Laurence Klotz, MD, FRCSC, CM | Authors

May 16, 2017

In this review of active surveillance for favorable-risk prostate cancer, we will discuss the rationality of this approach, the biological evidence for employing active surveillance in Gleason pattern 3 and 4 prostate cancer, patient selection for active surveillance, clinical trial data on active surveillance, and the role of prostate cancer biomarkers and imaging studies for clinical decision making in patients with low-risk disease.

August 15, 2016

In this interview we discuss PSA screening for prostate cancer, the compromised results of the PLCO trial, and more.

November 15, 2014

Investigators and physicians caring for the spectrum of prostate cancer should have a targeted treatment option available for patients who would benefit by it.

June 15, 2013

The concept of active surveillance is based on the observation that Gleason 6 (pattern 3) prostate cancer is an indolent condition that poses little or no threat to the patient’s life. Conservative management is thus appropriate for these patients.

August 01, 1997

The Genitourinary (GU) Cancer Committee of the Southwestern Oncology Group (SWOG) has achieved repeated successes in conducting prospective studies of prostate cancer. This article is a summary of recently completed and current trials in prostate cancer and, as such, represents an intriguing snapshot of priorities in prostate cancer clinical trials in 1997.

April 01, 1997

This article addresses an increasingly common dilemma: the finding of a rising prostate-specific antigen (PSA) level in an asymptomatic patient following radical surgery or radiation therapy for prostate cancer. The incidence of prostate cancer has skyrocketed, and the number of men being treated with radiation or radical prosta-tectomy has similarly increased. The most common basis for the initial diagnosis of prostate cancer is an elevated PSA. For the patient who is already sensitized to PSA as a diagnostic marker, it is extremely distressing to learn that his PSA is rising following radical treatment. This is particularly true for the patient who has experienced a treatment-related adverse effect on quality of life. For the treating physician, this all-too common scenario is disappointing and even guilt-laden.