The DOI matches its Crossref record.
Clinical Results of Long-Term Follow-Up of a Large, Active Surveillance Cohort With Localized Prostate Cancer
Abstract
Purpose: We assessed the outcome of a watchful-waiting protocol with selective delayed intervention by using clinical prostate-specific antigen (PSA), or histologic progression as treatment indications for clinically localized prostate cancer. Patients and Methods: This was a prospective, single-arm, cohort study. Patients were managed with an initial expectant approach. Definitive intervention was offered to those patients with a PSA doubling time of less than 3 years, Gleason score progression (to 4 + 3 or greater), or unequivocal clinical progression. Survival analysis and Cox proportional hazard model were applied to the data. Results: A total of 450 patients have been observed with active surveillance. Median follow-up was 6.8 years (range, 1 to 13 years). Overall survival was 78.6%. The 10-year prostate cancer actuarial survival was 97.2%. Overall, 30% of patients have been reclassified as higher risk and have been offered definitive therapy. Of 117 patients treated radically, the PSA failure rate was 50%, which was 13% of the total cohort. PSA doubling time of 3 years or less was associated with an 8.5-times higher risk of biochemical failure after definitive treatment compared with a doubling time of more than 3 years (P < .0001). The hazard ratio for nonprostate cancer to prostate cancer mortality was 18.6 at 10 years. Conclusion: We observed a low rate of prostate cancer mortality. Among the patients who were reclassified as higher risk and who were treated, PSA failure was relatively common. Other-cause mortality accounted for almost all of the deaths. Additional studies are warranted to improve the identification of patients who harbor more aggressive disease despite favorable clinical parameters at diagnosis.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cited by
Wibmer, A., Hricak, H., Gondo, T., Matsumoto, K., Veeraraghavan, H., Fehr, D., Zheng, J., Goldman, D., Moskowitz, C., Fine, S. W., et al. (2015) · European Radiology · doi:10.1007/s00330-015-3701-8 · Cited by 391
Ankerst, D. P., Hoefler, J., Bock, S., Goodman, P. J., Vickers, A., Hernandez, J., Sokoll, L. J., Sanda, M. G., Wei, J. T., Leach, R. J., et al. (2014) · Urology · doi:10.1016/j.urology.2014.02.035 · Cited by 236
Metadata
- Authors
- Klotz, L., Zhang, L., Lam, A., Nam, R., Mamedov, A., & Loblaw, A.
- Venue
- Journal of Clinical Oncology
- Published
- 2010-01-01
- Volume
- 28
- Issue
- 1
- Pages
- 126-131
- ISSN
- 0732-183X (ISSN-L)
- 1527-7755
- OpenAlex
- W2157996158
- Cited by
- 1,074
- References
- 0
- FWCI
- 76.74
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Clinical Results of Long-Term Follow-Up of a Large, Active Surveillance Cohort With Localized Prostate Cancer. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1200/jco.2009.24.2180
- The paper
- Klotz, L., Zhang, L., Lam, A., Nam, R., Mamedov, A., & Loblaw, A. (2010). Clinical Results of Long-Term Follow-Up of a Large, Active Surveillance Cohort With Localized Prostate Cancer. Journal of Clinical Oncology. https://doi.org/10.1200/jco.2009.24.2180
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.