Super active surveillance for low-risk prostate cancer | Opinion: Yes

Super active surveillance for low-risk prostate cancer | Opinion: Yes

Saved in:

Bibliographic Details
Main Authors:	Reis,Leonardo O., Andrade,Danilo L., Bianco Jr.,Fernando J.
Format:	Digital revista
Language:	English
Published:	Sociedade Brasileira de Urologia 2019
Online Access:	http://old.scielo.br/scielo.php?script=sci_arttext&pid=S1677-55382019000200210
Tags:	Add Tag No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!

Similar Items

Super active surveillance for low-risk prostate cancer | Opinion: No
by: Ghodoussipour,Saum, et al.
Published: (2019)

Radical prostatectomy for high-risk prostate cancer | Opinion: YES
by: Reis,Leonardo O., et al.
Published: (2019)

Most of patients with localized prostate cancer will be treated in the future? | Opinion: Yes
by: Dell’Oglio,Paolo, et al.
Published: (2017)

Focal therapy will be the next step on prostate cancer management? | Opinion: Yes
by: Zequi,Stênio de Cássio
Published: (2017)

Radical prostatectomy in metastatic prostate cancer: is there enough evidence? | Opinion: Yes
by: Costa,Walter Henriques da, et al.
Published: (2016)

MRI should be routine for all patients with localized prostate cancer? | Opinion: Yes
by: Baroni,Ronaldo Hueb
Published: (2016)

Age-adjusted validation of the most stringent criteria for active surveillance in low-risk prostate cancer patients
by: Reis,Leonardo Oliveira
Published: (2011)

Active surveillance in intermediate risk prostate cancer: is it safe?
by: Poel,Henk G. van der, et al.
Published: (2016)

Active surveillance in intermediate risk prostate cancer: is it safe?
by: Krishnananthan,Nishanth, et al.
Published: (2016)

HPV vaccination is fundamental for reducing or erradicate penile cancer | Opinion: YES
by: Voris,Brunno Raphael Iamashita, et al.
Published: (2018)

Radical prostatectomy for high-risk prostate cancer | Opinion: NO
by: Ghodoussipour,Saum, et al.
Published: (2019)

The role of magnetic resonance imaging in active surveillance of prostate cancer
by: Alagbe,Olayemi Atinuke, et al.
Published: (2021)

Are syntetic slings safe? Opinion: Yes
by: Cintra,Caio Cesar, et al.
Published: (2016)

Radical Cystectomy is the best choice for most patients with muscle-invasive bladder cancer? Opinion: Yes
by: Monteiro,Leonardo L., et al.
Published: (2017)

Active surveillance program for prostate cancer: an update of the Johns Hopkins experience
by: Billis,Athanase
Published: (2011)

Social Media in the Urology Practice | Opinion: YES
by: Bellote,Mateus Cosentino, et al.
Published: (2019)

BPH treatment: laser for everyone | Opinion: YES
by: Sacomani,Carlos A. R., et al.
Published: (2018)

Radical prostatectomy findings in patients in whom active surveillance of prostate cancer fails
by: Billis,Athanase
Published: (2009)

Current concepts in multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging for active surveillance of prostate cancer
by: Cavalcante,Alexandre, et al.
Published: (2018)

Should routine neonatal circumcision be a police to prevent penile cancer? | Opinion: Yes
by: Ornellas,Antonio Augusto, et al.
Published: (2017)

Do we have enough evidences that make you safe to treat a man with hypogonadism one year after a radical prostatectomy for prostate cancer? | Opinion: YES
by: Torres,Luiz Otavio
Published: (2018)

Percutaneous prostate cryoablation as treatment for high-risk prostate cancer
by: El Hayek,Omar Reda, et al.
Published: (2007)

Prostate cancer managed with active surveillance: role of anatomic MR imaging and MR spectroscopic imaging
by: Prando,Adilson
Published: (2010)

Is active surveillance a safe alternative in the management of localized prostate cancer? Pathological features of radical prostatectomy specimens in potential candidates for active surveillance
by: Norman,Zambrano, et al.
Published: (2014)

Low risk prostate cancer in men > 70 years old: to treat or not to treat
by: Rice,KR, et al.
Published: (2011)

Brachytherapy guideline in prostate cancer (high and low dose rate)
by: Hanna,Samir Abdallah, et al.
Published: (2017)

Inflammation and endothelial activation in benign prostatic hyperplasia and prostate cancer
by: Pace,Gianna, et al.
Published: (2011)

Is there any association between National Institute of Health category IV prostatitis and prostate-specific antigen levels in patients with low-risk localized prostate cancer?
by: Doluoglu,Omer Gokhan, et al.
Published: (2016)

Most of patients with localized prostate cancer will be treated in the future? | Opinion: No
by: Schulman,Ariel A., et al.
Published: (2017)

Focal therapy will be the next step on prostate cancer management? | Opinion: No
by: Matheus,Wagner Eduardo, et al.
Published: (2017)

Radical prostatectomy in metastatic prostate cancer: is there enough evidence? | Opinion: No
by: Ristau,Benjamin T., et al.
Published: (2016)

Editorial Comment: Abiraterone in “High-” and “Low-risk” Metastatic Hormone-sensitive Prostate Cancer
by: Lott,Felipe
Published: (2021)

Biomagnetic activity in prostate cancer and BPH
by: Anninos,P., et al.
Published: (2008)

MRI should be routine for all patients with localized prostate cancer? | Opinion: No
by: Nelson,Joel B.
Published: (2016)

Is There a Space to Improve the Treatment of Erectile Dysfunction in the Next Years? Opinion: Yes
by: Althof,Stanley E.
Published: (2015)

Prostate-specific antigen kinetics during follow-up are an unreliable trigger for intervention in a prostate cancer surveillance program
by: Billis,Athanase
Published: (2010)

Prostate cancer
by: Castillejos-Molina,Ricardo Alonso, et al.
Published: (2016)

Analysis of T1c prostate cancers treated at very low prostate-specific antigen levels
by: Bohle,Andreas
Published: (2009)

Prostatic paracoccidioidomycosis: differential diagnosis of prostate cancer
by: Lopes,Daniel Lima, et al.
Published: (2009)

In the era of flexible ureteroscopy is there still a place for Shock-wave lithotripsy?: Opinion: YES
by: J.F.,Donaldson
Published: (2015)

Resource Map