Objective
Methods
Results
Conclusion
Purchase one-time access:
Academic & Personal: 24 hour online accessCorporate R&D Professionals: 24 hour online accessOne-time access price info
- For academic or personal research use, select 'Academic and Personal'
- For corporate R&D use, select 'Corporate R&D Professionals'
Subscribe:
Subscribe to UrologyReferences
- A roadmap for improving the management of favorable risk prostate cancer.J Urol. 2017; 198: 1220-1222
- Contemporary use of initial active surveillance among men in Michigan with low-risk prostate cancer.Eur Urol. 2015; 67: 44-50
- Long-term follow-up of a large active surveillance cohort of patients with prostate cancer.J Clin Oncol. 2015; 33: 272-277
- Medium-term outcomes of active surveillance for localised prostate cancer.Eur Urol. 2013; 64: 981-987
- Appropriateness criteria for active surveillance of prostate cancer.J Urol. 2017; 197: 67-74
- Evolution of multi-parametric MRI quantitative parameters following transrectal ultrasound-guided biopsy of the prostate.Prostate Cancer Prostatic Dis. 2015; 18: 343-351
- Understanding the Prolaris score.(Available at:)https://prolaris.com/prolaris-for-physicians/understanding-the-prolaris-score/Date accessed: December 26, 2017
- Providing treatment information for prostate cancer patients.(Available at:)http://deciphertest.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/10/PhysBrochDDR2017.9.pdfDate accessed: December 26, 2017
- Healthcare professionals: Oncotype Dx genomic prostate score.(Available at:)
- Identifying candidates for active surveillance: an evaluation of the repeat biopsy strategy for men with favorable risk prostate cancer.J Urol. 2012; 188: 762-767
- The role of MRI in active surveillance for men with localized prostate cancer.Curr Opin Urol. 2015; 25: 504-509
- Magnetic resonance imaging on disease reclassification among active surveillance candidates with low-risk prostate cancer: a diagnostic meta-analysis.Prostate Cancer Prostatic Dis. 2015; 18: 221-228
- Genomic testing for localized prostate cancer: where do we go from here?.Curr Opin Urol. 2017; 27: 495-499
- The impact of a biopsy based 17-gene genomic prostate score on treatment recommendations in men with newly diagnosed clinically prostate cancer who are candidates for active surveillance.Urol Pract. 2015; 2: 181-189
- Impact of the cell cycle progression test on physician and patient treatment selection for localized prostate cancer.J Urol. 2016; 195: 612-618
- Prognostic utility of biopsy-derived cell cycle progression score in patients with National Comprehensive Cancer Network low-risk prostate cancer undergoing radical prostatectomy: implications for treatment guidance.BJU Int. 2017; 120: 808-814
- Molecular analysis of low grade prostate cancer using a genomic classifier of metastatic potential.J Urol. 2017; 197: 122-128
- Validation of an RNA cell cycle progression score for predicting death from prostate cancer in a conservatively managed needle biopsy cohort.Br J Cancer. 2015; 113: 382-389
- Prognostic value of an RNA expression signature derived from cell cycle proliferation genes in patients with prostate cancer: a retrospective study.Lancet Oncol. 2011; 12: 245-255
- 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: 550-560
Article info
Publication history
Footnotes
Financial Disclosure: Todd M. Morgan was advisory board member of and received research funding from Myriad Genetics, he also received research funding from GenomeDx. David C. Miller received contract support from the Blue Cross Blue Shield of Michigan (BCBSM) for the Michigan Value Collaborative (MVC) and the Michigan Urological Surgery Improvement Collaborative (MUSIC). The remaining authors declare that they have no relevant financial interests.
Funding Support: This project was supported by the National Cancer Institute (5-T32-CA-180984-03 to Deborah R. Kaye) and by Blue Cross Blue Shield of Michigan (BCBSM) as part of the BCBSM Value Partnerships Program. The opinions, beliefs and viewpoints expressed by the authors do not necessarily reflect those of BCBSM or any of its employees.
Deborah R. Kaye contributed in conceptualization, formal analysis, methodology, original draft, review, and editing; Ji Qi contributed in formal analysis, validation, original draft, review, and editing; Todd M. Morgan contributed in conceptualization, investigation, methodology, original draft, review, and editing; Susan Linsell contributed in data curation, funding acquisition, methodology, project administration, review, and editing; Brian R. Lane contributed in investigation, methodology, original draft, review, and editing; James E. Montie contributed in conceptualization, formal analysis, methodology, original draft, review, and editing; Michael L. Cher contributed in investigation, methodology, original draft, review, and editing; and David C. Miller contributed in conceptualization, formal analysis, methodology, original draft, review, editing, data curation, and funding acquisition.
