A statistical evaluation of rules for biochemical failure after radiotherapy in men treated for prostate cancer

Methods for the evaluation of biomarkers in patients with kidney and liver diseases: multicentre research programme including ELUCIDATE RCT

Background

Protein biomarkers with associations with the activity and outcomes of diseases are being identified by modern proteomic technologies. They may be simple, accessible, cheap and safe tests that can inform diagnosis, prognosis, treatment selection, monitoring of disease activity and therapy and may substitute for complex, invasive and expensive tests. However, their potential is not yet being realised.

Design and methods

The study consisted of three workstreams to create a framework for research: workstream 1, methodology – to define current practice and explore methodology innovations for biomarkers for monitoring disease; workstream 2, clinical translation – to create a framework of research practice, high-quality samples and related clinical data to evaluate the validity and clinical utility of protein biomarkers; and workstream 3, the ELF to Uncover Cirrhosis as an Indication for Diagnosis and Action for Treatable Event (ELUCIDATE) randomised controlled trial (RCT) – an exemplar RCT of an established test, the ADVIA Centaur® Enhanced Liver Fibrosis (ELF) test (Siemens Healthcare Diagnostics Ltd, Camberley, UK) [consisting of a panel of three markers – (1) serum hyaluronic acid, (2) amino-terminal propeptide of type III procollagen and (3) tissue inhibitor of metalloproteinase 1], for liver cirrhosis to determine its impact on diagnostic timing and the management of cirrhosis and the process of care and improving outcomes.

Results

The methodology workstream evaluated the quality of recommendations for using prostate-specific antigen to monitor patients, systematically reviewed RCTs of monitoring strategies and reviewed the monitoring biomarker literature and how monitoring can have an impact on outcomes. Simulation studies were conducted to evaluate monitoring and improve the merits of health care. The monitoring biomarker literature is modest and robust conclusions are infrequent. We recommend improvements in research practice. Patients strongly endorsed the need for robust and conclusive research in this area. The clinical translation workstream focused on analytical and clinical validity. Cohorts were established for renal cell carcinoma (RCC) and renal transplantation (RT), with samples and patient data from multiple centres, as a rapid-access resource to evaluate the validity of biomarkers. Candidate biomarkers for RCC and RT were identified from the literature and their quality was evaluated and selected biomarkers were prioritised. The duration of follow-up was a limitation but biomarkers were identified that may be taken forward for clinical utility. In the third workstream, the ELUCIDATE trial registered 1303 patients and randomised 878 patients out of a target of 1000. The trial started late and recruited slowly initially but ultimately recruited with good statistical power to answer the key questions. ELF monitoring altered the patient process of care and may show benefits from the early introduction of interventions with further follow-up. The ELUCIDATE trial was an ‘exemplar’ trial that has demonstrated the challenges of evaluating biomarker strategies in ‘end-to-end’ RCTs and will inform future study designs.

Conclusions

The limitations in the programme were principally that, during the collection and curation of the cohorts of patients with RCC and RT, the pace of discovery of new biomarkers in commercial and non-commercial research was slower than anticipated and so conclusive evaluations using the cohorts are few; however, access to the cohorts will be sustained for future new biomarkers. The ELUCIDATE trial was slow to start and recruit to, with a late surge of recruitment, and so final conclusions about the impact of the ELF test on long-term outcomes await further follow-up. The findings from the three workstreams were used to synthesise a strategy and framework for future biomarker evaluations incorporating innovations in study design, health economics and health informatics.

Trial registration

Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN74815110, UKCRN ID 9954 and UKCRN ID 11930.

Funding

This project was funded by the NIHR Programme Grants for Applied Research programme and will be published in full inProgramme Grants for Applied Research; Vol. 6, No. 3. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information.

A multicentre integration of a computer-led follow-up of prostate cancer is valid and safe

OBJECTIVE

To test a computer-led follow-up service for prostate cancer in two UK hospitals; the testing aimed to validate the computer expert system in making clinical decisions according to the individual patient's clinical need with a valid model accurately identify patients with disease recurrence or treatment failure based on their blood test and clinical picture.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

A clinical-decision support system (CDSS) was developed from European (European Association of Urology) and national (National Institute for Health and Care Excellence) guidelines along with knowledge acquired from Urologists. This model was then applied in two UK hospitals to review patients after prostate cancer treatment. These patients' data (n = 200) were then reviewed by two independent urology consultants (blinded from the CDSS and the other consultant's rating) and the agreement was calculated by kappa statistics for validation. The second endpoint was to verify the system by estimating the system reliability.

RESULTS

The two individual urology consultants identified 12% and 15% of the patients to have potential disease progression and recommended their referral to urology care. The kappa coefficient for the agreement between the CDSS and the two consultants was 0.81 (P < 0.001) and 0.84 (P < 0.001). The agreement amongst both specialist was also high with k = 0.83 (P < 0.001). The system reliability was estimated on all cases and this demonstrated 100% repeatability of the decisions.

CONCLUSION

A CDSS follow-up is a valid model for providing safe follow-up for prostate cancer.

Evaluation of treatment efficacy using a Bayesian mixture piecewise linear model of longitudinal biomarkers

Prostate-specific antigen (PSA) is a widely used marker in clinical trials for patients with prostate cancer. We develop a mixture model to estimate longitudinal PSA trajectory in response to treatment. The model accommodates subjects responding and not responding to therapy through a mixture of two functions. A responder is described by a piecewise linear function, represented by an intercept, a PSA decline rate, a period of PSA decline, and a PSA rising rate; a nonresponder is described by an increasing linear function with an intercept and a PSA rising rate. Each trajectory is classified as a linear or a piecewise linear function with a certain probability, and the weighted average of these two functions sufficiently characterizes a variety of patterns of PSA trajectories. Furthermore, this mixture structure enables us to derive clinically useful endpoints such as a response rate and time-to-progression, as well as biologically meaningful endpoints such as a cancer cell killing fraction and tumor growth delay. We compare our model with the most commonly used dynamic model in the literature and show its advantages. Finally, we illustrate our approach using data from two multicenter prostate cancer trials. The R code used to produce the analyses reported in this paper is available on request.

Comparison of biochemical failure rates between permanent prostate brachytherapy and radical retropubic prostatectomy as a function of posttherapy PSA nadir plus 'X'

Background

Prostate-specific antigen (PSA) nadir + 2 ng/mL, also known as the Phoenix definition, is the definition most commonly used to establish biochemical failure (BF) after external beam radiotherapy for prostate cancer management. The purpose of this study is to compare BF rates between permanent prostate brachytherapy (PPB) and radical retropubic prostatectomy (RRP) as a function of PSA nadir plus varying values of X and examine the associated implications.

Methods and materials

We retrospectively searched for patients who underwent PPB or RRP at our institution between 1998 and 2004. Only primary patients not receiving androgen-deprivation therapy were included in the study. Three RRP patients were matched to each PPB patient on the basis of prognostic factors. BF rates were estimated for PSA nadirs + different values of X.

Results

A total of 1,164 patients were used for analysis: 873 in the RRP group and 291 in the PPB group. Patients were equally matched by clinical stage, biopsy Gleason sum, primary Gleason grade, and pretherapy PSA value. Median follow-up was 3.1 years for RRP patients and 3.6 years in the PPB group (P = .01). Using PSA nadir + 0.1 ng/mL for the definition of BF, the 5-year BF rate was 16.3% for PPB patients and 13.5% for RRP patients (P = .007), whereas at nadir + 2 ng/mL or greater, the BF rates were less than 3% and were indistinguishable between PPB and RRP patients.

Conclusions

In a cohort of well-matched patients who had prostatectomy or brachytherapy, we examined BF as a function of nadir + X, where X was treated as a continuous variable. As X increases from 0.1 to 2.0 ng/mL, the BF curves converge, and above 2.0 ng/mL they are essentially indistinguishable. The data presented are of interest as BF definitions continue to evolve.

The basis for monitoring strategies in clinical guidelines: a case study of prostate-specific antigen for monitoring in prostate cancer

BACKGROUND

The volume of published literature on the evaluation and use of tests for monitoring purposes is sparse. Our aim was to determine the extent to which recommendations for monitoring prostate-specific antigen to detect recurrent prostate cancer consider key factors that should inform rule-based strategies for monitoring.

METHODS

We reviewed the recommendations made in clinical guidelines for the repeated measurement of prostate-specific antigen in men who have received primary treatment for localized prostate cancer. We assessed the guidelines using the Appraisal of Guidelines for Research and Evaluation Framework.

RESULTS

We identified guidelines and statements of best practice from nine organizations. We saw considerable inconsistency in recommendations for testing for prostate-specific antigen as a form of monitoring. Recommendations on when to test appeared to be almost exclusively determined using standard follow-up schedules rather than any scientific basis. Recommendations on when to take action were primarily based on consensus statements or retrospective case series. Eight of the nine guidelines acknowledged the potential presence of measurement variability, but they did not attempt to account for the effect of such variability on the interpretation of the results of tests for prostate-specific antigen. Many recommendations were made with few or no supporting references; however, a variety of papers were cited across guidelines. Of 48 papers cited, 29.1% (14/48) were reviews; the remaining 70.8% (34/48) of papers cited were primary studies.

INTERPRETATION

A systematic approach to the development of monitoring schedules using prostate-specific antigen in guidelines for prostate cancer is lacking, due to inadequacies in the available evidence and its use.

PSA Doubling Time Predicts for the Development of Distant Metastases for Patients Who Fail 3DCRT Or IMRT Using the Phoenix Definition

PURPOSE: PSA doubling time (PSADT) is commonly used as an indication for salvage androgen deprivation therapy (ADT) for PSA failure following RT. Previously, we had shown that PSADT of <12 months is an important predictor of distant metastasis following 3DCRT using the ASTRO definition of BF. We sought to determine if this approach is still valid using the Phoenix definition. METHODS: Eligible patients included 432 men with T1-3N0M0 prostate cancer who demonstrated PSA failure after completing definitive 3DCRT or IMRT from 1989-2005. Endpoints included freedom from distant metastasis (FDM), cause-specific survival (CSS) and overall survival (OS). PSADT was stratified by 0-6, 6-12, 12-18, 18-24, and >24 months. The median follow-up was 95 months (6-207 months). RESULTS: The 7 year FDM, CSS, and OS rates for the entire group were 73%, 77% and 52%, respectively. 7 year FDM was 50% for PSADT <6 months vs. 83% for PSADT >6 months (p=0.0001). 7 year CSS was 61% for PSADT <6 and 85% for PSADT >6 (p=0.0001). 7 year OS was 47% for PSADT <6 and 53% for PSADT >6 (p=0.04). The proportion of men with BF receiving salvage ADT with a PSADT <6 months was 59%, 6-12 was 45%, 12-18 was 42%, 18-24 was 36%, >24 was 28%. ADT was associated with improved 7 year CSS (68% vs. 46%, p=0.015). Of the 314 men with PSADT >6 months, 124 received ADT and 190 were observed. With a median follow-up of 38 months from BF, there was no demonstrable benefit to ADT in the 7 year CSS (87% vs. 79%, respectively; p=0.758). Independent predictors of FDM were PSADT (p<0.0001), GS (p=0.011), and the use of initial ADT (p=0.005). CONCLUSION: PSADT remains a significant predictor of clinical failure and CSS for men treated with 3DCRT or IMRT who fail according to the Phoenix definition. Immediate use of ADT in patients with PSADT <6 months is significantly associated with improved CSS, although the benefit is less apparent in patients with longer PSADT. These results further refine the role of PSADT in predicting which patients may benefit from salvage ADT and those who may be observed expectantly.