 2014; 15(4):464-473.



Para ver los comentarios de sus colegas o para expresar su opinión debe ingresar con su cuenta de IntraMed.

Términos y condiciones de uso | Todos los derechos reservados | Copyright 1997-2022