Urology
Volume 75, Issue 2 , Pages 418-419 , February 2010

Editorial Comment

  • Marc Birkhahn, M.D.

      Affiliations

    • Department of Urology, Heilig Geist-Krankenhaus, Cologne, Germany
    • ,
  • Richard J. Cote, M.D.

      Affiliations

    • Department of Pathology, University of Miami Miller School of Medicine, Miami, Florida

References 

  1. Schröder FH, Hugosson J, Roobol MJ, et al. Screening and prostate-cancer mortality in a randomized European study. N Engl J Med. 2009;360(13):1320–1328
  2. Andriole GL, Crawford ED, Grubb RL, et al. Mortality results from a randomized prostate cancer screening trial. N Engl J Med. 2009;360(13):1310–1319
  3. American Cancer Society. Cancer Facts and Figures, 2009. http://www.cancer.org/docroot/PRO/content/PRO_1_1_Cancer_Statistics_2009_Presentation.asp
  4. Chodak GW, Thisted RA, Gerber GS, et al. Results of conservative management of clinically localized prostate cancer. N Engl J Med. 1994;330:242–248
  5. Johansson JE, Andren O, Andersson SO, et al. Natural history of early, localized prostate cancer. J Am Med Assoc. 2004;291:2713–2719
  6. Bill-Axelson A, Holmberg L, Filen F, et al. Radical prostatectomy versus watchful waiting in localized prostate cancer: the Scandinavian prostate cancer group-4 randomized trial. J Natl Cancer Inst. 2008;100:1144–1154
  7. Patel MI, DeConcini DT, Lopez-Corona E, et al. An analysis of men with clinically localized prostate cancer who deferred definitive therapy. J Urol. 2004;171:1520–1524
  8. Choo R, Klotz L, Danjoux C, 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. J Urol. 2002;167:1664–1669
  9. Mohler JL, Williams BT, Freeman JA. Expectant management as an option for men with stage T1c prostate cancer: a preliminary study. World J Urol. 1997;15:364–368
  10. Pinthus JH, Witkos M, Fleshner NE, et al. Prostate cancers scored as Gleason 6 on prostate biopsy are frequently Gleason 7 tumors at radical prostatectomy: implication on outcome. J Urol. 2006;176:979
  11. Sved PD, Gomez P, Manoharan M, et al. Limitations of biopsy Gleason grade: implications for counseling patients with biopsy Gleason score 6 prostate cancer. J Urol. 2004;172:98

PII: S0090-4295(09)02618-1

doi: 10.1016/j.urology.2009.09.029

Urology
Volume 75, Issue 2 , Pages 418-419 , February 2010

Article Tools