Comparison of biopsy under-sampling and annual progression using hidden markov models to learn from prostate cancer active surveillance studies

Exploring the relation of active surveillance schedules and prostate cancer mortality

BACKGROUND

Active surveillance (AS), where treatment is deferred until cancer progression is detected by a biopsy, is acknowledged as a way to reduce overtreatment in prostate cancer. However, a consensus on the frequency of taking biopsies while in AS is lacking. In former studies to optimize biopsy schedules, the delay in progression detection was taken as an evaluation indicator and believed to be associated with the long-term outcome, prostate cancer mortality. Nevertheless, this relation was never investigated in empirical data. Here, we use simulated data from a microsimulation model to fill this knowledge gap.

METHODS

In this study, the established MIcrosimulation SCreening Analysis model was extended with functionality to simulate the AS procedures. The biopsy sensitivity in the model was calibrated on the Canary Prostate Cancer Active Surveillance Study (PASS) data, and four (tri-yearly, bi-yearly, PASS, and yearly) AS programs were simulated. The relation between detection delay and prostate cancer mortality was investigated by Cox models.

RESULTS

The biopsy sensitivity of progression detection was found to be 50%. The Cox models show a positive relation between a longer detection delay and a higher risk of prostate cancer death. A 2-year delay resulted in a prostate cancer death risk of 2.46%-2.69% 5 years after progression detection and a 10-year risk of 5.75%-5.91%. A 4-year delay led to an approximately 8% greater 5-year risk and an approximately 25% greater 10-year risk.

CONCLUSION

The detection delay is confirmed as a surrogate for prostate cancer mortality. A cut-off for a "safe" detection delay could not be identified.

The prognostic value of 18F-PSMA-1007 PET/CT in predicting pathological upgrading of newly diagnosed prostate cancer from systematic biopsy to radical prostatectomy

Objective

This study aimed to evaluate predictors for upgrading of newly diagnosed prostate cancer from systematic biopsy (SB) to radical prostatectomy (RP) using fluorine-18 prostate-specific membrane antigen 1007 (¹⁸F-PSMA-1007) positron emission tomography/computed tomography (PET/CT) and association with clinical parameters.

Materials and methods

We retrospectively collected data from biopsy-confirmed prostate cancer (PCa) patients who underwent ¹⁸F-PSMA-1007 PET/CT prior to RP from July 2019 and October 2022. Imaging characteristics derived from ¹⁸F-PSMA-1007 PET/CT and clinical parameters were compared in patients of pathological upgrading and concordance subgroups. Univariable and multivariable logistic regressions were performed to analyze factors predicting histopathological upgrading from SB to RP specimens. Discrimination ability of independent predictors was further evaluated by receiver operating characteristic (ROC) analysis with corresponding area under the curve (AUC).

Results

Pathological upgrading occurred in 26.97% (41/152) PCa patients, and 23.03% (35/152) of all patients experienced pathological downgrading. Concordance rate reached 50% (76/152). International Society of Urological Pathology grade group (ISUP GG) 1(77.78%) and ISUP GG 2 (65.22%) biopsies were related with the highest rate of upgrading. Multivariable logistic regression analyses showed that prostate volume (OR= 0.933; 95% CI, 0.887-0.982; p = 0.008), ISUP GG 1 vs. 4 (OR= 13.856; 95% CI: 2.467-77.831; p = 0.003), and total uptake of PSMA-avid lesions (PSMA-TL) (OR = 1.003; 95% CI, 1.000-1.006; p = 0.029) were found to be independent risk factors of pathological upgrading after RP. The AUCs and corresponding sensitivity and specificity of the independent predictors of synthesis for upgrading were 0.839, 78.00%, and 83.30% respectively, which showed good discrimination capacity.

Conclusion

¹⁸F-PSMA-1007 PET/CT may help to predict pathological upgrading between biopsy and RP specimens, particularly for ISUP GG 1 and ISUP GG 2 patients with higher PSMA-TL and smaller prostate volume.

Prostate Cancer Biomarkers: From diagnosis to prognosis and precision-guided therapeutics

Prostate cancer (PCa) is one of the most commonly diagnosed malignancies and among the leading causes of cancer-related death worldwide. It is a highly heterogeneous disease, ranging from remarkably slow progression or inertia to highly aggressive and fatal disease. As therapeutic decision-making, clinical trial design and outcome highly depend on the appropriate stratification of patients to risk groups, it is imperative to differentiate between benign versus more aggressive states. The incorporation of clinically valuable prognostic and predictive biomarkers is also potentially amenable in this process, in the timely prevention of metastatic disease and in the decision for therapy selection. This review summarizes the progress that has so far been made in the identification of the genomic events that can be used for the classification, prediction and prognostication of PCa, and as major targets for clinical intervention. We include an extensive list of emerging biomarkers for which there is enough preclinical evidence to suggest that they may constitute crucial targets for achieving significant advances in the management of the disease. Finally, we highlight the main challenges that are associated with the identification of clinically significant PCa biomarkers and recommend possible ways to overcome such limitations.

Active surveillance for prostate cancer: selection criteria, guidelines, and outcomes

INTRODUCTION

Active surveillance (AS) has been widely adopted for the management of men with low-risk prostate cancer. However, there is still a lack of consensus surrounding the optimal approach for monitoring men in AS protocols. While conservative management aims to reduce the burden of invasive testing without compromising oncological safety, inadequate assessment can result in misclassification and unintended over- or undertreatment, leading to increased patient morbidity, cost, and undue risk. No universally accepted AS protocol exists, although numerous strategies have been developed in an attempt to optimize the management of clinically localized disease. Variability in selection criteria, reclassification, triggers for definitive treatment, and follow-up exists between guidelines and institutions for AS. In this review, we summarize the landscape of AS by providing an overview of the existing AS protocols, guidelines, and their published outcomes.

METHODS

A comprehensive electronic search was performed to identify representative studies and guidelines pertaining to AS selection criteria and outcomes.

CONCLUSION

While AS is a safe and increasingly utilized treatment modality for lower-risk forms of PCa, ongoing research is needed to optimize patient selection as well as surveillance protocols along with improved implementation across practices. Further, assessment of companion risk assessment tools, such as mpMRI and tissue-based biomarkers, is also needed and will require rigorous prospective study.