1
|
Gregg JR, Newcomb L, Wu R, Dennison J, Davis JW, Pettaway C, Pisters L, Ward JF, Chapin BF, Chéry L, Urkmez A, Fang AM, Higgason N, Troncoso P, Daniel CR, Logothetis C, Thompson TC, Hahn AW, Liu M, Zheng Y, Lin DW, Hanash S, Irajizad E, Fahrmann J. Validation of a prognostic blood-based sphingolipid panel for men with localized prostate cancer followed on active surveillance. Biomark Res 2024; 12:134. [PMID: 39522029 PMCID: PMC11550521 DOI: 10.1186/s40364-024-00678-7] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 09/04/2024] [Accepted: 10/23/2024] [Indexed: 11/16/2024] Open
Abstract
BACKGROUND We previously reported that increases in circulating sphingolipids are associated with elevated risk of biopsy Gleason grade group (GG) upgrading in men on Active Surveillance (AS) for prostate cancer. Here, we aimed to validate these findings and establish a blood-based sphingolipid biomarker panel for identifying men on AS who are at high-risk of biopsy GG upgrading. METHODS Men diagnosed with low- or intermediate-risk prostate cancer in one of two AS cohorts (CANARY PASS and MDACC) were followed for GG upgrading after diagnostic and confirmatory biopsy. The PASS cohort consisted of 544 patients whereas the MDACC Cohort consisted of 697 patients. The number of patients with GG upgrading during course of study follow-up in the PASS and MDACC cohorts were 98 (17.7%) and 133 (19.1%), respectively. Plasmas collected prior to confirmatory biopsy were used for mass spectrometry-based quantitation of 87 unique sphingolipid species. A neural network layer based on 21 sphingolipids was developed in the CANARY PASS cohort for predicting biopsy GG upgrading. Tertile-based thresholds for low-, intermediate-, and high-risk strata were subsequently developed for the sphingolipid panel as well as a model that combined the sphingolipid panel with PSA density and rate of core positivity on diagnostic biopsy. The resultant models and risk thresholds for GG upgrading were validated in the MDACC cohort. Performance was assessed using Cox proportional hazard models, C-index, AUC, and cumulative incidence curves. RESULTS The sphingolipid panel had a HR (per unit standard deviation increase) of 1.36 (95% CI: 1.07-1.70) and 1.35 (95% CI: 1.11-1.64) for predicting GG biopsy upgrading in the PASS and MDACC cohort, respectively. The model that combined the sphingolipid panel with PSA density and rate of core positivity achieved a HR of 1.63 (95% CI: 1.33-2.00) and 1.44 (1.25-1.66), respectively. Tertile-based thresholds, established in the PASS cohort, were applied to the independent MDACC cohort. Compared to the low-risk group, MDACC patients in the high-risk strata had a GG biopsy upgrade HR of 3.65 (95% CI: 2.21-6.02), capturing 50% of the patients that had biopsy upgrading during study follow-up. CONCLUSIONS The sphingolipid panel is independently associated with GG biopsy upgrading among men in two independent AS cohorts who have previously undergone diagnostic and confirmatory biopsy. The sphingolipid panel, together with clinical factors, provides a potential means for risk stratification to better guide clinical management of men on AS.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Justin R Gregg
- The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, 1515 Holcombe Blvd, Houston, TX, 77030, US.
| | - Lisa Newcomb
- University of Washington and Fred Hutchinson Cancer Center, 1100 Fairview Ave N, Seattle, WA, 98109, US
| | - Ranran Wu
- The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, 1515 Holcombe Blvd, Houston, TX, 77030, US
| | - Jennifer Dennison
- The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, 1515 Holcombe Blvd, Houston, TX, 77030, US
| | - John W Davis
- The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, 1515 Holcombe Blvd, Houston, TX, 77030, US
| | - Curtis Pettaway
- The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, 1515 Holcombe Blvd, Houston, TX, 77030, US
| | - Louis Pisters
- The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, 1515 Holcombe Blvd, Houston, TX, 77030, US
| | - John F Ward
- The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, 1515 Holcombe Blvd, Houston, TX, 77030, US
| | - Brian F Chapin
- The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, 1515 Holcombe Blvd, Houston, TX, 77030, US
| | - Lisly Chéry
- The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, 1515 Holcombe Blvd, Houston, TX, 77030, US
| | - Ahmet Urkmez
- The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, 1515 Holcombe Blvd, Houston, TX, 77030, US
| | - Andrew M Fang
- The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, 1515 Holcombe Blvd, Houston, TX, 77030, US
| | - Noel Higgason
- The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, 1515 Holcombe Blvd, Houston, TX, 77030, US
| | - Patricia Troncoso
- The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, 1515 Holcombe Blvd, Houston, TX, 77030, US
| | - Carrie R Daniel
- The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, 1515 Holcombe Blvd, Houston, TX, 77030, US
| | - Christopher Logothetis
- The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, 1515 Holcombe Blvd, Houston, TX, 77030, US
| | - Timothy C Thompson
- The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, 1515 Holcombe Blvd, Houston, TX, 77030, US
| | - Andrew W Hahn
- The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, 1515 Holcombe Blvd, Houston, TX, 77030, US
| | - Menghan Liu
- University of Washington and Fred Hutchinson Cancer Center, 1100 Fairview Ave N, Seattle, WA, 98109, US
| | - Yingye Zheng
- University of Washington and Fred Hutchinson Cancer Center, 1100 Fairview Ave N, Seattle, WA, 98109, US
| | - Dan W Lin
- University of Washington and Fred Hutchinson Cancer Center, 1100 Fairview Ave N, Seattle, WA, 98109, US
| | - Samir Hanash
- The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, 1515 Holcombe Blvd, Houston, TX, 77030, US
| | - Ehsan Irajizad
- The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, 1515 Holcombe Blvd, Houston, TX, 77030, US
| | - Johannes Fahrmann
- The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, 1515 Holcombe Blvd, Houston, TX, 77030, US
| |
Collapse
|
2
|
Huang TH, Li WM, Ke HL, Li CC, Wu WJ, Yeh HC, Wang YC, Lee HY. The factors impacting on Gleason score upgrading in prostate cancer with initial low Gleason scores. J Formos Med Assoc 2024:S0929-6646(24)00175-X. [PMID: 38555188 DOI: 10.1016/j.jfma.2024.03.014] [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: 12/18/2023] [Revised: 03/09/2024] [Accepted: 03/17/2024] [Indexed: 04/02/2024] Open
Abstract
BACKGROUND This study aims to investigate the factors contributing to the discrepancy in between biopsy Gleason score (GS) and radical prostatectomy GS in patients diagnosed with prostate cancer. METHODS 341 patients who underwent radical prostatectomy from 2011/04 to 2020/12 were identified. 102 Patients with initial GS of six after biopsy were enrolled. Preoperative clinical variables and pathological variables were also obtained and assessed. The optimal cut-off points for significant continuous variables were identified by the area under the receiver operating characteristic curve. RESULTS Upgrading was observed in 63 patients and non-upgrading in 39 patients. In the multiple variables assessed, smaller prostate volume (PV) (p value = 0.0007), prostate specific antigen density (PSAD) (p value = 0.0055), positive surgical margins (p value = 0.0062) and pathological perineural invasion (p value = 0.0038) were significant predictors of GS upgrading. To further explore preclinical variables, a cut-off value for PV (≤ 38 ml, p value = 0.0017) and PSAD (≥ 0.26 ng/ml2, p value = 0.0013) were identified to be associated with GS upgrading. CONCLUSIONS Smaller PV and elevated PSAD are associated with increased risk of GS upgrading, whereas lead-time bias is not. A cut-off value of PV < 38 ml and PSAD > 0.26 ng/ml2 were further identified to be associated with pathological GS upgrading.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Tzu-Heng Huang
- Department of Urology, Kaohsiung Chang Gung Memorial Hospital and Chang Gung University College of Medicine, Kaohsiung, 833401, Taiwan
| | - Wei-Ming Li
- Department of Urology, Kaohsiung Medical University Hospital, Kaohsiung, 80756, Taiwan; Department of Urology, School of Medicine, College of Medicine, Kaohsiung Medical University, Kaohsiung, 80708, Taiwan; Department of Urology, Ministry of Health and Welfare Pingtung Hospital, Pingtung, 90054, Taiwan; Cohort Research Center, Kaohsiung Medical University, Kaohsiung, 80708, Taiwan
| | - Hung-Lung Ke
- Department of Urology, Kaohsiung Medical University Hospital, Kaohsiung, 80756, Taiwan; Department of Urology, School of Medicine, College of Medicine, Kaohsiung Medical University, Kaohsiung, 80708, Taiwan; Department of Urology, Kaohsiung Municipal Ta-Tung Hospital, Kaohsiung, 80145, Taiwan; Graduate Institute of Medicine, College of Medicine, Kaohsiung Medical University, Kaohsiung 80708, Taiwan
| | - Ching-Chia Li
- Department of Urology, Kaohsiung Medical University Hospital, Kaohsiung, 80756, Taiwan; Department of Urology, School of Medicine, College of Medicine, Kaohsiung Medical University, Kaohsiung, 80708, Taiwan
| | - Wen-Jeng Wu
- Department of Urology, Kaohsiung Medical University Hospital, Kaohsiung, 80756, Taiwan; Department of Urology, School of Medicine, College of Medicine, Kaohsiung Medical University, Kaohsiung, 80708, Taiwan; Cohort Research Center, Kaohsiung Medical University, Kaohsiung, 80708, Taiwan; Graduate Institute of Medicine, College of Medicine, Kaohsiung Medical University, Kaohsiung 80708, Taiwan; Graduate Institute of Clinical Medicine, College of Medicine, Kaohsiung Medical University, Kaohsiung, 80708, Taiwan
| | - Hsin-Chih Yeh
- Department of Urology, Kaohsiung Medical University Hospital, Kaohsiung, 80756, Taiwan; Department of Urology, School of Medicine, College of Medicine, Kaohsiung Medical University, Kaohsiung, 80708, Taiwan; Department of Urology, Kaohsiung Municipal Ta-Tung Hospital, Kaohsiung, 80145, Taiwan; Graduate Institute of Medicine, College of Medicine, Kaohsiung Medical University, Kaohsiung 80708, Taiwan
| | - Yen-Chun Wang
- Department of Urology, Kaohsiung Medical University Hospital, Kaohsiung, 80756, Taiwan
| | - Hsiang-Ying Lee
- Department of Urology, Kaohsiung Medical University Hospital, Kaohsiung, 80756, Taiwan; Department of Urology, School of Medicine, College of Medicine, Kaohsiung Medical University, Kaohsiung, 80708, Taiwan; Graduate Institute of Medicine, College of Medicine, Kaohsiung Medical University, Kaohsiung 80708, Taiwan; Graduate Institute of Clinical Medicine, College of Medicine, Kaohsiung Medical University, Kaohsiung, 80708, Taiwan.
| |
Collapse
|
3
|
Duijn M, de Reijke TM, Barwari K, Hagens MJ, Rynja SP, Immerzeel J, Barentsz JO, Jager A. The association between patient and disease characteristics, and the risk of disease progression in patients with prostate cancer on active surveillance. World J Urol 2024; 42:87. [PMID: 38372786 DOI: 10.1007/s00345-024-04805-9] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 09/10/2023] [Accepted: 01/16/2024] [Indexed: 02/20/2024] Open
Abstract
PURPOSE The objective of this study was to identify and assess patient and disease characteristics associated with an increased risk of disease progression in men with prostate cancer on active surveillance. METHODS We studied patients with low-risk (ISUP GG1) or favorable intermediate-risk (ISUP GG2) PCa. All patients had at least one repeat biopsy. Disease progression was the primary outcome of this study, based on pathological upgrading. Univariate and multivariate Cox proportional hazard analyses were used to evaluate the association between covariates and disease progression. RESULTS In total, 240 men were included, of whom 198 (82.5%) were diagnosed with low-risk PCa and 42 (17.5%) with favorable intermediate-risk PCa. Disease progression was observed in 42.9% (103/240) of men. Index lesion > 10 mm (HR = 2.85; 95% CI 1.74-4.68; p < 0.001), MRI (m)T-stage 2b/2c (HR = 2.52; 95% CI 1.16-5.50; p = 0.02), highest PI-RADS score of 5 (HR 3.05; 95% CI 1.48-6.28; p = 0.002) and a higher PSA level (HR 1.06; 95% CI 1.01-1.11; p = 0.014) at baseline were associated with disease progression on univariate analysis. Multivariate analysis showed no significant baseline predictors of disease progression. CONCLUSION In AS patients with low-risk or favorable intermediate-risk PCa, diameter of index lesion, MRI (m)T-stage, height of the PI-RADS score and the PSA level at baseline are significant predictors of disease progression to first repeat biopsy.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Matthijs Duijn
- Department of Urology, OLVG, PO Box 95500, 1090 HM, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
- Andros Clinics, Arnhem, The Netherlands.
| | - Theo M de Reijke
- Andros Clinics, Arnhem, The Netherlands
- Department of Urology, Amsterdam University Medical Centers, University of Amsterdam, Amsterdam, The Netherlands
| | - Kurdo Barwari
- Andros Clinics, Arnhem, The Netherlands
- Department of Urology, Netherlands Cancer Institute (NCI), Amsterdam, The Netherlands
| | - Marias J Hagens
- Department of Urology, Amsterdam University Medical Centers, University of Amsterdam, Amsterdam, The Netherlands
- Department of Urology, Netherlands Cancer Institute (NCI), Amsterdam, The Netherlands
- Prostate Cancer Network the Netherlands, Amsterdam, The Netherlands
| | - Sybren P Rynja
- Department of Urology, Spaarne Gasthuis, Hoofddorp, The Netherlands
| | | | | | - Auke Jager
- Department of Urology, Amsterdam University Medical Centers, University of Amsterdam, Amsterdam, The Netherlands
| |
Collapse
|
4
|
Abad Carratalà G, Garau Perelló C, Amaya Barroso B, Sánchez Llopis A, Ponce Blasco P, Barrios Arnau L, Di Capua Sacoto C, Rodrigo Aliaga M. Clinical and histological predictive factors of reclassification of prostate cancer patients on active surveillance. Actas Urol Esp 2023; 47:303-308. [PMID: 37272322 DOI: 10.1016/j.acuroe.2022.07.003] [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: 05/01/2022] [Accepted: 05/05/2022] [Indexed: 06/06/2023]
Abstract
INTRODUCTION AND OBJECTIVE Active surveillance (AS) has been established as a therapeutic strategy in patients with low-risk prostate cancer. Demographic and anatomopathological factors that increase the probability of reclassifying patients have been identified. MATERIALS AND METHODS Laboratory and histopathological data were collected from 116 patients included on AS since 2014. Univariate analysis was performed with Chi-square, t-student and Kendall's Tau, multivariate analysis according to logistic regression and Kaplan-Meier curves were calculated. RESULTS Of the 116 patients in AS, the median age at diagnosis was 66 years and the median follow-up was 13 months (2-72). Of these, 61 (52.6%) are still on surveillance, while 55 (47.4%) have left the program, mostly due to histological progression (52 patients (45.2%)); radical prostatectomy was performed in 27 (49.1%). Prostate volume (PV)≤60cc and the number of positive cylinders >1 in diagnostic biopsy (P=.05) were associated with higher reclassification rate in univariate analysis (P<.05). Multivariate analysis showed that these two variables significantly correlated with higher reclassification rate (PV 60 cc: OR 4.39, P=.04; >1 positive cylinder at diagnostic biopsy: OR 2.48, P=.03). CONCLUSIONS It has been shown that initial ultrasound volume and the number of positive cylinders in the diagnostic biopsy are independent risk factors for reclassification. Initial PSA, laterality of the affected cylinders and PSA density were not predictive factors of progression in our series.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- G Abad Carratalà
- Servicio de Urología, Hospital General Universitario de Castellón, Castellón, Spain.
| | - C Garau Perelló
- Servicio de Urología, Hospital General Universitario de Castellón, Castellón, Spain
| | - B Amaya Barroso
- Servicio de Urología, Hospital General Universitario de Castellón, Castellón, Spain
| | - A Sánchez Llopis
- Servicio de Urología, Hospital General Universitario de Castellón, Castellón, Spain
| | - P Ponce Blasco
- Servicio de Urología, Hospital General Universitario de Castellón, Castellón, Spain
| | - L Barrios Arnau
- Servicio de Urología, Hospital General Universitario de Castellón, Castellón, Spain
| | - C Di Capua Sacoto
- Servicio de Urología, Hospital La Plana (Vila-Real), Castellón, Spain
| | - M Rodrigo Aliaga
- Servicio de Urología, Hospital General Universitario de Castellón, Castellón, Spain
| |
Collapse
|
5
|
Factores clínicos e histológicos predictores de reclasificación en pacientes incluidos en programa de vigilancia activa de cáncer de próstata. Actas Urol Esp 2022. [DOI: 10.1016/j.acuro.2022.05.001] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 11/30/2022]
|
6
|
Press BH, Khajir G, Ghabili K, Leung C, Fan RE, Wang NN, Leapman MS, Sonn GA, Sprenkle PC. Utility of PSA Density in Predicting Upgraded Gleason Score in Men on Active Surveillance With Negative MRI. Urology 2021; 155:96-100. [PMID: 34087311 DOI: 10.1016/j.urology.2021.05.035] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 01/18/2021] [Revised: 05/13/2021] [Accepted: 05/19/2021] [Indexed: 10/21/2022]
Abstract
OBJECTIVES To determine whether PSA density (PSAD), can sub-stratify risk of biopsy upgrade among men on active surveillance (AS) with normal baseline MRI. METHODS We identified a cohort of patients with low and favorable intermediate-risk prostate cancer on AS at two large academic centers from February 2013 - December 2017. Analysis was restricted to patients with GG1 cancer on initial biopsy and a negative baseline or surveillance mpMRI, defined by the absence of PI-RADS 2 or greater lesions. We assessed ability of PSA, prostate volume and PSAD to predict upgrading on confirmatory biopsy. RESULTS We identified 98 patients on AS with negative baseline or surveillance mpMRI. Median PSA at diagnosis was 5.8 ng/mL and median PSAD was 0.08 ng/mL/mL. Fourteen men (14.3%) experienced Gleason upgrade at confirmatory biopsy. Patients who were upgraded had higher PSA (7.9 vs 5.4 ng/mL, P = .04), PSAD (0.20 vs 0.07 ng/mL/mL, P < .001), and lower prostate volumes (42.5 vs 65.8 mL, P = .01). On multivariate analysis, PSAD was associated with pathologic upgrade (OR 2.23 per 0.1-increase, P = .007). A PSAD cutoff at 0.08 generated a NPV of 98% for detection of pathologic upgrade. CONCLUSION PSAD reliably discriminated the risk of Gleason upgrade at confirmatory biopsy among men with low-grade prostate cancer with negative MRI. PSAD could be clinically implemented to reduce the intensity of surveillance for a subset of patients.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
| | - Ghazal Khajir
- Department of Urology, Yale School of Medicine, New Haven, CT
| | - Kamyar Ghabili
- Department of Urology, Yale School of Medicine, New Haven, CT
| | - Cynthia Leung
- Department of Urology, Yale School of Medicine, New Haven, CT
| | - Richard E Fan
- Department of Urology, Stanford University School of Medicine, Stanford, CA
| | - Nancy N Wang
- Department of Urology, Stanford University School of Medicine, Stanford, CA
| | | | - Geoffrey A Sonn
- Department of Urology, Stanford University School of Medicine, Stanford, CA; Department of Radiology, Stanford University School of Medicine, Stanford, CA
| | | |
Collapse
|
7
|
Monfared S, Fleishman A, Korets R, Chang P, Wagner A, Bubley G, Kaplan I, Olumi AF, Gershman B. The impact of pretreatment PSA on risk stratification in men with Gleason 6 prostate cancer: Implications for active surveillance. Urol Oncol 2021; 39:783.e21-783.e30. [PMID: 33992521 DOI: 10.1016/j.urolonc.2021.04.002] [Citation(s) in RCA: 4] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 11/30/2020] [Revised: 02/24/2021] [Accepted: 04/01/2021] [Indexed: 10/21/2022]
Abstract
BACKGROUND There are limited data to support the safety of active surveillance in men with favorable-intermediate risk prostate cancer due only to a prostate specific antigen (PSA) above 10 ng/ml. We therefore evaluated the impact of pretreatment PSA on risk-stratification in men with Gleason 6 prostate cancer. METHODS We identified men aged 18 to 75 with cT1-2cN0cM0, pre-treatment PSA < 20 ng/ml, Gleason 6 prostate cancer diagnosed from 2010 to 2016 in the National Cancer Database who underwent radical prostatectomy. The associations of patient and disease features with Gleason score upgrading or adverse pathologic features at prostatectomy were evaluated using logistic regression. To evaluate for non linear relationships between PSA and each outcome, we examined predicted marginal event rates standardized for baseline characteristics with PSA modeled using restricted cubic splines RESULTS: A total of 75,566 patients were included in the cohort. In unadjusted analyses, patients with pretreatment PSA ≥ 10 ng/ml had higher rates of Gleason core upgrading (58.8% vs. 47.9%; P< 0.001) and adverse pathologic features (19.7% vs. 10.0%; P< 0.001) compared to patients with PSA < 10 ng/ml. In multivariable analyses, PSA ≥ 10 ng/ml was associated with statistically significantly increased risks of Gleason score upgrading (OR 1.47;95%CI 1.39 - 1.55) and adverse pathologic features (OR 2.15;95%CI 2.01 - 2.30). When modeled as a non linear continuous covariate, PSA was associated with increased adjusted rates of Gleason score upgrading and adverse pathologic features without a clear dichotomization at a threshold of 10 ng/ml. CONCLUSION Higher pretreatment PSA was independently associated with increased risks of Gleason score upgrading and adverse pathologic features at prostatectomy. Flexible modeling of the relationship between PSA and each outcome did not support dichotomization at a threshold of 10 ng/ml. These results can be used to improve patient risk-stratification for active surveillance.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Sina Monfared
- Division of Urologic Surgery, Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center, Boston, MA
| | - Aaron Fleishman
- Department of Surgery, Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center, Boston, MA
| | | | - Peter Chang
- Boston University School of Medicine, Boston, MA
| | | | - Glenn Bubley
- Department of Medicine, Division of Hematology/Oncology, Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center, Boston, MA
| | - Irving Kaplan
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center, Boston, MA
| | - Aria F Olumi
- Boston University School of Medicine, Boston, MA
| | | |
Collapse
|
8
|
Fujihara A, Iwata T, Shakir A, Tafuri A, Cacciamani GE, Gill K, Ashrafi A, Ukimura O, Desai M, Duddalwar V, Stern MS, Aron M, Palmer SL, Gill IS, Abreu AL. Multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging facilitates reclassification during active surveillance for prostate cancer. BJU Int 2020; 127:712-721. [PMID: 33043575 DOI: 10.1111/bju.15272] [Citation(s) in RCA: 6] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.2] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 11/27/2022]
Abstract
OBJECTIVE To investigate the utility of multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging (mpMRI) in the reassessment and monitoring of patients on active surveillance (AS) for Grade Group (GG) 1 prostate cancer (PCa). PATIENTS AND METHODS We identified, from our prospectively maintained institutional review board-approved database, 181 consecutive men enrolled on AS for GG 1 PCa who underwent at least one surveillance mpMRI followed by MRI/prostate biopsy (PBx). A subset analysis was performed among 68 patients who underwent serial (at least two) mpMRI/PBx during AS. Pathological progression (PP) was defined as upgrade to GG ≥2 on follow up biopsy. RESULTS Baseline MRI was performed in 34 patients (19%). At a median follow-up of 2.2 years for the overall cohort, the PP was 12% (6/49) for Prostate Imaging Reporting and Data System (PI-RADS) 1-2 lesions and 37% (48/129) for the PI-RADS ≥3 lesions. The 2-year PP-free survival rate was 84%. Surveillance prostate-specific antigen density (P < 0.001) and surveillance PI-RADS ≥3 (P = 0.002) were independent predictors of PP on reassessment MRI/PBx. In the serial MRI cohort, the 2-year PP-free survival was 95% for the No-MRI-progression group vs 85% for the MRI-progression group (P = 0.02). MRI progression was significantly higher in the PP (62%) than in the No-PP (31%) group (P = 0.04). If serial MRI were used for PCa surveillance and biopsy were triggered based only on MRI progression, 63% of PBx might be postponed at the cost of missing 12% of GG ≥2 PCa in those with stable MRI. Conversely, this strategy would miss 38% of those with upgrading to GG ≥2 PCa on biopsy. Stable serial mpMRI correlates with no reclassification to GG ≥3 PCa during AS. CONCLUSION On surveillance mpMRI, PI-RADS ≥3 was associated with increased risk of PCa reclassification. Surveillance biopsy based only on MRI progression may avoid a large number of biopsies at the cost of missing many PCa reclassifications.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Atsuko Fujihara
- USC Institute of Urology and Catherine & Joseph Aresty Department of Urology, University of Southern California, Los Angeles, CA, USA.,Department of Urology, Graduate School of Medical Science, Kyoto Prefectural University of Medicine, Kyoto, Japan
| | - Tsuyoshi Iwata
- USC Institute of Urology and Catherine & Joseph Aresty Department of Urology, University of Southern California, Los Angeles, CA, USA.,Department of Urology, Graduate School of Medical Science, Kyoto Prefectural University of Medicine, Kyoto, Japan
| | - Aliasger Shakir
- USC Institute of Urology and Catherine & Joseph Aresty Department of Urology, University of Southern California, Los Angeles, CA, USA
| | - Alessandro Tafuri
- USC Institute of Urology and Catherine & Joseph Aresty Department of Urology, University of Southern California, Los Angeles, CA, USA.,Department of Urology, University of Verona, Verona, Italy
| | - Giovanni E Cacciamani
- USC Institute of Urology and Catherine & Joseph Aresty Department of Urology, University of Southern California, Los Angeles, CA, USA
| | - Karanvir Gill
- USC Institute of Urology and Catherine & Joseph Aresty Department of Urology, University of Southern California, Los Angeles, CA, USA
| | - Akbar Ashrafi
- USC Institute of Urology and Catherine & Joseph Aresty Department of Urology, University of Southern California, Los Angeles, CA, USA
| | - Osamu Ukimura
- Department of Urology, Graduate School of Medical Science, Kyoto Prefectural University of Medicine, Kyoto, Japan
| | - Mihir Desai
- USC Institute of Urology and Catherine & Joseph Aresty Department of Urology, University of Southern California, Los Angeles, CA, USA
| | - Vinay Duddalwar
- USC Institute of Urology and Catherine & Joseph Aresty Department of Urology, University of Southern California, Los Angeles, CA, USA.,Department of Radiology, Keck School of Medicine, University of Southern California, Los Angeles, CA, USA
| | - Mariana S Stern
- USC Institute of Urology and Catherine & Joseph Aresty Department of Urology, University of Southern California, Los Angeles, CA, USA
| | - Manju Aron
- Department of Pathology, Keck School of Medicine, University of Southern California, Los Angeles, CA, USA
| | - Suzanne L Palmer
- Department of Radiology, Keck School of Medicine, University of Southern California, Los Angeles, CA, USA
| | - Inderbir S Gill
- USC Institute of Urology and Catherine & Joseph Aresty Department of Urology, University of Southern California, Los Angeles, CA, USA
| | - Andre Luis Abreu
- USC Institute of Urology and Catherine & Joseph Aresty Department of Urology, University of Southern California, Los Angeles, CA, USA
| |
Collapse
|
9
|
Hamdy FC, Donovan JL, Lane JA, Mason M, Metcalfe C, Holding P, Wade J, Noble S, Garfield K, Young G, Davis M, Peters TJ, Turner EL, Martin RM, Oxley J, Robinson M, Staffurth J, Walsh E, Blazeby J, Bryant R, Bollina P, Catto J, Doble A, Doherty A, Gillatt D, Gnanapragasam V, Hughes O, Kockelbergh R, Kynaston H, Paul A, Paez E, Powell P, Prescott S, Rosario D, Rowe E, Neal D. Active monitoring, radical prostatectomy and radical radiotherapy in PSA-detected clinically localised prostate cancer: the ProtecT three-arm RCT. Health Technol Assess 2020; 24:1-176. [PMID: 32773013 PMCID: PMC7443739 DOI: 10.3310/hta24370] [Citation(s) in RCA: 14] [Impact Index Per Article: 2.8] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 02/07/2023] Open
Abstract
BACKGROUND Prostate cancer is the most common cancer among men in the UK. Prostate-specific antigen testing followed by biopsy leads to overdetection, overtreatment as well as undertreatment of the disease. Evidence of treatment effectiveness has lacked because of the paucity of randomised controlled trials comparing conventional treatments. OBJECTIVES To evaluate the effectiveness of conventional treatments for localised prostate cancer (active monitoring, radical prostatectomy and radical radiotherapy) in men aged 50-69 years. DESIGN A prospective, multicentre prostate-specific antigen testing programme followed by a randomised trial of treatment, with a comprehensive cohort follow-up. SETTING Prostate-specific antigen testing in primary care and treatment in nine urology departments in the UK. PARTICIPANTS Between 2001 and 2009, 228,966 men aged 50-69 years received an invitation to attend an appointment for information about the Prostate testing for cancer and Treatment (ProtecT) study and a prostate-specific antigen test; 82,429 men were tested, 2664 were diagnosed with localised prostate cancer, 1643 agreed to randomisation to active monitoring (n = 545), radical prostatectomy (n = 553) or radical radiotherapy (n = 545) and 997 chose a treatment. INTERVENTIONS The interventions were active monitoring, radical prostatectomy and radical radiotherapy. TRIAL PRIMARY OUTCOME MEASURE Definite or probable disease-specific mortality at the 10-year median follow-up in randomised participants. SECONDARY OUTCOME MEASURES Overall mortality, metastases, disease progression, treatment complications, resource utilisation and patient-reported outcomes. RESULTS There were no statistically significant differences between the groups for 17 prostate cancer-specific (p = 0.48) and 169 all-cause (p = 0.87) deaths. Eight men died of prostate cancer in the active monitoring group (1.5 per 1000 person-years, 95% confidence interval 0.7 to 3.0); five died of prostate cancer in the radical prostatectomy group (0.9 per 1000 person-years, 95% confidence interval 0.4 to 2.2 per 1000 person years) and four died of prostate cancer in the radical radiotherapy group (0.7 per 1000 person-years, 95% confidence interval 0.3 to 2.0 per 1000 person years). More men developed metastases in the active monitoring group than in the radical prostatectomy and radical radiotherapy groups: active monitoring, n = 33 (6.3 per 1000 person-years, 95% confidence interval 4.5 to 8.8); radical prostatectomy, n = 13 (2.4 per 1000 person-years, 95% confidence interval 1.4 to 4.2 per 1000 person years); and radical radiotherapy, n = 16 (3.0 per 1000 person-years, 95% confidence interval 1.9 to 4.9 per 1000 person-years; p = 0.004). There were higher rates of disease progression in the active monitoring group than in the radical prostatectomy and radical radiotherapy groups: active monitoring (n = 112; 22.9 per 1000 person-years, 95% confidence interval 19.0 to 27.5 per 1000 person years); radical prostatectomy (n = 46; 8.9 per 1000 person-years, 95% confidence interval 6.7 to 11.9 per 1000 person-years); and radical radiotherapy (n = 46; 9.0 per 1000 person-years, 95% confidence interval 6.7 to 12.0 per 1000 person years; p < 0.001). Radical prostatectomy had the greatest impact on sexual function/urinary continence and remained worse than radical radiotherapy and active monitoring. Radical radiotherapy's impact on sexual function was greatest at 6 months, but recovered somewhat in the majority of participants. Sexual and urinary function gradually declined in the active monitoring group. Bowel function was worse with radical radiotherapy at 6 months, but it recovered with the exception of bloody stools. Urinary voiding and nocturia worsened in the radical radiotherapy group at 6 months but recovered. Condition-specific quality-of-life effects mirrored functional changes. No differences in anxiety/depression or generic or cancer-related quality of life were found. At the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence threshold of £20,000 per quality-adjusted life-year, the probabilities that each arm was the most cost-effective option were 58% (radical radiotherapy), 32% (active monitoring) and 10% (radical prostatectomy). LIMITATIONS A single prostate-specific antigen test and transrectal ultrasound biopsies were used. There were very few non-white men in the trial. The majority of men had low- and intermediate-risk disease. Longer follow-up is needed. CONCLUSIONS At a median follow-up point of 10 years, prostate cancer-specific mortality was low, irrespective of the assigned treatment. Radical prostatectomy and radical radiotherapy reduced disease progression and metastases, but with side effects. Further work is needed to follow up participants at a median of 15 years. TRIAL REGISTRATION Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN20141297. FUNDING This project was funded by the National Institute for Health Research Health Technology Assessment programme and will be published in full in Health Technology Assessment; Vol. 24, No. 37. See the National Institute for Health Research Journals Library website for further project information.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Freddie C Hamdy
- Nuffield Department of Surgical Sciences, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK
| | | | - J Athene Lane
- Bristol Medical School, University of Bristol, Bristol, UK
| | - Malcolm Mason
- School of Medicine, University of Cardiff, Cardiff, UK
| | - Chris Metcalfe
- Bristol Medical School, University of Bristol, Bristol, UK
| | - Peter Holding
- Nuffield Department of Surgical Sciences, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK
| | - Julia Wade
- Bristol Medical School, University of Bristol, Bristol, UK
| | - Sian Noble
- Bristol Medical School, University of Bristol, Bristol, UK
| | | | - Grace Young
- Bristol Medical School, University of Bristol, Bristol, UK
| | - Michael Davis
- Bristol Medical School, University of Bristol, Bristol, UK
| | - Tim J Peters
- Bristol Medical School, University of Bristol, Bristol, UK
| | - Emma L Turner
- Bristol Medical School, University of Bristol, Bristol, UK
| | | | - Jon Oxley
- Department of Cellular Pathology, North Bristol NHS Trust, Bristol, UK
| | - Mary Robinson
- Department of Cellular Pathology, Royal Victoria Infirmary, Newcastle upon Tyne, UK
| | - John Staffurth
- Division of Cancer and Genetics, School of Medicine, Cardiff University, Cardiff, UK
| | - Eleanor Walsh
- Bristol Medical School, University of Bristol, Bristol, UK
| | - Jane Blazeby
- Bristol Medical School, University of Bristol, Bristol, UK
| | - Richard Bryant
- Nuffield Department of Surgical Sciences, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK
| | - Prasad Bollina
- Department of Urology and Surgery, Western General Hospital, University of Edinburgh, Edinburgh, UK
| | - James Catto
- Academic Urology Unit, University of Sheffield, Sheffield, UK
| | - Andrew Doble
- Department of Urology, Addenbrooke's Hospital, Cambridge, UK
| | - Alan Doherty
- Department of Urology, Queen Elizabeth Hospital, Birmingham, UK
| | - David Gillatt
- Department of Urology, Southmead Hospital and Bristol Urological Institute, Bristol, UK
| | | | - Owen Hughes
- Department of Urology, Cardiff and Vale University Health Board, Cardiff, UK
| | - Roger Kockelbergh
- Department of Urology, University Hospitals of Leicester, Leicester, UK
| | - Howard Kynaston
- Department of Urology, Cardiff and Vale University Health Board, Cardiff, UK
| | - Alan Paul
- Department of Urology, Leeds Teaching Hospitals NHS Trust, Leeds, UK
| | - Edgar Paez
- Department of Urology, Freeman Hospital, Newcastle upon Tyne, UK
| | - Philip Powell
- Department of Urology, Freeman Hospital, Newcastle upon Tyne, UK
| | - Stephen Prescott
- Department of Urology, Leeds Teaching Hospitals NHS Trust, Leeds, UK
| | - Derek Rosario
- Academic Urology Unit, University of Sheffield, Sheffield, UK
| | - Edward Rowe
- Department of Urology, Southmead Hospital and Bristol Urological Institute, Bristol, UK
| | - David Neal
- Nuffield Department of Surgical Sciences, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK
- Academic Urology Group, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, UK
| |
Collapse
|
10
|
Bryant RJ, Oxley J, Young GJ, Lane JA, Metcalfe C, Davis M, Turner EL, Martin RM, Goepel JR, Varma M, Griffiths DF, Grigor K, Mayer N, Warren AY, Bhattarai S, Dormer J, Mason M, Staffurth J, Walsh E, Rosario DJ, Catto JW, Neal DE, Donovan JL, Hamdy FC. The ProtecT trial: analysis of the patient cohort, baseline risk stratification and disease progression. BJU Int 2020; 125:506-514. [PMID: 31900963 PMCID: PMC7187290 DOI: 10.1111/bju.14987] [Citation(s) in RCA: 39] [Impact Index Per Article: 7.8] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 02/01/2023]
Abstract
OBJECTIVE To test the hypothesis that the baseline clinico-pathological features of the men with localized prostate cancer (PCa) included in the ProtecT (Prostate Testing for Cancer and Treatment) trial who progressed (n = 198) at a 10-year median follow-up were different from those of men with stable disease (n = 1409). PATIENTS AND METHODS We stratified the study participants at baseline according to risk of progression using clinical disease stage, pathological grade and PSA level, using Cox proportional hazard models. RESULTS The findings showed that 34% of participants (n = 505) had intermediate- or high-risk PCa, and 66% (n = 973) had low-risk PCa. Of 198 participants who progressed, 101 (51%) had baseline International Society of Urological Pathology Grade Group 1, 59 (30%) Grade Group 2, and 38 (19%) Grade Group 3 PCa, compared with 79%, 17% and 5%, respectively, for 1409 participants without progression (P < 0.001). In participants with progression, 38% and 62% had baseline low- and intermediate-/high-risk disease, compared with 69% and 31% of participants with stable disease (P < 0.001). Treatment received, age (65-69 vs 50-64 years), PSA level, Grade Group, clinical stage, risk group, number of positive cores, tumour length and perineural invasion were associated with time to progression (P ≤ 0.005). Men progressing after surgery (n = 19) were more likely to have a higher Grade Group and pathological stage at surgery, larger tumours, lymph node involvement and positive margins. CONCLUSIONS We demonstrate that one-third of the ProtecT cohort consists of people with intermediate-/high-risk disease, and the outcomes data at an average of 10 years' follow-up are generalizable beyond men with low-risk PCa.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Richard J. Bryant
- Nuffield Department of Surgical SciencesUniversity of OxfordOxfordUK
| | - Jon Oxley
- Department of Cellular PathologyNorth Bristol NHS TrustBristolUK
| | - Grace J. Young
- Bristol Medical SchoolUniversity of BristolBristolUK
- The Bristol Randomised Trials CollaborationUniversity of BristolBristolUK
| | - Janet A. Lane
- Bristol Medical SchoolUniversity of BristolBristolUK
- The Bristol Randomised Trials CollaborationUniversity of BristolBristolUK
| | - Chris Metcalfe
- Bristol Medical SchoolUniversity of BristolBristolUK
- The Bristol Randomised Trials CollaborationUniversity of BristolBristolUK
| | - Michael Davis
- Bristol Medical SchoolUniversity of BristolBristolUK
| | | | | | - John R. Goepel
- Department of PathologyRoyal Hallamshire HospitalSheffieldUK
| | - Murali Varma
- Department of PathologyUniversity Hospital of WalesCardiffUK
| | | | - Ken Grigor
- Department of PathologyWestern General HospitalEdinburghUK
| | - Nick Mayer
- Department of PathologyUniversity of LeicesterLeicesterUK
| | - Anne Y. Warren
- Department of PathologyUniversity of CambridgeCambridgeUK
| | - Selina Bhattarai
- Department of PathologyLeeds Teaching Hospitals NHS TrustLeedsUK
| | - John Dormer
- Department of PathologyUniversity of LeicesterLeicesterUK
| | | | - John Staffurth
- Division of Cancer and GeneticsSchool of MedicineCardiff UniversityCardiffUK
| | - Eleanor Walsh
- Bristol Medical SchoolUniversity of BristolBristolUK
| | | | | | - David E. Neal
- Nuffield Department of Surgical SciencesUniversity of OxfordOxfordUK
- Academic Urology GroupUniversity of CambridgeCambridgeUK
| | - Jenny L. Donovan
- Bristol Medical SchoolUniversity of BristolBristolUK
- National Institute for Health Research Collaboration for Leadership in Applied Health Research and Care WestUniversity Hospitals Bristol NHS Foundation TrustBristolUK
| | - Freddie C. Hamdy
- Nuffield Department of Surgical SciencesUniversity of OxfordOxfordUK
| |
Collapse
|
11
|
Active Surveillance for Prostate Cancer in a Real-life Cohort: Comparing Outcomes for PRIAS-eligible and PRIAS-ineligible Patients. Eur Urol Oncol 2018; 1:231-237. [DOI: 10.1016/j.euo.2018.03.015] [Citation(s) in RCA: 8] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.1] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 02/20/2018] [Revised: 03/13/2018] [Accepted: 03/21/2018] [Indexed: 11/23/2022]
|
12
|
Abstract
PURPOSE OF REVIEW The approach of active surveillance for low-risk prostate cancer has evolved in many ways since its introduction 20 years ago. There is a great deal of ongoing research addressing the molecular genetics and clinical outcome of low-risk disease, the use of MRI and biomarkers, and the role of lifestyle and dietary modifications. The major developments in the field are reviewed in this article. RECENT FINDINGS Low risk and many cases of low-intermediate risk prostate cancer are indolent, have little or no metastatic potential, and do not pose a threat to the patient in his lifetime. These are termed clinically insignificant. Studies over the last 20 years have advanced our understanding of who these patients are, and promoted the use of conservative management in such individuals. A key component of this approach is the early identification of those patients who have been misattributed as having low-risk disease, who in fact harbor higher risk disease and are likely to benefit from definitive therapy. This represents about 30% of newly diagnosed low-risk patients. A further small proportion of patients with low-risk disease demonstrate biological progression to higher grade disease. Extent of Gleason 6 on biopsy, Prostate Specific Antigen density, and race are predictors for the likelihood of coexistent higher grade cancer. SUMMARY The results of active surveillance, embodying conservative management with selective, delayed intervention for the subset who are reclassified as higher risk over time based on repeat biopsy, imaging, or biomarker results, have shown that this approach is safe in the intermediate to long term, with a 0.5-3% cancer-specific mortality at 10-15 years. Further refinement incorporating MRI and targeted biopsies is the subject of intensive research at the moment, and promises to improve the safety and precision of conservative management.
Collapse
|
13
|
Masood A, Masood K, Hussain M, Ali W, Riaz M, Alauddin Z, Ahmad M, Masood M, Shahid A. Thirty Years Cancer Incidence Data for Lahore, Pakistan: Trends and Patterns 1984-2014. Asian Pac J Cancer Prev 2018; 19:709-717. [PMID: 29580045 PMCID: PMC5980846 DOI: 10.22034/apjcp.2018.19.3.709] [Citation(s) in RCA: 2] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.3] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Accepted: 07/17/2017] [Indexed: 12/02/2022] Open
Abstract
This research was conducted to generate trends and patterns of most common male and female cancers from 1984-2014 for the city population of Lahore Pakistan. Cancer incidence data gathered for different organs were processed through cleaning, integration, transformation, reduction and mining for ultimate representation. Risk of cancer appeared to be continuously increasing among both males and females. Overall, lymphomas and breast cancer are the most common neoplasm in males and females, respectively, in Lahore with almost the highest rates in the Asian Pacific region. The incidence of head and neck, brain, and lung cancers, as well as leukemia have rapidly increased among males, whereas, ovarian, cervix, head and neck and lymphomas have become more common among females. The present communication should be helpful for adequate strategic planning, identification of risk factors and taking appropriate prevention and control measures at the national level.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Andleeb Masood
- Cancer Incidence Statistical Analysis Group, Department of Physics, Government College University, Lahore, Pakistan
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Collapse
|
14
|
Wang JH, Downs TM, Jason Abel E, Richards KA, Jarrard DF. Prostate Biopsy in Active Surveillance Protocols: Immediate Re-biopsy and Timing of Subsequent Biopsies. Curr Urol Rep 2018; 18:48. [PMID: 28589399 DOI: 10.1007/s11934-017-0702-y] [Citation(s) in RCA: 1] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.1] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 01/29/2023]
Abstract
PURPOSE OF REVIEW This manuscript reviews contemporary literature regarding prostate cancer active surveillance (AS) protocols as well as other tools that may guide the management of biopsy frequency and assess the possibility of progression in low-risk prostate cancer. RECENT FINDINGS There is no consensus regarding the timing of surveillance biopsies; however, an immediate repeat biopsy within 12 months of diagnosis for patients considering AS confirms patients who have favorable risk disease yet also identifies patients who were undersampled initially. Studies regarding multiparametric MRI, nomograms, and biomarkers show promise in risk stratifying and counseling patients during AS. Further studies are needed to determine if these supplemental tests can decrease the frequency of surveillance biopsies. An immediate re-biopsy can help to reduce the risk of missing clinically significant disease. Other clinical tools, including mpMRI, exist that can be used as an adjunct to counsel patients and guide a personalized discussion regarding the frequency of surveillance biopsies.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Jonathan H Wang
- Department of Urology, University of Wisconsin School of Medicine and Public Health, Madison, WI, USA
| | - Tracy M Downs
- Department of Urology, University of Wisconsin School of Medicine and Public Health, Madison, WI, USA.,University of Wisconsin Carbone Comprehensive Cancer Center, Madison, WI, USA
| | - E Jason Abel
- Department of Urology, University of Wisconsin School of Medicine and Public Health, Madison, WI, USA.,University of Wisconsin Carbone Comprehensive Cancer Center, Madison, WI, USA
| | - Kyle A Richards
- Department of Urology, University of Wisconsin School of Medicine and Public Health, Madison, WI, USA.,University of Wisconsin Carbone Comprehensive Cancer Center, Madison, WI, USA
| | - David F Jarrard
- Department of Urology, University of Wisconsin School of Medicine and Public Health, Madison, WI, USA. .,University of Wisconsin Carbone Comprehensive Cancer Center, Madison, WI, USA. .,Environmental and Molecular Toxicology, University of Wisconsin, Madison, WI, USA.
| |
Collapse
|
15
|
Abstract
The use of active surveillance (AS) is increasing for favorable-risk prostate cancer. However, there remain challenges in patient selection for AS, due to the limitations of current clinical staging. In addition, monitoring protocols relying on serial biopsies is invasive and presents risks such as infection. For these reasons, there is substantial interest in identifying markers that can be used to improve AS selection and monitoring. In this article, we review the evidence on serum, urine and tissue markers in AS.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Stacy Loeb
- Department of Urology, New York University, New York, NY, USA.,Population Health, New York University, New York, NY, USA.,The Manhattan VA, New York, NY, USA
| | - Jeffrey J Tosoian
- The James Buchanan Brady Urological Institute, Johns Hopkins School of Medicine, Baltimore, MD, USA
| |
Collapse
|
16
|
Evaluation and Treatment for Older Men with Elevated PSA. Prostate Cancer 2018. [DOI: 10.1007/978-3-319-78646-9_2] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 10/16/2022] Open
|
17
|
Magnetic Resonance Imaging-Transrectal Ultrasound Guided Fusion Biopsy to Detect Progression in Patients with Existing Lesions on Active Surveillance for Low and Intermediate Risk Prostate Cancer. J Urol 2016; 197:640-646. [PMID: 27613356 DOI: 10.1016/j.juro.2016.08.109] [Citation(s) in RCA: 72] [Impact Index Per Article: 8.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Accepted: 08/26/2016] [Indexed: 12/26/2022]
Abstract
PURPOSE Active surveillance is an established option for men with low risk prostate cancer. Multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging with magnetic resonance imaging-transrectal ultrasound fusion guided biopsy may better identify patients for active surveillance compared to systematic 12-core biopsy due to improved risk stratification. To our knowledge the performance of multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging in following men on active surveillance with visible lesions is unknown. We evaluated multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging and magnetic resonance imaging-transrectal ultrasound fusion guided biopsy to monitor men on active surveillance. MATERIALS AND METHODS This retrospective review included men from 2007 to 2015 with prostate cancer on active surveillance in whom magnetic resonance imaging visible lesions were monitored by multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging and fusion guided biopsy. Progression was defined by ISUP (International Society of Urological Pathology) grade group 1 to 2 and ISUP grade group 2 to 3. Significance was considered at p ≤0.05. RESULTS A total of 166 patients on active surveillance with 2 or more fusion guided biopsies were included in analysis. Mean followup was 25.5 months. Of the patients 29.5% had pathological progression. Targeted biopsy alone identified 44.9% of patients who progressed compared to 30.6% identified by systematic 12-core biopsy alone (p = 0.03). Fusion guided biopsy detected 26% more cases of pathological progression on surveillance biopsy compared to systematic 12-core biopsy. Progression on multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging was the sole predictor of pathological progression at surveillance biopsy (p = 0.013). Multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging progression in the entire cohort had 81% negative predictive value, 35% positive predictive value, 77.6% sensitivity and 40.5% specificity in detecting pathological progression. CONCLUSIONS Multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging progression predicts the risk of pathological progression. Patients with stable multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging findings have a low rate of progression. Incorporating fusion guided biopsy in active surveillance nearly doubled our detection of pathological progression compared to systematic 12-core biopsy.
Collapse
|
18
|
Masood K, Masood A, Zafar J, Shahid A, Kamran M, Murad S, Masood M, Alluddin Z, Riaz M, Akhter N, Ahmad M, Ahmad F, Akhtar J, Naeem M. Trends and Analysis of Cancer Incidence for Common Male and Female Cancers in the Population of Punjab Province of Pakistan during 1984 to 2014. Asian Pac J Cancer Prev 2016. [PMID: 26225669 DOI: 10.7314/apjcp.2015.16.13.5297] [Citation(s) in RCA: 9] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 11/10/2022] Open
Abstract
BACKGROUND The Pakistan Atomic Energy Commission Cancer Registry (PAECCR) program has made availability of a common cancer incidence database possible in Pakistan. The cancer incidence data from nuclear medicine and oncology institutes were gathered and presented. MATERIALS AND METHODS The cancer incidence data for the last 30 years (1984-2014) are included to describe a data set of male and female patients. The data analysis concerning occurrence, trends of common cancers in male and female patients, stage-wise distribution, and mortality/follow-up cases is also incorporated for the last 10 years (2004-2014). RESULTS The total population of provincial capital Lahore is 9,800,000. The total number of cancer cases was 80,390 (males 32,156, females 48,134). The crude incidence rates in PAECCR areas were 580.8/105 during 2010 to 885.4/105 in 2014 (males 354.1/105, females 530.1/105). The cancer incidence rates for head and neck (15.70%), brain tumors (10.5%), and non-Hodgkin lymphoma (NHL, 9.53%) were found to be the highest in male patients, whereas breast cancer (46.7%), ovary tumors (6.80%), and cervix (6.31%) cancer incidence rates were observed to be the most common in female patients. The age range distribution of diagnosed and treated patients in conjunction with the percentage contribution of cancer patients from 15 different cities of Punjab province treated at the Institute of Nuclear Medicine and Oncology, Lahore are also included. Leukemia was found to be the most common cancer for the age group of 1-12 years. It has been identified that the maximum number of diagnosed cases were found in the age range of 51-60 years for males and 41-50 years for female cancer patients. CONCLUSIONS Overall cancer incidence of the thirty years demonstrated that head and neck and breast cancers in males and in females respectively are the most common cancers in Punjab province in Pakistan, at rates almost the highest in Asia, requiring especial attention. The incidence of brain, NHL, and prostate cancers among males and ovarian and cervix cancers among females have increased rapidly. These data from a major population of Punjab province should be helpful for implementation of appropriate planning, prevention and cancer control measures and for determination of risk factors within the country.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Khalid Masood
- Cancer Prevention and Control Research Group, Department of Medical Physics, Institute of Nuclear Medicine and Oncology Lahore, Lahore, Pakistan E-mail :
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Collapse
|
19
|
Predictive Factors for Reclassification and Relapse in Prostate Cancer Eligible for Active Surveillance: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis. Urology 2016; 91:136-42. [DOI: 10.1016/j.urology.2016.01.034] [Citation(s) in RCA: 15] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.7] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 11/02/2015] [Revised: 01/04/2016] [Accepted: 01/28/2016] [Indexed: 11/22/2022]
|
20
|
Godtman RA, Holmberg E, Khatami A, Pihl CG, Stranne J, Hugosson J. Long-term Results of Active Surveillance in the Göteborg Randomized, Population-based Prostate Cancer Screening Trial. Eur Urol 2016; 70:760-766. [PMID: 27090975 DOI: 10.1016/j.eururo.2016.03.048] [Citation(s) in RCA: 122] [Impact Index Per Article: 13.6] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 01/22/2016] [Accepted: 03/31/2016] [Indexed: 11/28/2022]
Abstract
BACKGROUND Active surveillance (AS) has become a well-accepted and widely used treatment strategy. OBJECTIVE To assess the long-term safety of AS for men with screen-detected prostate cancer (PCa). DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS All men with screen-detected PCa who had very low-, low-, or intermediate-risk PCa and were managed with AS (January 1, 1995 to December 31, 2014) in the Göteborg screening trial. INTERVENTION Prostate-specific antigen tests every 3-12 mo, rebiopsies in cases of clinical progression, and every 2-3 yr in men with stable disease. Triggers for intervention were disease progression (prostate-specific antigen, grade, and/or stage) or patient initiative. OUTCOMES MEASUREMENTS AND STATISTICAL ANALYSIS Treatment-free, failure-free, PCa-specific, and overall survival. The Kaplan-Meier method and Cox proportional hazards models were used. RESULTS AND LIMITATIONS Four-hundred and seventy-four men were managed with AS (median age at diagnosis 66.0 yr, median follow-up 8.0 yr). Two-hundred and two men discontinued AS and initiated treatment. The 10-yr and 15-yr treatment-free survival was 47% and 34%, respectively. The hazard ratio for the treatment for low- and intermediate-risk PCa, compared with very low risk, was 1.4 (95% confidence interval [CI] 1.01-1.94) and 1.6 (95% CI 1.13-2.25). Fifty-four men failed AS. The 10-yr and 15-year failure-free survival was 87% and 72%, respectively. These estimates were 94% and 88% for the very low-risk group, 85% and 77% for the low-risk group, and 73% and 40% for the intermediate-risk group. The hazard ratio for failure for low- and intermediate-risk PCa, compared with very low-risk, was 2.2 (95% CI 1.05-4.47) and 4.8 (95% CI 2.44-9.33). Six men died from PCa and none had very low-risk PCa. The 10-yr and 15-yr PCa-specific survival was 99.5% and 96%, respectively. These estimates were 100% for the very low-risk group, 100% and 94% for the low-risk group, and 98% and 90% for the intermediate-risk group. No predefined protocol was used. CONCLUSIONS AS is safe for men with very low-risk PCa, but for men with low- and intermediate-risk PCa, AS carries a risk of missing the possibility of being able to cure the cancer. It is questionable whether men who are not in the lowest tumor risk group and who have a long remaining life expectancy are suitable candidates for this strategy. PATIENT SUMMARY Long-term results from this study indicate that some men will miss their chance of cure with active surveillance and it is questionable whether active surveillance is a suitable strategy for men who are not in the lowest tumor risk group and who have a very long remaining life expectancy.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Rebecka Arnsrud Godtman
- Department of Urology, Institute of Clinical Sciences, Sahlgrenska Academy at University of Göteborg, Sahlgrenska University Hospital, Göteborg, Sweden.
| | - Erik Holmberg
- Department of Oncology, Institute of Clinical Sciences, Sahlgrenska Academy at University of Göteborg, Göteborg, Sweden
| | - Ali Khatami
- Department of Urology, Institute of Clinical Sciences, Sahlgrenska Academy at University of Göteborg, Sahlgrenska University Hospital, Göteborg, Sweden
| | - Carl-Gustaf Pihl
- Department of Pathology, Institute of Biomedicine, Sahlgrenska Academy at University of Göteborg, Göteborg, Sweden
| | - Johan Stranne
- Department of Urology, Institute of Clinical Sciences, Sahlgrenska Academy at University of Göteborg, Sahlgrenska University Hospital, Göteborg, Sweden
| | - Jonas Hugosson
- Department of Urology, Institute of Clinical Sciences, Sahlgrenska Academy at University of Göteborg, Göteborg, Sweden
| |
Collapse
|
21
|
Klotz L. Active Surveillance: Rationale, Patient Selection, Follow-up, and Outcomes. Prostate Cancer 2016. [DOI: 10.1016/b978-0-12-800077-9.00025-6] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 10/23/2022] Open
|
22
|
Biomarkers for prostate cancer: present challenges and future opportunities. Future Sci OA 2015; 2:FSO72. [PMID: 28031932 PMCID: PMC5137959 DOI: 10.4155/fso.15.72] [Citation(s) in RCA: 28] [Impact Index Per Article: 2.8] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 06/29/2015] [Accepted: 08/10/2015] [Indexed: 01/30/2023] Open
Abstract
Prostate cancer (PCa) has variable biological potential with multiple treatment options. A more personalized approach, therefore, is needed to better define men at higher risk of developing PCa, discriminate indolent from aggressive disease and improve risk stratification after treatment by predicting the likelihood of progression. This may improve clinical decision-making regarding management, improve selection for active surveillance protocols and minimize morbidity from treatment. Discovery of new biomarkers associated with prostate carcinogenesis present an opportunity to provide patients with novel genetic signatures to better understand their risk of developing PCa and help forecast their clinical course. In this review, we examine the current literature evaluating biomarkers in PCa. We also address current limitations and present several ideas for future studies.
Collapse
|
23
|
Capitanio U, Pfister D, Emberton M. Repeat Prostate Biopsy: Rationale, Indications, and Strategies. Eur Urol Focus 2015; 1:127-136. [DOI: 10.1016/j.euf.2015.05.002] [Citation(s) in RCA: 10] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 01/12/2015] [Revised: 05/11/2015] [Accepted: 05/21/2015] [Indexed: 12/21/2022]
|
24
|
Babaian KN. Active surveillance for prostate cancer: when to recommend delayed intervention. Asian J Androl 2015; 17:885-7; discussion 886-7. [PMID: 26178391 PMCID: PMC4814954 DOI: 10.4103/1008-682x.151396] [Citation(s) in RCA: 2] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.2] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 11/04/2022] Open
Abstract
There are no agreed upon guidelines for placing patients on active surveillance (AS). Therefore, there are no absolute criteria for taking patients off AS and when to recommend treatment. The criteria used to define progression are currently based on prostate specific antigen (PSA) kinetics, biopsy reclassification, and change in clinical stage. Multiple studies have evaluated predictors of progression such as PSA, PSA density (PSAD), prostate volume, core positivity, and visible lesion on multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging (mpMRI). Furthermore, published nomograms designed to predict indolent prostate cancer do not perform well when used to predict progression. Newer biomarkers have also not performed well to predict progression. These findings highlight that clinical and pathologic variables are not enough to identify patients that will progress while on AS. In the future, with the use of imaging, biomarkers, and gene expression assays, we should be better equipped to diagnose/stage prostate cancer and to distinguish between insignificant and significant disease.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Kara N Babaian
- Department of Urology, University of California, Irvine, Orange, CA, USA
| |
Collapse
|
25
|
Abstract
Since the dissemination of prostate-specific antigen screening, most men with prostate cancer are now diagnosed with localized, low-risk prostate cancer that is unlikely to be lethal. Nevertheless, nearly all of these men undergo primary treatment with surgery or radiation, placing them at risk for longstanding side effects, including erectile dysfunction and impaired urinary function. Active surveillance and other observational strategies (ie, expectant management) have produced excellent long-term disease-specific survival and minimal morbidity for men with prostate cancer. Despite this, expectant management remains underused for men with localized prostate cancer. In this review, various approaches to the expectant management of men with prostate cancer are summarized, including watchful waiting and active surveillance strategies. Contemporary cancer-specific and health care quality-of-life outcomes are described for each of these approaches. Finally, contemporary patterns of use, potential disparities in care, and ongoing research and controversies surrounding expectant management of men with localized prostate cancer are discussed.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Christopher P Filson
- Health Services Research Fellow, Department of Urology, David Geffen School of Medicine at UCLA, University of California, Los Angeles, Los Angeles, CA
| | - Leonard S Marks
- Professor of Urology, Department of Urology, David Geffen School of Medicine at UCLA, University of California, Los Angeles, Los Angeles, CA
| | - Mark S Litwin
- Chair and Professor of Urology, Department of Urology, David Geffen School of Medicine at UCLA; Professor of Health Services, Department of Health Policy and Management, UCLA Fielding School of Public Health, University of California, Los Angeles, Los Angeles, CA
| |
Collapse
|
26
|
Klotz L. Active surveillance and focal therapy for low-intermediate risk prostate cancer. Transl Androl Urol 2015; 4:342-54. [PMID: 26816834 PMCID: PMC4708232 DOI: 10.3978/j.issn.2223-4683.2015.06.03] [Citation(s) in RCA: 9] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.9] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Download PDF] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 06/01/2015] [Accepted: 06/05/2015] [Indexed: 01/08/2023] Open
Abstract
Low risk and many cases of low-intermediate risk prostate cancer, are indolent, have little or no metastatic potential, and are not life threatening. Major advances have been made in understanding who these patients are, and in encouraging the use of conservative management in such individuals. Conservative management incorporates the early identification of those 'low risk' patients who harbor higher risk disease, and benefit from definitive therapy. Based on the current algorithm of PSA followed by systematic biopsy, this represents about 30% of newly diagnosed low risk patients. A further small proportion of patients with low risk disease demonstrate biological progression to higher grade disease. Men with lower risk disease can defer treatment, usually for life. Men with higher risk disease that can be localized to a relatively small volume of the prostate may be candidates for focal, prostate sparing therapy. The results of active surveillance, embodying conservative management with selective delayed intervention for the subset who are re-classified as higher risk over time based on repeat biopsy, imaging, or biomarker results, have shown that this approach is safe in the intermediate to long term, with a 1-5% cancer specific mortality at 15 years. Further refinement of the surveillance approach is ongoing, incorporating MRI, targeted biopsies, and molecular biomarkers.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Laurence Klotz
- Division of Urology, Sunnybrook Health Sciences Centre, University of Toronto, Canada
| |
Collapse
|
27
|
Defining ‘progression’ and triggers for curative intervention during active surveillance. Curr Opin Urol 2015; 25:258-66. [DOI: 10.1097/mou.0000000000000158] [Citation(s) in RCA: 14] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.4] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 11/25/2022]
|
28
|
When to biopsy seminal vesicles. Actas Urol Esp 2015; 39:203-9. [PMID: 25466644 DOI: 10.1016/j.acuro.2014.10.006] [Citation(s) in RCA: 3] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.3] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 08/10/2014] [Revised: 10/07/2014] [Accepted: 10/09/2014] [Indexed: 11/21/2022]
Abstract
OBJECTIVES The involvement of seminal vesicles in prostate cancer can affect the prognosis and determine the treatment. The objective of this study was to determine whether we could predict its infiltration at the time of the prostate biopsy to know when to indicate the biopsy of the seminal vesicles. MATERIAL AND METHODS observational retrospective study of 466 patients who underwent seminal vesicle biopsy. The indication for this biopsy was a prostate-specific antigen (PSA) level greater than 10 ng/ml or an asymmetric or obliterated prostatoseminal angle. The following variables were included in the analysis: PSA level, PSA density, prostate volume, number of cores biopsied, suspicious rectal examination, and preservation of the prostatoseminal angle, studying its relationship with the involvement of the seminal vesicles. RESULTS Forty-one patients (8.8%) had infiltrated seminal vesicles and 425 (91.2%) had no involvement. In the univariate analysis, the cases with infiltration had a higher mean PSA level (P < .01) and PSA density (P < .01), as well as a lower mean prostate volume (P < .01). A suspicious rectal examination (20.7% of the infiltrated vesicles) and the obliteration or asymmetry of the prostatoseminal angle (33.3% of the infiltrated vesicles) were significantly related to the involvement (P < .01). In the multivariate analysis, we concluded that the probability of having infiltrated seminal vesicles is 5.19 times higher if the prostatoseminal angle is not preserved (P < .01), 4.65 times higher for PSA levels >19.60 ng/dL (P < .01) and 2.95 times higher if there is a suspicious rectal examination (P = .014). Furthermore, this probability increases by 1.04 times for each unit of prostate volume lower (P < .01). The ROC curves showed maximum sensitivity and specificity at 19.6 ng/mL for PSA and 0.39 for PSA density. CONCLUSIONS In this series, greater involvement of seminal vesicles was associated with a PSA level ≥20 ng/ml, a suspicious rectal examination and a lack of prostatoseminal angle preservation.
Collapse
|
29
|
|
30
|
Barayan GA, Aprikian AG, Hanley J, Kassouf W, Brimo F, Bégin LR, Tanguay S. Outcome of repeated prostatic biopsy during active surveillance: implications for focal therapy. World J Urol 2014; 33:1275-80. [DOI: 10.1007/s00345-014-1433-z] [Citation(s) in RCA: 2] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.2] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 09/15/2014] [Accepted: 10/23/2014] [Indexed: 11/29/2022] Open
|
31
|
Loeb S, Bruinsma SM, Nicholson J, Briganti A, Pickles T, Kakehi Y, Carlsson SV, Roobol MJ. Active surveillance for prostate cancer: a systematic review of clinicopathologic variables and biomarkers for risk stratification. Eur Urol 2014; 67:619-26. [PMID: 25457014 DOI: 10.1016/j.eururo.2014.10.010] [Citation(s) in RCA: 113] [Impact Index Per Article: 10.3] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 07/07/2014] [Accepted: 10/03/2014] [Indexed: 11/29/2022]
Abstract
CONTEXT Active surveillance (AS) is an important strategy to reduce prostate cancer overtreatment. However, the optimal criteria for eligibility and predictors of progression while on AS are debated. OBJECTIVE To review primary data on markers, genetic factors, and risk stratification for patient selection and predictors of progression during AS. EVIDENCE ACQUISITION Electronic searches were conducted in PubMed, Embase, and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) from inception to April 2014 for original articles on biomarkers and risk stratification for AS. EVIDENCE SYNTHESIS Patient factors associated with AS outcomes in some studies include age, race, and family history. Multiple studies provide consistent evidence that a lower percentage of free prostate-specific antigen (PSA), a higher Prostate Health Index (PHI), a higher PSA density (PSAD), and greater biopsy core involvement at baseline predict a greater risk of progression. During follow-up, serial measurements of PHI and PSAD, as well as repeat biopsy results, predict later biopsy progression. While some studies have suggested a univariate relationship between urinary prostate cancer antigen 3 (PCA3) and transmembrane protease, serine 2-v-ets avian erythroblastosis virus E26 oncogene homolog gene fusion (TMPRSS2:ERG) with adverse biopsy features, these markers have not been consistently shown to independently predict AS outcomes. No conclusive data support the use of genetic tests in AS. Limitations of these studies include heterogeneous definitions of progression and limited follow-up. CONCLUSIONS There is a growing body of literature on patient characteristics, biopsy features, and biomarkers with potential utility in AS. More data are needed on practical applications such as combining these tests into multivariable clinical algorithms and long-term outcomes to further improve AS in the future. PATIENT SUMMARY Several PSA-based tests (free PSA, PHI, PSAD) and the extent of cancer on biopsy can help to stratify the risk of progression during active surveillance. Investigation of several other markers is under way.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Stacy Loeb
- Department of Urology, New York University and the Manhattan Veterans Affairs Hospital, New York, NY, USA
| | - Sophie M Bruinsma
- Department of Urology, Erasmus Medical Centre, Rotterdam, The Netherlands
| | | | - Alberto Briganti
- Division of Oncology, Unit of Urology, Urological Research Institute, IRCCS Ospedale San Raffaele, Milan, Italy
| | - Tom Pickles
- BC Cancer Agency Radiation Therapy Program, BC Cancer Agency, Vancouver Centre, Vancouver, Canada; University of British Columbia, Vancouver, BC, Canada
| | - Yoshiyuki Kakehi
- Department of Urology, Faculty of Medicine, Kagawa University, Miki-cho, Kita-gun, Kagawa, Japan
| | - Sigrid V Carlsson
- Department of Urology, Institute of Clinical Sciences, Sahlgrenska Academy at University of Gothenburg, Gothenburg, Sweden; Department of Surgery (Urology Service), Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center, New York, NY, USA
| | - Monique J Roobol
- Department of Urology, Erasmus Medical Centre, Rotterdam, The Netherlands.
| |
Collapse
|
32
|
Welty CJ, Cowan JE, Nguyen H, Shinohara K, Perez N, Greene KL, Chan JM, Meng MV, Simko JP, Cooperberg MR, Carroll PR. Extended followup and risk factors for disease reclassification in a large active surveillance cohort for localized prostate cancer. J Urol 2014; 193:807-11. [PMID: 25261803 DOI: 10.1016/j.juro.2014.09.094] [Citation(s) in RCA: 119] [Impact Index Per Article: 10.8] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Accepted: 09/17/2014] [Indexed: 11/30/2022]
Abstract
PURPOSE Active surveillance to manage prostate cancer provides an alternative to immediate treatment in men with low risk prostate cancer. We report updated outcomes from a long-standing active surveillance cohort and factors associated with reclassification. MATERIALS AND METHODS We retrospectively reviewed data on all men enrolled in the active surveillance cohort at our institution with at least 6 months of followup between 1990 and 2013. Surveillance consisted of quarterly prostate specific antigen testing, repeat imaging with transrectal ultrasound at provider discretion and periodic repeat prostate biopsies. Factors associated with repeat biopsy reclassification and local treatment were determined by multivariate Cox proportional hazards regression. We also analyzed the association of prostate specific antigen density and outcomes stratified by prostate size. RESULTS A total of 810 men who consented to participate in the research cohort were followed on active surveillance for a median of 60 months. Of these men 556 (69%) met strict criteria for active surveillance. Five-year overall survival was 98%, treatment-free survival was 60% and biopsy reclassification-free survival was 40%. There were no prostate cancer related deaths. On multivariate analysis prostate specific antigen density was positively associated with the risk of biopsy reclassification and treatment while the number of biopsies and time between biopsies were inversely associated with the 2 outcomes (each p <0.01). When stratified by prostate volume, prostate specific antigen density remained significantly associated with biopsy reclassification for all strata but prostate specific antigen density was only significantly associated with treatment in men with a smaller prostate. CONCLUSIONS Significant prostate cancer related morbidity and mortality remained rare at intermediate followup. Prostate specific antigen density was independently associated with biopsy reclassification and treatment while on active surveillance.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Christopher J Welty
- Department of Urology, University of California-San Francisco Helen Diller Family Comprehensive Cancer Center, University of California-San Francisco, San Francisco, California.
| | - Janet E Cowan
- Department of Urology, University of California-San Francisco Helen Diller Family Comprehensive Cancer Center, University of California-San Francisco, San Francisco, California
| | - Hao Nguyen
- Department of Urology, University of California-San Francisco Helen Diller Family Comprehensive Cancer Center, University of California-San Francisco, San Francisco, California
| | - Katsuto Shinohara
- Department of Urology, University of California-San Francisco Helen Diller Family Comprehensive Cancer Center, University of California-San Francisco, San Francisco, California
| | - Nannette Perez
- Department of Urology, University of California-San Francisco Helen Diller Family Comprehensive Cancer Center, University of California-San Francisco, San Francisco, California
| | - Kirsten L Greene
- Department of Urology, University of California-San Francisco Helen Diller Family Comprehensive Cancer Center, University of California-San Francisco, San Francisco, California
| | - June M Chan
- Department of Urology, University of California-San Francisco Helen Diller Family Comprehensive Cancer Center, University of California-San Francisco, San Francisco, California
| | - Maxwell V Meng
- Department of Urology, University of California-San Francisco Helen Diller Family Comprehensive Cancer Center, University of California-San Francisco, San Francisco, California
| | - Jeffry P Simko
- Department of Urology, University of California-San Francisco Helen Diller Family Comprehensive Cancer Center, University of California-San Francisco, San Francisco, California
| | - Matthew R Cooperberg
- Department of Urology, University of California-San Francisco Helen Diller Family Comprehensive Cancer Center, University of California-San Francisco, San Francisco, California
| | - Peter R Carroll
- Department of Urology, University of California-San Francisco Helen Diller Family Comprehensive Cancer Center, University of California-San Francisco, San Francisco, California
| |
Collapse
|