1
|
James ND, Tannock I, N'Dow J, Feng F, Gillessen S, Ali SA, Trujillo B, Al-Lazikani B, Attard G, Bray F, Compérat E, Eeles R, Fatiregun O, Grist E, Halabi S, Haran Á, Herchenhorn D, Hofman MS, Jalloh M, Loeb S, MacNair A, Mahal B, Mendes L, Moghul M, Moore C, Morgans A, Morris M, Murphy D, Murthy V, Nguyen PL, Padhani A, Parker C, Rush H, Sculpher M, Soule H, Sydes MR, Tilki D, Tunariu N, Villanti P, Xie LP. The Lancet Commission on prostate cancer: planning for the surge in cases. Lancet 2024; 403:1683-1722. [PMID: 38583453 DOI: 10.1016/s0140-6736(24)00651-2] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 06/14/2022] [Revised: 09/28/2023] [Accepted: 03/27/2024] [Indexed: 04/09/2024]
Affiliation(s)
- Nicholas D James
- Institute of Cancer Research, London, UK; The Royal Marsden NHS Foundation Trust, London, UK.
| | - Ian Tannock
- Princess Margaret Cancer Centre, University Health Network, Toronto, ON, Canada
| | | | - Felix Feng
- University of California, San Francisco, USA
| | - Silke Gillessen
- Oncology Institute of Southern Switzerland, Bellinzona, Switzerland
| | - Syed Adnan Ali
- University of Manchester, Manchester, UK; The Christie Hospital, Manchester, UK
| | | | | | | | - Freddie Bray
- International Agency for Research on Cancer, Lyon, France
| | - Eva Compérat
- Tenon Hospital, Sorbonne University, Paris; AKH Medical University, Vienna, Austria
| | - Ros Eeles
- Institute of Cancer Research, London, UK; The Royal Marsden NHS Foundation Trust, London, UK
| | | | | | | | - Áine Haran
- The Royal United Hospitals Bath NHS Foundation Trust, Bath, UK
| | | | | | | | - Stacy Loeb
- New York University, New York, NY, USA; Manhattan Veterans Affairs, New York, NY, USA
| | | | | | | | - Masood Moghul
- Institute of Cancer Research, London, UK; The Royal Marsden NHS Foundation Trust, London, UK
| | | | | | - Michael Morris
- Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, NY, USA
| | - Declan Murphy
- Peter MacCallum Cancer Centre, Melbourne, VIC, Australia
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | - Howard Soule
- Prostate Cancer Foundation, Santa Monica, CA, USA
| | | | - Derya Tilki
- Martini-Klinik Prostate Cancer Center and Department of Urology, University Hospital Hamburg-Eppendorf, Hamburg, Germany; Department of Urology, Koc University Hospital, Istanbul, Türkiye
| | - Nina Tunariu
- Institute of Cancer Research, London, UK; The Royal Marsden NHS Foundation Trust, London, UK
| | | | - Li-Ping Xie
- First Affiliated Hospital, Zhejiang University School of Medicine, Hangzhou, China
| |
Collapse
|
2
|
Tohi Y, Kato T, Sugimoto M. Aggressive Prostate Cancer in Patients Treated with Active Surveillance. Cancers (Basel) 2023; 15:4270. [PMID: 37686546 PMCID: PMC10486407 DOI: 10.3390/cancers15174270] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 07/28/2023] [Revised: 08/23/2023] [Accepted: 08/24/2023] [Indexed: 09/10/2023] Open
Abstract
Active surveillance has emerged as a promising approach for managing low-risk and favorable intermediate-risk prostate cancer (PC), with the aim of minimizing overtreatment and maintaining the quality of life. However, concerns remain about identifying "aggressive prostate cancer" within the active surveillance cohort, which refers to cancers with a higher potential for progression. Previous studies are predictors of aggressive PC during active surveillance. To address this, a personalized risk-based follow-up approach that integrates clinical data, biomarkers, and genetic factors using risk calculators was proposed. This approach enables an efficient risk assessment and the early detection of disease progression, minimizes unnecessary interventions, and improves patient management and outcomes. As active surveillance indications expand, the importance of identifying aggressive PC through a personalized risk-based follow-up is expected to increase.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Yoichiro Tohi
- Department of Urology, Faculty of Medicine, Kagawa University, Kagawa 761-0793, Japan
| | | | | |
Collapse
|
3
|
Agrotis G, Tsougos I, Oikonomou A, Vassiou K, Karatzas A, Tamposis I, Fanariotis M, Vamvakas A, Tzortzis V, Vlychou M. Combination of fusion guided multiparametric MRI-transrectal US with systematic biopsy of the prostate for the detection of clinically significant prostate cancer: A prospective single-center study. JOURNAL OF CLINICAL ULTRASOUND : JCU 2023. [PMID: 37267147 DOI: 10.1002/jcu.23497] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 01/06/2023] [Revised: 05/18/2023] [Accepted: 05/19/2023] [Indexed: 06/04/2023]
Abstract
PURPOSE To investigate the diagnostic efficacy of fusion guided multiparametric MRI (mpMRI)-transrectal ultrasound (TRUS) biopsy versus systematic biopsy of the prostate in patients with suspicion of prostate cancer. METHODS A total of 185 patients with PI-RADS 3 lesions or higher underwent fusion guided targeted and systematic prostate biopsy. Histology of samples was correlated with PI-RADS score and biopsy method for each patient. RESULTS A total of 81/185 (43.8%) cases positive for cancer were detected; 23/81 (28.4%) cases with clinically insignificant prostate cancer-insPCa and 58/81 (71.6%) cases with clinically significant prostate cancer-csPCa. There was a statistically significant difference in the overall detection of adenocarcinomas between methods (p = .035, McNemar test). Moreover, there was a statistically significant difference in the detection of insPCa between the two methods (p = .004, McNemar test). Systematic biopsy detected 13 patients with insPCa more (14.4%) than the targeted biopsy method. However, there is no statistical difference in the detection rate of csPCa between the two methods (p = 1, McNemar test). When both techniques were combined more cases of csPCa were detected. CONCLUSION The combined implementation of fusion-guided targeted mpMRI-TRUS and systematic biopsy of the prostate provides higher detection number of csPCa, compared to each method alone. The potential of fusion-guided mpMRI-TRUS biopsy of the prostate needs to be further assessed since each method has its limitations; therefore, systematic prostate biopsy still plays an important role in clinical practice.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Georgios Agrotis
- Department of Radiology, University Hospital of Larissa, Larissa, Greece
| | - Ioannis Tsougos
- Department of Medical Physics, University Hospital of Larissa, Larissa, Greece
| | | | - Katerina Vassiou
- Department of Radiology, University Hospital of Larissa, Larissa, Greece
| | | | - Ioannis Tamposis
- Department of Computer Science and Biomedical Informatics, University of Thessaly, Lamia, Greece
| | | | - Alexandros Vamvakas
- Department of Medical Physics, University Hospital of Larissa, Larissa, Greece
| | - Vasilis Tzortzis
- Department of Urology, University Hospital of Larissa, Larissa, Greece
| | - Marianna Vlychou
- Department of Radiology, University Hospital of Larissa, Larissa, Greece
| |
Collapse
|
4
|
de Vos II, Luiting HB, Roobol MJ. Active Surveillance for Prostate Cancer: Past, Current, and Future Trends. J Pers Med 2023; 13:jpm13040629. [PMID: 37109015 PMCID: PMC10145015 DOI: 10.3390/jpm13040629] [Citation(s) in RCA: 10] [Impact Index Per Article: 10.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 03/07/2023] [Revised: 03/28/2023] [Accepted: 04/01/2023] [Indexed: 04/05/2023] Open
Abstract
In response to the rising incidence of indolent, low-risk prostate cancer (PCa) due to increased prostate-specific antigen (PSA) screening in the 1990s, active surveillance (AS) emerged as a treatment modality to combat overtreatment by delaying or avoiding unnecessary definitive treatment and its associated morbidity. AS consists of regular monitoring of PSA levels, digital rectal exams, medical imaging, and prostate biopsies, so that definitive treatment is only offered when deemed necessary. This paper provides a narrative review of the evolution of AS since its inception and an overview of its current landscape and challenges. Although AS was initially only performed in a study setting, numerous studies have provided evidence for the safety and efficacy of AS which has led guidelines to recommend it as a treatment option for patients with low-risk PCa. For intermediate-risk disease, AS appears to be a viable option for those with favourable clinical characteristics. Over the years, the inclusion criteria, follow-up schedule and triggers for definitive treatment have evolved based on the results of various large AS cohorts. Given the burdensome nature of repeat biopsies, risk-based dynamic monitoring may further reduce overtreatment by avoiding repeat biopsies in selected patients.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Ivo I. de Vos
- Department of Urology, Erasmus MC Cancer Institute, University Medical Center Rotterdam, 3015 GD Rotterdam, The Netherlands
| | - Henk B. Luiting
- Department of Urology, Erasmus MC Cancer Institute, University Medical Center Rotterdam, 3015 GD Rotterdam, The Netherlands
| | - Monique J. Roobol
- Department of Urology, Erasmus MC Cancer Institute, University Medical Center Rotterdam, 3015 GD Rotterdam, The Netherlands
| |
Collapse
|
5
|
Chamorro Castillo L, García Morales L, Ruiz López D, Salguero Segura J, Valero Rosa J, Anglada Curado FJ, Mesa Quesada J, Blanca Pedregosa A, Carrasco Valiente J, Gómez Gómez E. The role of multiparametric magnetic resonance in active surveillance of a low-risk prostate cancer cohort from clinical practice. Prostate 2023; 83:765-772. [PMID: 36895160 DOI: 10.1002/pros.24515] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 12/12/2022] [Revised: 02/11/2023] [Accepted: 02/17/2023] [Indexed: 03/11/2023]
Abstract
INTRODUCTION Active surveillance (AS) is considered a suitable management practice for those patients with low-risk prostate cancer (PCa). At present, however, the role of multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging (mpMRI) in AS protocols has not yet been clearly established. OUTCOMES To determine the role of mpMRI and its ability to detect significant prostate cancer (SigPCa) in PCa patients enrolled in AS protocols. MATERIALS AND METHODS There were 229 patients enrolled in an AS protocol between 2011 and 2020 at Reina Sofía University Hospital. MRI interpretation was based on PIRADS v.1 or v.2/2.1 classification. Demographics, clinical, and analytical data were collected and analyzed. Sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value (PPV), and negative predictive value (NPV) were calculated for mpMRI in different scenarios. We defined SigPCa and reclassification/progression as a Gleason score (GS) ≥ 3 + 4, a clinical stage ≥T2b, or an increase in PCa volume. Kaplan-Meier and log-rank tests were used to estimate progression-free survival time. RESULTS Median age was 69.02 (±7.73) at diagnosis, with a 0.15 (±0.08) PSA density (PSAD). Eighty-six patients were reclassified after confirmatory biopsy, with a suspicious mpMRI an indication for a clear reclassification and risk-predictor factor in disease progression (p < 0.05). During follow-up, 46 patients were changed from AS to active treatment mainly due to disease progression. Ninety patients underwent ≥2mpMRI during follow-up, with a median follow-up of 29 (15-49) months. Thirty-four patients had a baseline suspicious mpMRI (at diagnostic or confirmatory biopsy): 14 patients with a PIRADS 3 and 20 patients with ≥PIRADS 4. From 14 patients with a PIRADS 3 baseline mpMRI, 29% progressed radiologically, with a 50% progression rate versus 10% (1/10 patients) for those with similar or decreased mpMRI risk. Of the 56 patients with a non-suspicious baseline mpMRI (PIRADS < 2), 14 patients (25%) had an increased degree of radiological suspicion, with a detection rate of SigPCa of 29%. The mpMRI NPV during follow-up was 0.91. CONCLUSION A suspicious mpMRI increases the reclassification and disease progression risk during follow-up and plays an important role in monitoring biopsies. In addition, a high NPV at mpMRI follow-up can help to decrease the need to monitor biopsies during AS.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- L Chamorro Castillo
- Urology Department, Reina Sofía University Hospital, Maimonides Institute of Biomedical Research of Cordoba (IMIBIC), Cordoba, Spain
| | - L García Morales
- Urology Department, Reina Sofía University Hospital, Maimonides Institute of Biomedical Research of Cordoba (IMIBIC), Cordoba, Spain
| | - D Ruiz López
- Radiology Department, Reina Sofía University Hospital, Maimonides Institute of Biomedical Research of Cordoba (IMIBIC), University of Cordoba (UCO), Cordoba, Spain
| | - J Salguero Segura
- Urology Department, Reina Sofía University Hospital, Maimonides Institute of Biomedical Research of Cordoba (IMIBIC), Cordoba, Spain
- Urology Department, Galdakao University Hospital, Urology, Galdakao, Spain
| | - J Valero Rosa
- Urology Department, Reina Sofía University Hospital, Maimonides Institute of Biomedical Research of Cordoba (IMIBIC), Cordoba, Spain
| | - F J Anglada Curado
- Urology Department, Reina Sofía University Hospital, Maimonides Institute of Biomedical Research of Cordoba (IMIBIC), Cordoba, Spain
| | - J Mesa Quesada
- Radiology Department, Reina Sofía University Hospital, Maimonides Institute of Biomedical Research of Cordoba (IMIBIC), University of Cordoba (UCO), Cordoba, Spain
| | - A Blanca Pedregosa
- Urology Department, Reina Sofía University Hospital, Maimonides Institute of Biomedical Research of Cordoba (IMIBIC), Cordoba, Spain
| | - J Carrasco Valiente
- Urology Department, Reina Sofía University Hospital, Maimonides Institute of Biomedical Research of Cordoba (IMIBIC), University of Cordoba (UCO), Cordoba, Spain
| | - Enrique Gómez Gómez
- Urology Department, Reina Sofía University Hospital, Maimonides Institute of Biomedical Research of Cordoba (IMIBIC), University of Cordoba (UCO), Cordoba, Spain
| |
Collapse
|
6
|
Light A, Lophatananon A, Keates A, Thankappannair V, Barrett T, Dominguez-Escrig J, Rubio-Briones J, Benheddi T, Olivier J, Villers A, Babureddy K, Abdelmoteleb H, Gnanapragasam VJ. Development and External Validation of the STRATified CANcer Surveillance (STRATCANS) Multivariable Model for Predicting Progression in Men with Newly Diagnosed Prostate Cancer Starting Active Surveillance. J Clin Med 2022; 12:jcm12010216. [PMID: 36615017 PMCID: PMC9821695 DOI: 10.3390/jcm12010216] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 08/28/2022] [Revised: 12/06/2022] [Accepted: 12/25/2022] [Indexed: 12/29/2022] Open
Abstract
For men with newly diagnosed prostate cancer, we aimed to develop and validate a model to predict the risk of progression on active surveillance (AS), which could inform more personalised AS strategies. In total, 883 men from 3 European centres were used for model development and internal validation, and 151 men from a fourth European centre were used for external validation. Men with Cambridge Prognostic Group (CPG) 1-2 disease at diagnosis were eligible. The endpoint was progression to the composite endpoint of CPG3 disease or worse (≥CPG3). Model performance at 4 years was evaluated through discrimination (C-index), calibration plots, and decision curve analysis. The final multivariable model incorporated prostate-specific antigen (PSA), Grade Group, magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) score (Prostate Imaging Reporting & Data System (PI-RADS) or Likert), and prostate volume. Calibration and discrimination were good in both internal validation (C-index 0.742, 95% CI 0.694-0.793) and external validation (C-index 0.845, 95% CI 0.712-0.958). In decision curve analysis, the model offered net benefit compared to a 'follow-all' strategy at risk thresholds of ≥0.08 and ≥0.04 in development and external validation, respectively. In conclusion, our model demonstrated good accuracy and clinical utility in predicting the progression on AS at 4 years post-diagnosis. Men with lower risk predictions could subsequently be offered less-intense surveillance. Further external validation in larger cohorts is now required.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Alexander Light
- Division of Urology, Department of Surgery, University of Cambridge, Cambridge CB2 0QQ, UK
- Department of Urology, Cambridge University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, Cambridge CB2 0QQ, UK
- Cambridge Urology Translational Research and Clinical Trials Office, Cambridge Biomedical Campus, University of Cambridge, Cambridge CB2 0QQ, UK
| | - Artitaya Lophatananon
- Division of Population Health, Health Services Research and Primary Care, University of Manchester, Manchester M13 9PL, UK
| | - Alexandra Keates
- Department of Urology, Cambridge University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, Cambridge CB2 0QQ, UK
- Cambridge Urology Translational Research and Clinical Trials Office, Cambridge Biomedical Campus, University of Cambridge, Cambridge CB2 0QQ, UK
| | - Vineetha Thankappannair
- Department of Urology, Cambridge University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, Cambridge CB2 0QQ, UK
| | - Tristan Barrett
- Department of Radiology, University of Cambridge, Cambridge CB2 0QQ, UK
- Department of Radiology, Cambridge University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, Cambridge CB2 0QQ, UK
| | - Jose Dominguez-Escrig
- Department of Urology, Fundación Instituto Valenciano de Oncología, 46009 Valencia, Spain
| | - Jose Rubio-Briones
- Department of Urology, Fundación Instituto Valenciano de Oncología, 46009 Valencia, Spain
| | - Toufik Benheddi
- Department of Urology, Lille University, 59000 Lille, France
| | - Jonathan Olivier
- Department of Urology, Lille University, 59000 Lille, France
- UMR8161, CNRS-Institut de Biologie de Lille, 59800 Lille, France
| | - Arnauld Villers
- Department of Urology, Lille University, 59000 Lille, France
- UMR8161, CNRS-Institut de Biologie de Lille, 59800 Lille, France
| | - Kirthana Babureddy
- Department of Urology, University Hospital of Wales, Cardiff and Vale University Health Board, Cardiff CF14 4XW, UK
| | - Haitham Abdelmoteleb
- Department of Urology, University Hospital of Wales, Cardiff and Vale University Health Board, Cardiff CF14 4XW, UK
| | - Vincent J. Gnanapragasam
- Division of Urology, Department of Surgery, University of Cambridge, Cambridge CB2 0QQ, UK
- Department of Urology, Cambridge University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, Cambridge CB2 0QQ, UK
- Cambridge Urology Translational Research and Clinical Trials Office, Cambridge Biomedical Campus, University of Cambridge, Cambridge CB2 0QQ, UK
- Correspondence: ; Tel.: +44-1223245151
| |
Collapse
|
7
|
Risk of progression following a negative biopsy in prostate cancer active surveillance. Prostate Cancer Prostatic Dis 2022:10.1038/s41391-022-00582-x. [PMID: 36008540 DOI: 10.1038/s41391-022-00582-x] [Citation(s) in RCA: 1] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.5] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 04/27/2022] [Revised: 07/26/2022] [Accepted: 08/01/2022] [Indexed: 11/08/2022]
Abstract
BACKGROUND Currently, follow-up protocols are applied equally to men on active surveillance (AS) for prostate cancer (PCa) regardless of findings at their initial follow-up biopsy. To determine whether less intensive follow-up is suitable following negative biopsy findings, we assessed the risk of converting to active treatment, any subsequent upgrading, volume progression (>33% positive cores), and serious upgrading (grade group >2) for negative compared with positive findings on initial follow-up biopsy. METHODS 13,161 men from 24 centres participating in the Global Action Plan Active Surveillance Prostate Cancer [GAP3] consortium database, with baseline grade group ≤2, PSA ≤ 20 ng/mL, cT-stage 1-2, diagnosed after 1995, and ≥1 follow-up biopsy, were included in this study. Risk of converting to treatment was assessed using multivariable mixed-effects survival regression. Odds of volume progression, any upgrading and serious upgrading were assessed using mix-effects binary logistic regression for men with ≥2 surveillance biopsies. RESULTS 27% of the cohort (n = 3590) had no evidence of PCa at their initial biopsy. Over 50% of subsequent biopsies in this group were also negative. A negative initial biopsy was associated with lower risk of conversion (adjusted hazard ratio: 0.45; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.42-0.49), subsequent upgrading (adjusted odds ratio [OR]: 0.52; 95%CI: 0.45-0.62) and serious upgrading (OR: 0.74; 95%CI: 0.59-92). Radiological progression was not assessed due to limited imaging data. CONCLUSION Despite heterogeneity in follow-up schedules, findings from this global study indicated reduced risk of converting to treatment, volume progression, any upgrading and serious upgrading among men whose initial biopsy findings were negative compared with positive. Given the low risk of progression and high likelihood of further negative biopsy findings, consideration should be given to decreasing follow-up intensity for this group to reduce unnecessary invasive biopsies.
Collapse
|
8
|
Developing machine learning algorithms for dynamic estimation of progression during active surveillance for prostate cancer. NPJ Digit Med 2022; 5:110. [PMID: 35933478 PMCID: PMC9357044 DOI: 10.1038/s41746-022-00659-w] [Citation(s) in RCA: 7] [Impact Index Per Article: 3.5] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 03/01/2022] [Accepted: 07/14/2022] [Indexed: 11/15/2022] Open
Abstract
Active Surveillance (AS) for prostate cancer is a management option that continually monitors early disease and considers intervention if progression occurs. A robust method to incorporate “live” updates of progression risk during follow-up has hitherto been lacking. To address this, we developed a deep learning-based individualised longitudinal survival model using Dynamic-DeepHit-Lite (DDHL) that learns data-driven distribution of time-to-event outcomes. Further refining outputs, we used a reinforcement learning approach (Actor-Critic) for temporal predictive clustering (AC-TPC) to discover groups with similar time-to-event outcomes to support clinical utility. We applied these methods to data from 585 men on AS with longitudinal and comprehensive follow-up (median 4.4 years). Time-dependent C-indices and Brier scores were calculated and compared to Cox regression and landmarking methods. Both Cox and DDHL models including only baseline variables showed comparable C-indices but the DDHL model performance improved with additional follow-up data. With 3 years of data collection and 3 years follow-up the DDHL model had a C-index of 0.79 (±0.11) compared to 0.70 (±0.15) for landmarking Cox and 0.67 (±0.09) for baseline Cox only. Model calibration was good across all models tested. The AC-TPC method further discovered 4 distinct outcome-related temporal clusters with distinct progression trajectories. Those in the lowest risk cluster had negligible progression risk while those in the highest cluster had a 50% risk of progression by 5 years. In summary, we report a novel machine learning approach to inform personalised follow-up during active surveillance which improves predictive power with increasing data input over time.
Collapse
|
9
|
Kirk PS, Zhu K, Zheng Y, Newcomb LF, Schenk JM, Brooks JD, Carroll PR, Dash A, Ellis WJ, Filson CP, Gleave ME, Liss M, Martin F, McKenney JK, Morgan TM, Nelson PS, Thompson IM, Wagner AA, Lin DW, Gore JL. Treatment in the absence of disease reclassification among men on active surveillance for prostate cancer. Cancer 2022; 128:269-274. [PMID: 34516660 PMCID: PMC8738121 DOI: 10.1002/cncr.33911] [Citation(s) in RCA: 1] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.5] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 07/14/2021] [Revised: 08/06/2021] [Accepted: 08/07/2021] [Indexed: 01/17/2023]
Abstract
BACKGROUND Maintaining men on active surveillance for prostate cancer can be challenging. Although most men who eventually undergo treatment have experienced clinical progression, a smaller subset elects treatment in the absence of disease reclassification. This study sought to understand factors associated with treatment in a large, contemporary, prospective cohort. METHODS This study identified 1789 men in the Canary Prostate Cancer Active Surveillance Study cohort enrolled as of 2020 with a median follow-up of 5.6 years. Clinical and demographic data as well as information on patient-reported quality of life and urinary symptoms were used in multivariable Cox proportional hazards regression models to identify factors associated with the time to treatment RESULTS: Within 4 years of their diagnosis, 33% of men (95% confidence interval [CI], 30%-35%) underwent treatment, and 10% (95% CI, 9%-12%) were treated in the absence of reclassification. The most significant factor associated with any treatment was an increasing Gleason grade group (adjusted hazard ratio [aHR], 14.5; 95% CI, 11.7-17.9). Urinary quality-of-life scores were associated with treatment without reclassification (aHR comparing "mostly dissatisfied/terrible" with "pleased/mixed," 2.65; 95% CI, 1.54-4.59). In a subset analysis (n = 692), married men, compared with single men, were more likely to undergo treatment in the absence of reclassification (aHR, 2.63; 95% CI, 1.04-6.66). CONCLUSIONS A substantial number of men with prostate cancer undergo treatment in the absence of clinical changes in their cancers, and quality-of-life changes and marital status may be important factors in these decisions. LAY SUMMARY This analysis of men on active surveillance for prostate cancer shows that approximately 1 in 10 men will decide to be treated within 4 years of their diagnosis even if their cancer is stable. These choices may be related in part to quality-or-life or spousal concerns.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Peter S. Kirk
- Department of Urology, University of Washington, Seattle, WA
| | - Kehao Zhu
- Biostatistics Program, Public Health Sciences, Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center, Seattle, WA
| | - Yingye Zheng
- Biostatistics Program, Public Health Sciences, Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center, Seattle, WA
| | - Lisa F. Newcomb
- Department of Urology, University of Washington, Seattle, WA
- Cancer Prevention Program, Public Health Sciences, Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center, Seattle, WA
| | - Jeannette M. Schenk
- Cancer Prevention Program, Public Health Sciences, Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center, Seattle, WA
| | | | - Peter R. Carroll
- Department of Urology, University of California, San Francisco, CA
| | - Atreya Dash
- VA Puget Sound Health Care Systems, Seattle, WA
| | | | | | - Martin E. Gleave
- Department of Urologic Sciences, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, BC
| | - Michael Liss
- Department of Urology, University of Texas Health Sciences Center, San Antonio, TX
| | - Frances Martin
- Department of Urology, Eastern Virginia Medical School, Virginia Beach, VA
| | - Jesse K. McKenney
- Robert J. Tomsich Pathology and Laboratory Medicine Institute, Cleveland Clinic, Cleveland, OH
| | - Todd M. Morgan
- Department of Urology, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI
| | - Peter S. Nelson
- Division of Human Biology and Clinical Research, Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center, Seattle, WA
| | | | - Andrew A. Wagner
- Division of Urology, Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center, Boston, MA
| | - Daniel W. Lin
- Department of Urology, University of Washington, Seattle, WA
- Cancer Prevention Program, Public Health Sciences, Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center, Seattle, WA
| | - John L. Gore
- Department of Urology, University of Washington, Seattle, WA
| |
Collapse
|
10
|
Zheng J, Zheng Y, Hsu L. Risk Projection for Time-to-event Outcome Leveraging Summary Statistics With Source Individual-level Data. J Am Stat Assoc 2022; 117:2043-2055. [PMID: 36687294 PMCID: PMC9855229 DOI: 10.1080/01621459.2021.1895810] [Citation(s) in RCA: 2] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 01/26/2023]
Abstract
Predicting risks of chronic diseases has become increasingly important in clinical practice. When a prediction model is developed in a cohort, there is a great interest to apply the model to other cohorts. Due to potential discrepancy in baseline disease incidences between different cohorts and shifts in patient composition, the risk predicted by the model built in the source cohort often under- or over-estimates the risk in a new cohort. In this article, we assume the relative risks of predictors are the same between the two cohorts, and propose a novel weighted estimating equation approach to re-calibrating the projected risk for the targeted population through updating the baseline risk. The recalibration leverages the knowledge about survival probabilities for the disease of interest and competing events, and summary information of risk factors from the target population. We establish the consistency and asymptotic normality of the proposed estimators. Extensive simulation demonstrate that the proposed estimators are robust, even if the risk factor distributions differ between the source and target populations, and gain efficiency if they are the same, as long as the information from the target is precise. The method is illustrated with a recalibration of colorectal cancer prediction model.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
| | | | - Li Hsu
- Corresponding author
(, Division of Public Health Sciences, Fred
Hutchinson Cancer Research Center, 1100 Fairview Ave. N., M2–B500,
Seattle, WA 98109)
| |
Collapse
|
11
|
Shill DK, Roobol MJ, Ehdaie B, Vickers AJ, Carlsson SV. Active surveillance for prostate cancer. Transl Androl Urol 2021; 10:2809-2819. [PMID: 34295763 PMCID: PMC8261451 DOI: 10.21037/tau-20-1370] [Citation(s) in RCA: 16] [Impact Index Per Article: 5.3] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Download PDF] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 10/26/2020] [Accepted: 03/25/2021] [Indexed: 12/20/2022] Open
Abstract
Many men diagnosed with localized prostate cancer can postpone definitive treatment without raising their risk of metastasis or death from disease. Active surveillance (AS) is a method of monitoring select men, with the option of switching to active treatment upon signs of progression, thereby avoiding the well-known side-effects of surgery and radiotherapy. This review analyzes the data from long-running AS cohorts to determine the safety and efficacy of AS. We conducted a narrative review of recently published data, including 14 articles from 13 AS cohorts. The cohorts used varying inclusion criteria, with reported differences in clinical T stage and Gleason Score (Grade Group), among other features. Some studies (n=5) limited their cohorts to low-risk patients, while others (n=8) also included intermediate-risk patients. The heterogeneity of the cohorts produced mixed results, with the risk of prostate cancer metastasis ranging from 0.1–1.0% at 10 years and the risk of prostate cancer mortality ranging from 0–1.9% at 10 years. However, the majority of studies reported risks of less than 0.5% at 10 years for both metastasis and death. For most cohorts, half of men remained untreated for 5–10 years, with estimates ranging from 37% receiving active treatment in the Toronto cohort to 73% in the Prostate Cancer Research International AS (PRIAS) study. Current data do not support the use of negative magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) to avoid scheduled biopsy. Taken together, the data collected from these AS cohorts suggests that AS is a safe approach for men with low-grade prostate cancer and some men with intermediate risk disease. AS should be more broadly implemented for eligible patients to avoid the decreases in quality of life from undergoing active treatment. Studies expanding the inclusion criteria and further defining a subset of men with favorable intermediate-risk prostate cancer who might safely benefit from AS are needed to assess the long-term outcomes of using AS in intermediate-risk groups.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
| | - Monique J Roobol
- Department of Urology, Erasmus University Medical Center, Rotterdam, The Netherlands
| | - Behfar Ehdaie
- Department of Surgery (Urology Service), Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, NY, USA
| | - Andrew J Vickers
- Department of Epidemiology and Biostatistics, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, NY, USA
| | - Sigrid V Carlsson
- Department of Surgery (Urology Service), Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, NY, USA.,Department of Epidemiology and Biostatistics, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, NY, USA.,Department of Urology, Institute of Clinical Sciences, Sahlgrenska Academy at University of Gothenburg, Sweden
| |
Collapse
|
12
|
Walker CH, Marchetti KA, Singhal U, Morgan TM. Active surveillance for prostate cancer: selection criteria, guidelines, and outcomes. World J Urol 2021; 40:35-42. [PMID: 33655428 DOI: 10.1007/s00345-021-03622-8] [Citation(s) in RCA: 11] [Impact Index Per Article: 3.7] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 01/01/2021] [Accepted: 01/30/2021] [Indexed: 12/31/2022] Open
Abstract
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.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Colton H Walker
- Department of Urology, University of Michigan Health System, University of Michigan, 1500 E Medical Center Drive, 7308 CCC, Ann Arbor, MI, 48109, USA
| | - Kathryn A Marchetti
- Department of Urology, University of Michigan Health System, University of Michigan, 1500 E Medical Center Drive, 7308 CCC, Ann Arbor, MI, 48109, USA
| | - Udit Singhal
- Department of Urology, University of Michigan Health System, University of Michigan, 1500 E Medical Center Drive, 7308 CCC, Ann Arbor, MI, 48109, USA.,Rogel Cancer Center, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI, 48109, USA
| | - Todd M Morgan
- Department of Urology, University of Michigan Health System, University of Michigan, 1500 E Medical Center Drive, 7308 CCC, Ann Arbor, MI, 48109, USA. .,Rogel Cancer Center, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI, 48109, USA.
| |
Collapse
|
13
|
Van Hemelrijck M, Ji X, Helleman J, Roobol MJ, Nieboer D, Bangma C, Frydenberg M, Rannikko A, Lee LS, Gnanapragasam V, Kattan MW, Trock B, Ehdaie B, Carroll P, Filson C, Kim J, Logothetis C, Morgan T, Klotz L, Pickles T, Hyndman E, Moore C, Gnanapragasam V, Van Hemelrijck M, Dasgupta P, Bangma C, Roobol M, Villers A, Rannikko A, Valdagni R, Perry A, Hugosson J, Rubio-Briones J, Bjartell A, Hefermehl L, Shiong LL, Frydenberg M, Kakehi Y, Chung MSBH, van der Kwast T, Obbink H, van der Linden W, Hulsen T, de Jonge C, Kattan M, Xinge J, Muir K, Lophatananon A, Fahey M, Steyerberg E, Nieboer D, Zhang L, Guo W, Benfante N, Cowan J, Patil D, Tolosa E, Kim TK, Mamedov A, LaPointe V, Crump T, Stavrinides V, Kimberly-Duffell J, Santaolalla A, Nieboer D, Olivier J, Rancati T, Ahlgren H, Mascarós J, Löfgren A, Lehmann K, Lin CH, Hirama H, Lee KS, Jenster G, Auvinen A, Bjartell A, Haider M, van Bochove K, Carter B, Gledhill S, Buzza M, Kouspou M, Bangma C, Roobol M, Bruinsma S, Helleman J. A first step towards a global nomogram to predict disease progression for men on active surveillance. Transl Androl Urol 2021; 10:1102-1109. [PMID: 33850745 PMCID: PMC8039580 DOI: 10.21037/tau-20-1082] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 02/05/2023] Open
Abstract
BACKGROUND Signs of disease progression (28%) and conversion to active treatment without evidence of disease progression (13%) are the main reasons for discontinuation of active surveillance (AS) in men with localised prostate cancer (PCa). We aimed to develop a nomogram to predict disease progression in these patients. METHODS As a first step in the development of a nomogram, using data from Movembers' GAP3 Consortium (n=14,380), we assessed heterogeneity between centres in terms of risk of disease progression. We started with assessment of baseline hazards for disease progression based on grouping of centres according to follow-up protocols [high: yearly; intermediate: ~2 yearly; and low: at year 1, 4 & 7 (i.e., PRIAS)]. We conducted cause-specific random effect Cox proportional hazards regression to estimate risk of disease progression by centre in each group. RESULTS Disease progression rates varied substantially between centres [median hazard ratio (MHR): 2.5]. After adjustment for various clinical factors (age, year of diagnosis, Gleason grade group, number of positive cores and PSA), substantial heterogeneity in disease progression remained between centres. CONCLUSIONS When combining worldwide data on AS, we noted unexplained differences of disease progression rate even after adjustment for various clinical factors. This suggests that when developing a global nomogram, local adjustments for differences in risk of disease progression and competing outcomes such as conversion to active treatment need to be considered.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Mieke Van Hemelrijck
- Translational Oncology & Urology Research (TOUR), School of Cancer and Pharmaceutical Sciences, King’s College London, London, UK
| | - Xinge Ji
- Department of Quantitative Health Sciences, Cleveland Clinic, Cleveland, OH, USA
| | - Jozien Helleman
- Department of Urology, Erasmus University Medical Center, Rotterdam, The Netherlands
| | - Monique J. Roobol
- Department of Urology, Erasmus University Medical Center, Rotterdam, The Netherlands
| | - Daan Nieboer
- Department of Urology, Erasmus University Medical Center, Rotterdam, The Netherlands
| | - Chris Bangma
- Department of Urology, Erasmus University Medical Center, Rotterdam, The Netherlands
| | | | - Antti Rannikko
- Department of Urology, Helsinki University and Helsinki University Hospital, Helsinki, Finland
| | - Lui Shiong Lee
- Department of Urology, Sengkang General Hospital and Singapore General Hospital, Singapore, Singapore
| | - Vincent Gnanapragasam
- Academic Urology Group, Department of Surgery and Oncology, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, UK
| | - Michael W. Kattan
- Department of Quantitative Health Sciences, Cleveland Clinic, Cleveland, OH, USA
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Collapse
|
14
|
Clinicopathological and prognostic significance of osteopontin expression in patients with prostate cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Biosci Rep 2021; 41:227953. [PMID: 33635319 PMCID: PMC8350436 DOI: 10.1042/bsr20203531] [Citation(s) in RCA: 7] [Impact Index Per Article: 2.3] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 10/16/2020] [Revised: 02/02/2021] [Accepted: 02/08/2021] [Indexed: 02/06/2023] Open
Abstract
Background: Evaluation of the feasibility for osteopontin (OPN) to serve as a biomarker in the prognosis and clinical-pathological features of prostate cancer (PCA) patients. Methods: The original publications related to OPN and PCA were comprehensively searched in the online databases, including PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library, Web of Science, Medline, Wanfang and China National Knowledge Infrastructure up to August 2019. Results were analyzed by Revman 5.3 and Stata 12.0. Results: A total of 21 studies were included in the analysis and the result showed that the positive OPN expression group had a lower overall survival than the negative expression group (univariate: hazards ratio (HR) = 2.32, 95% confidence interval (95% CI) [1.74, 3.10], multivariate: HR = 2.41, 95% CI [1.63, 3.57]) and a lower biochemical relapse-free survival than the negative group (univariate: HR = 1.42, 95% CI [0.92, 2.17], multivariate: HR = 1.61, 95% CI [1.39, 1.87]). In addition, there was a higher expression level of OPN in PCA tissues than in normal prostate tissues (OR = 46.55, 95% CI [12.85, 168.59], P<0.00001) and benign prostatic hyperplasia (BPH) tissues (OR = 11.07, 95% CI [3.43, 35.75], P<0.0001). Moreover, OPN positive expression was also related to high Gleason score (OR = 2.64, 95% CI [1.49, 4.70], P=0.0009), high TNM stage (OR = 3.15, 95% CI [1.60, 6.20, P=0.0009), high Whitmore–Jewett stage (OR = 2.53, 95% CI [1.06, 6.03], P=0.04), high lymph node (OR = 3.69, 95% CI [1.88, 7.23], P=0.0001), and distant metastasis (OR = 8.10, 95% CI [2.94, 22.35], P=0.01). There was no difference observed in the differentiation of PCA (OR = 1.79, 95% CI [0.39, 8.33], P=0.46). Conclusion: OPN could be recognized as a promising diagnostic and prognostic biomarker for PCA patients.
Collapse
|
15
|
Salguero J, Gómez-Gómez E, Valero-Rosa J, Carrasco-Valiente J, Mesa J, Martin C, Campos-Hernández JP, Rubio JM, López D, Requena MJ. Role of Multiparametric Prostate Magnetic Resonance Imaging before Confirmatory Biopsy in Assessing the Risk of Prostate Cancer Progression during Active Surveillance. Korean J Radiol 2020; 22:559-567. [PMID: 33289358 PMCID: PMC8005352 DOI: 10.3348/kjr.2020.0852] [Citation(s) in RCA: 2] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.5] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 07/02/2020] [Revised: 08/24/2020] [Accepted: 09/21/2020] [Indexed: 01/18/2023] Open
Abstract
Objective To evaluate the impact of multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging (mpMRI) before confirmatory prostate biopsy in patients under active surveillance (AS). Materials and Methods This retrospective study included 170 patients with Gleason grade 6 prostate cancer initially enrolled in an AS program between 2011 and 2019. Prostate mpMRI was performed using a 1.5 tesla (T) magnetic resonance imaging system with a 16-channel phased-array body coil. The protocol included T1-weighted, T2-weighted, diffusion-weighted, and dynamic contrast-enhanced imaging sequences. Uroradiology reports generated by a specialist were based on prostate imaging-reporting and data system (PI-RADS) version 2. Univariate and multivariate analyses were performed based on regression models. Results The reclassification rate at confirmatory biopsy was higher in patients with suspicious lesions on mpMRI (PI-RADS score ≥ 3) (n = 47) than in patients with non-suspicious mpMRIs (n = 61) and who did not undergo mpMRIs (n = 62) (66%, 26.2%, and 24.2%, respectively; p < 0.001). On multivariate analysis, presence of a suspicious mpMRI finding (PI-RADS score ≥ 3) was associated (adjusted odds ratio: 4.72) with the risk of reclassification at confirmatory biopsy after adjusting for the main variables (age, prostate-specific antigen density, number of positive cores, number of previous biopsies, and clinical stage). Presence of a suspicious mpMRI finding (adjusted hazard ratio: 2.62) was also associated with the risk of progression to active treatment during the follow-up. Conclusion Inclusion of mpMRI before the confirmatory biopsy is useful to stratify the risk of reclassification during the biopsy as well as to evaluate the risk of progression to active treatment during follow-up.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Joseba Salguero
- Department of Urology, Reina Sofía University Hospital, IMIBIC, Cordoba University, Córdoba, Spain.
| | - Enrique Gómez-Gómez
- Department of Urology, Reina Sofía University Hospital, IMIBIC, Cordoba University, Córdoba, Spain
| | - José Valero-Rosa
- Department of Urology, Reina Sofía University Hospital, IMIBIC, Cordoba University, Córdoba, Spain
| | - Julia Carrasco-Valiente
- Department of Urology, Reina Sofía University Hospital, IMIBIC, Cordoba University, Córdoba, Spain
| | - Juan Mesa
- Department of Radiology, Reina Sofía University Hospital, IMIBIC, Cordoba University, Córdoba, Spain
| | - Cristina Martin
- Department of Radiology, Reina Sofía University Hospital, IMIBIC, Cordoba University, Córdoba, Spain
| | | | - Juan Manuel Rubio
- Department of Urology, Reina Sofía University Hospital, IMIBIC, Cordoba University, Córdoba, Spain
| | - Daniel López
- Department of Radiology, Reina Sofía University Hospital, IMIBIC, Cordoba University, Córdoba, Spain
| | - María José Requena
- Department of Urology, Reina Sofía University Hospital, IMIBIC, Cordoba University, Córdoba, Spain
| |
Collapse
|
16
|
Singh S, Sandhu P, Beckmann K, Santaolalla A, Dewan K, Clovis S, Rusere J, Zisengwe G, Challacombe B, Brown C, Cathcart P, Popert R, Dasgupta P, Van Hemelrijck M, Elhage O. Negative first follow-up prostate biopsy on active surveillance is associated with decreased risk of upgrading, suspicion of progression and converting to active treatment. BJU Int 2020; 128:72-78. [PMID: 33098158 DOI: 10.1111/bju.15281] [Citation(s) in RCA: 1] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.3] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 11/29/2022]
Abstract
OBJECTIVE To determine the risk of disease progression and conversion to active treatment following a negative biopsy while on active surveillance (AS) for prostate cancer (PCa). PATIENTS AND METHODS Men on an AS programme at a single tertiary hospital (London, UK) between 2003 and 2018 with confirmed low-intermediate-risk PCa, Gleason Grade Group <3, clinical stage <T3 and a diagnostic prostate-specific antigen (PSA) level of <20 ng/mL. This cohort included men diagnosed by transrectal ultrasonography guided (12-14 cores) or transperineal (median 32 cores) biopsy. Multivariate Cox hazards regression analysis was undertaken to determine (i) risk of upgrading, (ii) clinical or radiological suspicion of disease progression, and (iii) transitioning to active treatment. Suspicion of disease progression was defined as any biopsy upgrading, >30% positive cores, magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) Likert score >3/T3 or PSA level of >20 ng/mL. Conversion to treatment included radical or hormonal treatment. RESULTS Among the 460 eligible patients, 23% had negative follow-up biopsy findings. The median follow-up was 62 months, with one to two repeat biopsies and two MRIs per patient during that period. Negative biopsy findings at first repeat biopsy were associated with decreased risk of converting to active treatment (hazard ration [HR] 0.18, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.09-0.37; P < 0.001), suspicion of disease progression (HR 0.56, 95% CI: 0.34-0.94; P = 0.029), and upgrading (HR 0.48, 95% CI 0.23-0.99; P = 0.047). Data are limited by fewer men with multiple follow-up biopsies. CONCLUSION A negative biopsy finding at the first scheduled follow-up biopsy among men on AS for PCa was strongly associated with decreased risk of subsequent upgrading, clinical or radiological suspicion of disease progression, and conversion to active treatment. A less intense surveillance protocol should be considered for this cohort of patients.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Sohail Singh
- School of Medical Education, Faculty of Life Sciences and Medicine, King's College London, London, UK.,The Urology Centre, Guy's and St Thomas' NHS Foundation Trust, London, UK
| | - Preeti Sandhu
- School of Medical Education, Faculty of Life Sciences and Medicine, King's College London, London, UK.,The Urology Centre, Guy's and St Thomas' NHS Foundation Trust, London, UK
| | - Kerri Beckmann
- Translational Oncology and Urology Research, Faculty of Life Sciences and Medicine, King's College London, London, UK.,University of South Australia Cancer Research Institute, University of South Australia, Adelaide, SA, Australia
| | - Aida Santaolalla
- Translational Oncology and Urology Research, Faculty of Life Sciences and Medicine, King's College London, London, UK
| | - Kamal Dewan
- School of Medical Education, Faculty of Life Sciences and Medicine, King's College London, London, UK
| | - Sharon Clovis
- The Urology Centre, Guy's and St Thomas' NHS Foundation Trust, London, UK
| | - Jonah Rusere
- The Urology Centre, Guy's and St Thomas' NHS Foundation Trust, London, UK
| | - Grace Zisengwe
- The Urology Centre, Guy's and St Thomas' NHS Foundation Trust, London, UK
| | | | - Christian Brown
- The Urology Centre, Guy's and St Thomas' NHS Foundation Trust, London, UK
| | - Paul Cathcart
- The Urology Centre, Guy's and St Thomas' NHS Foundation Trust, London, UK
| | - Rick Popert
- The Urology Centre, Guy's and St Thomas' NHS Foundation Trust, London, UK
| | - Prokar Dasgupta
- The Urology Centre, Guy's and St Thomas' NHS Foundation Trust, London, UK.,School of Immunology and Microbial Sciences, Kings College London, London, UK
| | - Mieke Van Hemelrijck
- Translational Oncology and Urology Research, Faculty of Life Sciences and Medicine, King's College London, London, UK
| | - Oussama Elhage
- The Urology Centre, Guy's and St Thomas' NHS Foundation Trust, London, UK.,School of Immunology and Microbial Sciences, Kings College London, London, UK
| |
Collapse
|
17
|
The Movember Prostate Cancer Landscape Analysis: an assessment of unmet research needs. Nat Rev Urol 2020; 17:499-512. [PMID: 32699318 PMCID: PMC7462750 DOI: 10.1038/s41585-020-0349-1] [Citation(s) in RCA: 12] [Impact Index Per Article: 3.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Accepted: 06/08/2020] [Indexed: 12/24/2022]
Abstract
Prostate cancer is a heterogeneous cancer with widely varying levels of morbidity and mortality. Approaches to prostate cancer screening, diagnosis, surveillance, treatment and management differ around the world. To identify the highest priority research needs across the prostate cancer biomedical research domain, Movember conducted a landscape analysis with the aim of maximizing the effect of future research investment through global collaborative efforts and partnerships. A global Landscape Analysis Committee (LAC) was established to act as an independent group of experts across urology, medical oncology, radiation oncology, radiology, pathology, translational research, health economics and patient advocacy. Men with prostate cancer and thought leaders from a variety of disciplines provided a range of key insights through a range of interviews. Insights were prioritized against predetermined criteria to understand the areas of greatest unmet need. From these efforts, 17 research needs in prostate cancer were agreed on and prioritized, and 3 received the maximum prioritization score by the LAC: first, to establish more sensitive and specific tests to improve disease screening and diagnosis; second, to develop indicators to better stratify low-risk prostate cancer for determining which men should go on active surveillance; and third, to integrate companion diagnostics into randomized clinical trials to enable prediction of treatment response. On the basis of the findings from the landscape analysis, Movember will now have an increased focus on addressing the specific research needs that have been identified, with particular investment in research efforts that reduce disease progression and lead to improved therapies for advanced prostate cancer. The Movember global Landscape Analysis Committee (LAC) was established to act as an independent group of experts across urology, medical oncology, radiation oncology, radiology, pathology, translational research, health economics and patient advocacy to identify the highest priority research needs across the prostate cancer biomedical research domain. Findings from the landscape analysis illustrate the research priorities in prostate cancer and will enable Movember to focus on specific needs, with particular investment in research to reduce disease progression and improve therapies for advanced prostate cancer.
Collapse
|
18
|
Pepe P, Dibenedetto G, Pepe L, Pennisi M. Multiparametric MRI Versus SelectMDx Accuracy in the Diagnosis of Clinically Significant PCa in Men Enrolled in Active Surveillance. In Vivo 2020; 34:393-396. [PMID: 31882504 DOI: 10.21873/invivo.11786] [Citation(s) in RCA: 22] [Impact Index Per Article: 5.5] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 09/15/2019] [Revised: 11/02/2019] [Accepted: 11/04/2019] [Indexed: 01/09/2023]
Abstract
BACKGROUND/AIM To evaluate the diagnostic accuracy of the urinary SelectMDx test in the diagnosis of clinically significant prostate cancer (csPCa) in men enrolled in an active surveillance (AS) protocol. PATIENTS AND METHODS From July 2015 to July 2018, 125 men with very low-risk PCa were enrolled in the AS protocol; all patients underwent confirmatory transperineal saturation biopsy (SPBx). In the presence of PI-RADS score ≥3, a targeted MRI/TRUS fusion-guided biopsy was added to SPBx. Post-digital rectal examination urine was collected in 45/125 (36%) patients before SPBx; the genetic urine analysis was performed using a biomarker-based risk score model, the SelectMDx, that measured mRNA levels of distal-less homeobox 1 (DLX1) and homeobox C6 (HOXC6). RESULTS A total of 9/45 (20%) patients were reclassified as csPCa (7 cases=Grade Group 2; 2 cases=Grade Group 3); sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value, negative predictive value and diagnostic accuracy of mpMRI vs. SelectMDx in the diagnosis of csPCa were equal to 66.6 vs. 55.6%, 87.7 vs. 65.8%, 54.5 vs. 27.8%, 92.3 vs. 87%, 84.9 vs. 70.3%, respectively. CONCLUSION SPBx combined with MRI/TRUS fusion biopsy significantly outperformed the diagnostic accuracy of SelectMDx (70.3%) in the diagnosis of csPCa in men enrolled in AS.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Pietro Pepe
- Urology Unit, Cannizzaro Hospital, Catania, Italy
| | | | | | | |
Collapse
|