Archives

  • 2019-07
  • 2019-08
  • 2019-09
  • 2019-10
  • 2019-11
  • 2020-03
  • 2020-07
  • 2020-08
  • 2021-03
  • SC 236 br Cooperberg MR Lubeck DP Meng MV Mehta SS

    2019-10-14


    14. Cooperberg MR, Lubeck DP, Meng MV, Mehta SS, Carroll PR. The changing face of low-risk prostate cancer: trends in clinical presentation and primary man-agement. J Clin Oncol 2004; 22:2141-9.
    16. Kim SP, Gross CP, Nguyen PL, et al. Perceptions of active surveillance and treatment recommendations for low-risk prostate cancer: results from a national survey of SC 236 oncologists and urologists. Med Care 2014; 52:579-85.
    17. Kim SP, Gross CP, Nguyen PL, et al. Specialty bias in treatment recommendations and quality of life among radiation oncologists and urologists for localized prostate cancer. Prostate Cancer Prostatic Dis 2014; 17:163-9.
    18. Maurice MJ, Abouassaly R, Kim SP, Zhu H. Contemporary nationwide patterns of active surveillance use for prostate cancer. JAMA Intern Med 2015; 175:1569-71.
    19. Maurice MJ, Kim SP, Abouassaly R. Current status of prostate cancer diagnosis and management in the United States. JAMA Oncol 2016; 2:1505-7. 20. Tosoian JJ, Mamawala M, Patel HD, et al. Tumor volume on biopsy of low risk prostate cancer managed with active surveillance. J Urol 2018; 199:954-60. 21. Tosoian JJ, Trock BJ, Landis P, et al. Active surveillance program for prostate cancer: an update of the Johns Hopkins experience. J Clin Oncol 2011; 29:2185-90. 22. McClelland S 3rd, Sandler KA, Degnin C, Chen Y, Mitin T. Active surveillance for low and intermediate risk prostate cancer: opinions of North American Genitourinary Oncology expert radiation oncologists. Clin Genitourin Cancer 2018; 16:e323-5.
    23. Keegan KA, Dall’Era MA, Durbin-Johnson B, Evans CP. Active surveillance for prostate cancer compared with immediate treatment: an economic analysis. Cancer 2012; 118:3512-8.
    24. Eldefrawy A, Katkoori D, Abramowitz M, Soloway MS, Manoharan M. Active surveillance vs. treatment for low-risk prostate cancer: a cost comparison. Urol Oncol 2013; 31:576-80.
    25. Aizer AA, Paly JJ, Zietman AL, et al. Multidisciplinary care and pursuit of active surveillance in low-risk prostate cancer. J Clin Oncol 2012; 30:3071-6.
    26. Lin GA, Aaronson DS, Knight SJ, Carroll PR, Dudley RA. Patient decision aids for prostate cancer treatment: a systematic review of the literature. CA Cancer J Clin 2009; 59:379-90. 27. Kim SP, Karnes RJ, Nguyen PL, et al. Clinical implementation of quality of life instruments and prediction tools for localized prostate cancer: results from a na-tional survey of radiation oncologists and urologists. J Urol 2013; 189:2092-8.
    28. Wang EH, Gross CP, Tilburt JC, et al. Shared decision making and use of decision AIDS for localized prostate cancer : perceptions from radiation oncologists and urologists. JAMA Intern Med 2015; 175:792-9.
    31. Kim SP, Meropol NJ, Gross CP, et al. Physician attitudes about genetic testing for localized prostate cancer: A national survey of radiation oncologists and urologists. Urol Oncol 2018; 36:501.e515-21.
    33. Sanda MG, Cadeddu JA, Kirkby E, et al. Clinically localized prostate cancer: AUA/
    ASTRO/SUO guideline. Part II: recommended approaches and details of specific care options. J Urol 2018; 199:990-7.
    Clinical Genitourinary Cancer June 2019 - e479
    Active Surveillance for PCa
    Supplemental Table 1 Multivariable Logistic Regression or Recommendations of Active Surveillance for Low-Risk Prostate Cancer
    Case Presentation (Referent) OR (95% CI) P
    Simon P. Kim et al
    Supplemental Table 1 Continued
    Case Presentation (Referent) OR (95% CI) P
    Abbreviations: CI ¼ confidence interval; OR ¼ odds ratio; PSA ¼ prostate-specific antigen; RO ¼ radiation oncologist; URO ¼ urologist.
    Clinical Genitourinary Cancer June 2019 - e481