Prostate Specific Antigen Density is not an Independent Predictor of Response for Prostate Cancer Treated by Conformal Radiotherapy

Pretreatment prostate-specific antigen density as a predictor of biochemical recurrence in patients with prostate cancer: a meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

A consensus has not been reached on the value of prostate-specific antigen density (PSAD) as a predictor of biochemical recurrence of prostate cancer. This meta-analysis aimed to evaluate the association between PSAD and biochemical recurrence of prostate cancer after primary treatment.

METHODS

Two authors systematically searched PubMed, Web of Science, and Embase databases (up to August September 10, 2023) to identify studies that assessed the value of pretreatment PSAD in predicting biochemical recurrence after primary treatment (radical prostatectomy or radiotherapy) of prostate cancer. A random effect model was used to pool adjusted hazard ratios (HR) with 95% confidence intervals (CI) for biochemical recurrence.

RESULTS

Nine studies with 4963 patients were eligible for the meta-analysis. The reported prevalence of biochemical recurrence ranged from 4 to 55.1%. For patients with higher PSAD compared to those with low PSAD, the pooled HR of biochemical recurrence was 1.59 (95% CI 1.21-2.10). Subgroup analysis showed that the pooled HR of biochemical recurrence was 1.80 (95% CI 1.34-2.42) for patients who received radical prostatectomy, and 0.98 (95% CI 0.66-1.45) for patients who received radiotherapy.

CONCLUSIONS

Elevated pretreatment PSAD may be an independent predictor for biochemical recurrence of prostate cancer after radical prostatectomy. Determining PSAD could potentially improve the prediction of biochemical recurrence in patients with prostate cancer.

RNA-seq profiling of a radiation resistant and radiation sensitive prostate cancer cell line highlights opposing regulation of DNA repair and targets for radiosensitization

BACKGROUND

Radiotherapy is a chosen treatment option for prostate cancer patients and while some tumours respond well, up to 50% of patients may experience tumour recurrence. Identification of functionally relevant predictive biomarkers for radioresponse in prostate cancer would enable radioresistant patients to be directed to more appropriate treatment options, avoiding the side-effects of radiotherapy.

METHODS

Using an in vitro model to screen for novel biomarkers of radioresistance, transcriptome analysis of a radioresistant (PC-3) and radiosensitive (LNCaP) prostate cancer cell line was performed. Following pathway analysis candidate genes were validated using qRT-PCR. The DNA repair pathway in radioresistant PC-3 cells was then targeted for radiation sensitization using the PARP inhibitor, niacinimide.

RESULTS

Opposing regulation of a DNA repair and replication pathway was observed between PC-3 and LNCaP cells from RNA-seq analysis. Candidate genes BRCA1, RAD51, FANCG, MCM7, CDC6 and ORC1 were identified as being significantly differentially regulated post-irradiation. qRT-PCR validation confirmed BRCA1, RAD51 and FANCG as being significantly differentially regulated at 24 hours post radiotherapy (p-value =0.003, 0.045 and 0.003 respectively). While the radiosensitive LNCaP cells down-regulated BRCA1, FANCG and RAD51, the radioresistant PC-3 cell line up-regulated these candidates to promote cell survival post-radiotherapy and a similar trend was observed for MCM7, CDC6 and ORC1. Inhibition of DNA repair using niacinamide sensitised the radioresistant cells to irradiation, reducing cell survival at 2 Gy from 66% to 44.3% (p-value =0.02).

CONCLUSIONS

These findings suggest that the DNA repair candidates identified via RNA-seq hold potential as both targets for radiation sensitization and predictive biomarkers in prostate cancer.

Prostate-specific antigen density predicts extracapsular extension and increased risk of biochemical recurrence in patients with high-risk prostate cancer who underwent radical prostatectomy

BACKGROUND

Patients with advanced local-stage, high-grade prostate cancer (Pca) and high pretreatment prostate-specific antigen (PSA) levels have inferior outcomes compared to their counterparts with more favorable clinical characteristics. However, some patients exhibit favorable pathological features or experience long-term PSA-free survival after radical prostatectomy (RP). We retrospectively examined the ability of preoperative characteristics to predict pathological and oncological outcomes in high-risk Pca patients who underwent RP.

METHODS

We examined data of 1,268 consecutive Pca patients treated with RP alone at 4 hospitals from the Michinoku Urological Cancer Study Group database. Preoperative predictors included age, PSA level, biopsy Gleason score, clinical T stage, and PSA density (PSAD). The outcome measures pathological T stage and PSA-free survival were evaluated by multivariate analysis.

RESULTS

We identified 380 high-risk Pca patients, of which 44 % patients had extracapsular extension. Logistic regression analysis indicated that PSAD was an independent predictor of adverse pathologic stage. The 5-year PSA-free survival rates were 82.9 % for patients with PSAD ≤0.468 ng mL(-1) cm(-2) and 50.7 % for those with PSAD >0.468 ng mL(-1) cm(-2) (P < 0.0001). Multivariate analyses revealed that PSAD, cT, and the number of preoperative high-risk Pca criteria were independent predictors of PSA-free survival.

CONCLUSIONS

PSAD may be an independent predictor of advanced pathological features and biochemical recurrence in high-risk Pca patients treated with RP alone. PSAD may be used for further risk stratification of high-risk Pca patients.

Prostate-specific antigen density predicts adverse pathology and increased risk of biochemical failure

OBJECTIVES

To determine whether the prostate-specific antigen (PSA) density (PSAD), measured using either ultrasound (US) or prostatic weight (PW), is an independent predictor of adverse pathologic findings or biochemical-free survival and whether it outperformed PSA.

METHODS

The data were obtained prospectively from 1327 patients undergoing radical prostatectomy from 1990 to 2003. The US PSAD was calculated by dividing the preoperative PSA level in nanograms per milliliter by the US measured prostate volume in cubic centimeters. The PW PSAD was calculated by dividing the PSA value in nanograms per milliliter by the measured PW of the prostatectomy specimen in grams. Logistic regression analysis was performed to determine whether the US or PW PSAD was more accurate than the PSA level in predicting for adverse pathologic findings. A proportional hazards model was used to determine whether PSAD more accurately predicted for biochemical failure (PSA level greater 0.2 ng/mL).

RESULTS

Multivariate analysis demonstrated that US and PW PSAD were independent predictors of positive margins (odds ratio [OR] 5.00, 95% confidence interval [CI] 2.65 to 9.47 and OR 29.75, 95% CI 10.18 to 86.96, respectively), extracapsular disease (OR 10.89, 95% CI 5.32 to 22.32 and OR 126.62, 95% CI 37.99 to 422.07, respectively), seminal vesical invasion (OR 6.06, 95% CI 2.96 to 12.41 and OR 33.72, 95% CI 9.79 to 116.15, respectively), and biochemical failure (hazard ratio 3.32, 95% CI 2.38 to 4.63 and hazard ratio 8.70, 95% CI 5.21 to 14.52, respectively). The C-index demonstrated that both US and PW PSAD appeared more discriminant for adverse pathologic findings and biochemical failure than did the PSA level.

CONCLUSIONS

The US and PW PSAD are strong predictors of advanced pathologic features and biochemical failure after radical prostatectomy. The incorporation of PSAD into the risk assessment could provide additional prognostic information beyond grade, stage, and PSA level; therefore, the inclusion of PSAD into nomograms should be considered.

Evidence-based review of three-dimensional conformal radiotherapy for localized prostate cancer: An ASTRO outcomes initiative

PURPOSE

To perform a systematic review of the evidence to determine the efficacy and effectiveness of three-dimensional conformal radiotherapy (3D-CRT) for localized prostate cancer; provide a clear presentation of the key clinical outcome questions related to the use of 3D-CRT in the treatment of localized prostate cancer that may be answered by a formal literature review; and provide concise information on whether 3D-CRT improves the clinical outcomes in the treatment of localized prostate cancer compared with conventional RT.

METHODS AND MATERIALS

We performed a systematic review of the literature through a structured process developed by the American Society for Therapeutic Radiology and Oncology's Outcomes Committee that involved the creation of a multidisciplinary task force, development of clinical outcome questions, a formal literature review and data abstraction, data review, and outside peer review.

RESULTS

Seven key clinical questions were identified. The results and task force conclusions of the literature review for each question are reported.

CONCLUSION

The technological goals of reducing morbidity with 3D-CRT have been achieved. Randomized trials and follow-up of completed trials remain necessary to address these clinical outcomes specifically with regard to patient subsets and the use of hormonal therapy.

A comparison of the single and double factor high-risk models for risk assignment of prostate cancer treated with 3D conformal radiotherapy

PURPOSE

Two models for stratification of prostate cancer aggressiveness predominate for the purposes of daily treatment decision making. This study investigates the relationships between these two clinically popular models.

METHODS

Both risk stratification models use the same definition for low risk: Gleason score (GS) <or=6, pretreatment initial prostate specific antigen (iPSA) <or=10 ng/mL, and stage T1c-T2c. For the single factor high risk model (SF), intermediate risk (IR) is defined as the presence of GS 7 or PSA > 10-20 ng/mL, without the presence of any high-risk feature; high risk (HR) was defined as the presence of GS 8-10, iPSA >20, or palpation stage T3. For the double factor high risk (DF) model, IR and HR were defined as one and more than one of the following: GS >or=7, iPSA >10, or stage T3. Between April 1989 and October 2001, 1,597 patients were treated definitively with 3D conformal radiation therapy (3D-CRT) alone for prostate cancer at our institution. The main clinical endpoint was freedom from biochemical failure (FFBF).

RESULTS

The 5-year actuarial FFBF rate for the low-risk group was 83%. The SF model resulted in FFBF rates of 76% and 47% for IR and HR patients respectively. The DF model resulted in FFBF rates of 70% and 52% for IR and HR patients, respectively. The FFBF rate for patients defined as IR and HR by both models was 76% and 40%, respectively. Those classified as IR by the DF model and then further subdivided into IR and HR by the SF model had a 76% and 52% 5-year FFBF rate (p = 0.0004). Those classified as HR by the DF model and then further subdivided into IR and HR by the SF model had a 71% and 40% 5-year FFBF (p = 0.0014).

CONCLUSIONS

The SF model created prognostic groups with a greater internal consistency than the DF model. The SF was also better at identifying patients with high-risk prostate cancer who may benefit from a more aggressive approach.

Direct evidence that prostate tumors show high sensitivity to fractionation (low alpha/beta ratio), similar to late-responding normal tissue

PURPOSE

A direct approach to the question of whether prostate tumors have an atypically high sensitivity to fractionation (low alpha/beta ratio), more typical of the surrounding late-responding normal tissue.

METHODS AND MATERIALS

Earlier estimates of alpha/beta for prostate cancer have relied on comparing results from external beam radiotherapy (EBRT) and brachytherapy, an approach with significant pitfalls due to the many differences between the treatments. To circumvent this, we analyze recent data from a single EBRT + high-dose-rate (HDR) brachytherapy protocol, in which the brachytherapy was given in either 2 or 3 implants, and at various doses. For the analysis, standard models of tumor cure based on Poisson statistics were used in conjunction with the linear-quadratic formalism. Biochemical control at 3 years was the clinical endpoint. Patients were matched between the 3 HDR vs. 2 HDR implants by clinical stage, pretreatment prostate-specific antigen (PSA), Gleason score, length of follow-up, and age.

RESULTS

The estimated value of alpha/beta from the current analysis of 1.2 Gy (95% CI: 0.03, 4.1 Gy) is consistent with previous estimates for prostate tumor control. This alpha/beta value is considerably less than typical values for tumors (> or =8 Gy), and more comparable to values in surrounding late-responding normal tissues.

CONCLUSIONS

This analysis provides strong supporting evidence that alpha/beta values for prostate tumor control are atypically low, as indicated by previous analyses and radiobiological considerations. If true, hypofractionation or HDR regimens for prostate radiotherapy (with appropriate doses) should produce tumor control and late sequelae that are at least as good or even better than currently achieved, with the added possibility that early sequelae may be reduced.

Is prostate specific antigen density an important prognostic indicator for patients with prostate cancer treated with external beam therapy?

The purpose of this study was to determine if prostate specific antigen density (PSAD) is a predictor of outcome following external beam radiotherapy for prostate cancer, and to compare it with other prognostic factors. Between January 1990 and December 1993, 205 patients with T1-T3 adenocarcinoma of the prostate received a radical course of external beam irradiation, with no prior or adjuvant hormonal therapy. All patients had pre- and post-treatment serum prostate specific antigen (PSA) evaluation. They were followed up for at least 24 months. PSAD was defined as the ratio of pre-treatment serum PSA to the prostate volume, as determined from CT treatment planning scans. Prostate volumes were calculated using the prostate ellipse formula. Median PSA density was 0.37, with a range 0.01-6.7. Biochemical failure was defined as three consecutive rises in serum PSA, regardless of the magnitude of elevation. 4-year biochemical disease-free survival (BDFS) for patients with PSAD < or = 0.3 was 60%, compared with 22% for patients with PSAD > 0.3 (p = < 0.001). In a multivariate analysis, pre-treatment PSA (p = < 0.001), Gleason score (p = 0.002), and stage (p = 0.03) were independent predictors of BDFS, while PSAD was not an important prognosticator (p = 0.62). Pre-treatment serum PSA is the most important prognosticator of BDFS, following external beam radiotherapy, for patients with prostate cancer. PSA density did not predict treatment outcome.

Radiotherapy options for localized prostate cancer based upon pretreatment serum prostate-specific antigen levels and biochemical control: a comprehensive review of the literature

PURPOSE

To review all the available radiotherapy (RT) literature on localized prostate cancer treatment where serum prostate-specific antigen (PSA) levels were used to both stratify patients and evaluate outcome and determine if any conclusions can be reached regarding an optimal radiotherapeutic management for this disease.

METHODS AND MATERIALS

A MEDLINE search was conducted to obtain all articles in English on prostate cancer treatment employing RT from 1986-1997. Studies were considered eligible for review only if they met all the following criteria: 1) pretreatment PSA values were recorded and grouped for subsequent evaluation, 2) posttreatment PSA values were continuously monitored, 3) definitions of biochemical control were stated, and 4) the median follow-up was given.

RESULTS

Of the 246 articles identified, only 20 met the inclusion criteria; 4 using conformal external beam RT, 8 using conventional external beam RT, and 8 using interstitial brachytherapy (4 using a permanent implant alone, 3 combining external beam RT with a permanent implant, and 1 combining a conformal temporary interstitial implant boost with external beam RT). No studies using neutrons (with or without external beam RT) or androgen deprivation (combined with external beam RT) were identified where patients were stratified by pretreatment PSA levels. Results for all therapies were extremely variable with the 3-5-year rates of biochemical control for patients with pretreatment PSA levels < or = 4 ng/ml ranging from 48 to 100%, for PSA levels >4 and < or = 10 ng/ml ranging from 44 to 90%, for PSA levels >10 and < or = 20 ng/ml ranging from 27 to 89%, and for PSA levels >20 ranging from 14 to 89%. The median Gleason score, T-stage, definition of biochemical control, and follow-up were substantially different from series to series. No RT option consistently produced superior results.

CONCLUSIONS

When data are reviewed from studies using serum PSA levels to stratify patients and to evaluate treatment outcome, no consistently superior RT technique was identified. These data suggest that standard definitions of disease stage (combining clinical, pathologic, and biochemical criteria) and a common definition of biochemical cure (as developed by the American Society for Therapeutic Radiology and Oncology Consensus Panel) need to be adopted to evaluate treatment efficacy and advise patients on the most appropriate radiotherapeutic option for their disease.

Comparing 3-, 4- and 6-fields techniques for conformal irradiation of prostate and seminal vesicles using dose-volume histograms

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE

Comparing some isocentric coplanar techniques for conformal irradiation of prostate and seminal vesicles.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Five conformal techniques have been considered: (A) a 3-fields technique with an antero-posterior (AP) field and two lateral (LAT-LAT) 30 degrees wedged fields; (B) a 3-fields technique with an AP field and two oblique posterior (OBL) 15 degrees wedged fields with relative weights of 0.8, 1 and 1, respectively; (C) a 4-fields technique (AP-PA and LAT-LAT); (D) a 6-fields technique (LAT-LAT and four OBL at gantry angles 45 degrees, 135 degrees, 235 degrees and 315 degrees) with all the fields having the same weight; (E) the same 6-fields technique with lateral fields double-weighted with respect to the oblique fields. The conformal plans have been simulated on 12 consecutive patients (stages B and C) by using our 3D treatment planning system (Cadplan 2.7). The contours of the rectum, the bladder and the left femoral head were outlined together with the clinical target volume (CTV) which included the prostate and the seminal vesicles. A margin of 10 mm was added to define the planning target volume (PTV) through automatic volume expansion. Then a 7 mm margin between the PTV and block edges was added to take the beam penumbra into account. Dose distributions were normalised to the isocentre and the reference dose was considered to be 95% of the isocentre dose. Dose-volume histograms and dose statistics of the rectum, the bladder and the left femoral head were collected for all plans. For the rectum and the bladder the mean dose (Dm) and the fraction of volume receiving a dose higher than the reference dose (V95) were compared. For the femoral head, the mean dose together with the fraction of volume receiving a dose higher than 50% (V50) were compared.

RESULTS

Differences among the techniques have been found for all three considered organs at risk. When considering the rectum, technique A is better than the others both when considering Dm and V95 (P = 0.002), while technique D is the worst when considering Dm (P < 0.002) and is also worse than techniques A, E (P = 0.002) and C (P = 0.003) when considering V95. Technique E is the best when considering the bladder mean dose (P = 0.002 against A and D, P < 0.01 against B and C) and technique C is the worst (P < 0.012). No relevant differences were found for the bladder V95. In the femoral heads, techniques A and E are worse than B, C and D (P < 0.003) when considering Dm and V50. Moreover, techniques B and D are better than C (P < 0.004) when considering V50.

CONCLUSIONS

There is no technique that is absolutely better than the others. Technique A gives the best sparing of the rectum; the bladder is better spared with technique E. These results are reached with a worse sparing of the femoral heads which should be carefully taken into account.

Re-examining the role of prostate-specific antigen density in predicting outcome for clinically localized prostate cancer

OBJECTIVES

To evaluate the prognostic significance of prostate-specific antigen density (PSAD) in clinically localized prostate cancer and determine whether this index is independent of or superior to prostate-specific antigen (PSA) in predicting outcome of patients treated with external beam radiotherapy.

METHODS

Between January 1989 and December 1993, 175 evaluable patients with clinically localized prostate cancer received definitive radiotherapy using computed tomography (CT)-guided conformal techniques. PSAD was defined as the ratio of the pretreatment serum PSA to the prostate volume measured from CT treatment planning scans by one investigator. All PSA values were determined using the Hybritech assay. Biochemical failure was defined as two consecutive elevations in PSA separated by at least 3 months and a final PSA value greater than 1 ng/mL.

RESULTS

Multivariate analysis including PSA and Gleason score revealed both to be statistically significant predictors of biochemical disease-free survival (P = 0.048 and P < 0.001, respectively). PSAD did not achieve significance on regression analysis. A direct multivariate analysis including PSA and PSAD required dichotomization in order to reduce high correlation. This analysis demonstrated a relative risk (RR) for failure of 1.27 (NS) for high PSA versus low PSA compared with a RR of 1.20 (NS) for high PSAD versus low PSAD. A regression model containing all three variables indicated only the Gleason score as significant in predicting biochemical failure.

CONCLUSIONS

These data do not suggest that PSAD is either an independent prognostic factor or a stronger discriminant of outcome than PSA in patients with clinically localized prostate cancer treated with definitive external beam radiotherapy. Larger patient numbers with longer follow-up data, use of a clinical end point, or an analysis restricted to the appropriate subgroup may demonstrate the utility of PSAD in the future.

Prostate-specific antigen density

Nearly 20 years have passed since PSA was definitively identified. Throughout this period, its clinical application as a tumor marker has expanded significantly. Today, besides monitoring prostate cancer therapy, PSA is being used extensively in mass screening programs for early detection of adenocarcinoma of the prostate and has become the most important tumor marker in urologic oncology. Although of unquestionable importance, PSA is not the perfect marker because of its lack of efficacy in discriminating BPH from prostate cancer. In order to enhance its sensibility, specificity, and predictive value, a series of variables influencing PSA levels have been studied and new parameters developed to correct discrepancies or confounding factors. Recognition of the relationship between PSA, prostate volume, and their interference with serum PSA levels made possible the development of the PSAD concept. Its wide application in different sets of patients for diagnostic and staging purposes resulted in enough data to demonstrate its usefulness and cost effectiveness as a second-line screening parameter, helping to distinguish BPH from prostate cancer in patients with PSA levels in the intermediate area, and avoiding some unnecessary biopsies. Even though PSAD does not offer a definitive solution for prostate cancer screening or management, its association with all the other diagnostic methods may offer the best way to assess the population at risk and assure their well-being (Fig. 5).

Prostate-specific antigen cancer volume: a significant prognostic factor in prostate cancer patients at intermediate risk of failing radiotherapy

PURPOSE

Although the pretreatment serum prostate-specific antigen level (PSAL) is the single-most significant predictor of local and biochemical control in prostate cancer patients treated with radiotherapy, it is relatively insensitive for patients with a PSAL in the intermediate range (4-20 ng/ml). PSA density (PSAD) has been shown to be slightly more predictive of outcome than PSAL for this intermediate risk group; however, this improvement is small and of little use clinically. PSA cancer volume (PSACV), an estimate of cancer volume based on PSA, has recently been described and has been purported to be more significant than PSAL in predicting early biochemical failure after radiotherapy. We report a detailed comparison between this new prognostic factor, PSAL, and PSAD.

METHODS AND MATERIALS

The records of 356 patients treated with definitive external beam radiotherapy for regionally localized (T1-4,Nx,M0) adenocarcinoma of the prostate were reviewed. Each patient had a PSAL, biopsy Gleason score, and pretreatment prostate volume by transrectal ultrasonography. The median PSAL was 9.3 ng/ml and 66% had Gleason scores in the 2-6 range. The median radiation dose was 66.0 Gy and the median follow-up for those living was 27 months. PSACV was calculated using a formula which takes into account PSAL, pretreatment prostate ultrasound volume, and Gleason score. The median PSACV was 1.43 cc. Biochemical failure was defined as increases in two consecutive follow-up PSA levels, one increase by a factor > 1.5, or an absolute increase of > 1 ng/ml. Local failure was defined as a cancer-positive prostate biopsy, obtained for evidence of tumor progression.

RESULTS

The distributions of PSACV and PSAL were similar and, when normalized by log transformation, were highly correlated (p < 0.0001, linear regression). There was a statistically significant relationship between PSACV and several potential prognostic factors including PSAL, PSAD, stage, Gleason score, and pretreatment prostatic acid phosphatase (PAP). In univariate analyses, PSACV, PSAL, and PSAD proved to be the most significant predictors of both biochemical and local control. In multivariate analyses using Cox proportional hazards models with PSAL, PSAD, PSACV, and PAP as continuous variables, PSAL, PSACV, and Gleason score were significant in predicting biochemical control. Only PSAL was significantly correlated with local control. However, when these analyses were restricted to patients with intermediate PSALs (4-20 ng/ml), only PSACV was significant for predicting both biochemical and local control.

CONCLUSION

PSACV was highly correlated with actuarial local and biochemical control and was superior to both PSAL and PSAD in predicting these outcomes in patients with PSALs between 4 and 20 ng/ml.

Prostate specific antigen density as a prognostic factor for patients with prostate carcinoma treated with radiotherapy

BACKGROUND

The pretreatment serum prostate specific antigen level (PSAL) is the most significant predictor of biochemical and local failure in patients treated with definitive radiotherapy. The role of prostate specific antigen (PSA) density (PSAD) relative to PSAL for such patients is controversial. In this article, we describe a comparative analysis of the prognostic value of PSAL and PSAD.

METHODS

The study was comprised of 365 patients who were treated with external beam radiotherapy for regionally localized (T1-T4, Nx, M0) adenocarcinoma of the prostate between 1987-1993 and in whom PSAL and pretreatment prostate volume by transrectal ultrasound were available. The mean and median doses were 66.8 Gy and 66 Gy. Median follow-up for those patients living was 27 months. The mean PSAL was 12.7 ng/mL with a median of 9.1 ng/mL. PSAD was calculated by dividing the PSAL by the pretreatment prostate transectal ultrasound volume (in cc). The mean PSAD was 0.44 and the median was 0.31. Biochemical failure was defined as two consecutive increases in follow-up PSAs, one increase by a factor of greater than 1.5 of an absolute increase of greater than 1 ng/mL.

RESULTS

The distributions of PSAD and PSAL were similar and were positively skewed. When log-transformed, the distributions of both parameters were normalized and linear regression revealed a high correlation (P < 0.0001). PSAD was significantly associated with several potential prognostic factors, including stage, Gleason score, PSAL, and pretreatment prostatic acid phosphatase. Univariate analyses of PSAD and PSAL revealed that these were the most significant correlates of local and biochemical control. By contrast, stage and Gleason score were the only factors predictive of freedom from distant metastasis. Multivariate analyses using Cox proportional hazards models were then performed to determine if PSAD provided prognostic information independent of PSAL. The manner in which PSAD and PSAL were categorized (four, three, of two groups) dramatically influenced the significance of these covariates. Optimization of these groups for significance showed grouped PSAD to be the stronger predictor of the local control and grouped PSAL to be the stronger predictor of biochemical control. However, when PSAD and PSAL were used as continuous variables, PSAL was the only independently significant prognostic factor for local or biochemical control.

CONCLUSIONS

PSAD was highly correlated with actuarial patient outcome in the univariate analyses and appeared to provide independent information when PSAL was between 4 and 20 ng/mL. However, the differences based on PSAD were relatively small and, therefore, not clinically useful.