1
|
Modlin IM, Kidd M, Drozdov IA, Boegemann M, Bodei L, Kunikowska J, Malczewska A, Bernemann C, Koduru SV, Rahbar K. Development of a multigenomic liquid biopsy (PROSTest) for prostate cancer in whole blood. Prostate 2024; 84:850-865. [PMID: 38571290 DOI: 10.1002/pros.24704] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 01/05/2024] [Revised: 03/04/2024] [Accepted: 03/25/2024] [Indexed: 04/05/2024]
Abstract
INTRODUCTION We describe the development of a molecular assay from publicly available tumor tissue mRNA databases using machine learning and present preliminary evidence of functionality as a diagnostic and monitoring tool for prostate cancer (PCa) in whole blood. MATERIALS AND METHODS We assessed 1055 PCas (public microarray data sets) to identify putative mRNA biomarkers. Specificity was confirmed against 32 different solid and hematological cancers from The Cancer Genome Atlas (n = 10,990). This defined a 27-gene panel which was validated by qPCR in 50 histologically confirmed PCa surgical specimens and matched blood. An ensemble classifier (Random Forest, Support Vector Machines, XGBoost) was trained in age-matched PCas (n = 294), and in 72 controls and 64 BPH. Classifier performance was validated in two independent sets (n = 263 PCas; n = 99 controls). We assessed the panel as a postoperative disease monitor in a radical prostatectomy cohort (RPC: n = 47). RESULTS A PCa-specific 27-gene panel was identified. Matched blood and tumor gene expression levels were concordant (r = 0.72, p < 0.0001). The ensemble classifier ("PROSTest") was scaled 0%-100% and the industry-standard operating point of ≥50% used to define a PCa. Using this, the PROSTest exhibited an 85% sensitivity and 95% specificity for PCa versus controls. In two independent sets, the metrics were 92%-95% sensitivity and 100% specificity. In the RPCs (n = 47), PROSTest scores decreased from 72% ± 7% to 33% ± 16% (p < 0.0001, Mann-Whitney test). PROSTest was 26% ± 8% in 37 with normal postoperative PSA levels (<0.1 ng/mL). In 10 with elevated postoperative PSA, PROSTest was 60% ± 4%. CONCLUSION A 27-gene whole blood signature for PCa is concordant with tissue mRNA levels. Measuring blood expression provides a minimally invasive genomic tool that may facilitate prostate cancer management.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Irvin M Modlin
- Yale University School of Medicine, New Haven, Connecticut, USA
| | - Mark Kidd
- Wren Laboratories LLC, Branford, Connecticut, USA
| | | | - Martin Boegemann
- Department of Urology, Münster University Hospital, Münster, Germany
| | - Lisa Bodei
- Department of Radiology, Molecular Imaging and Therapy Service, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, New York, USA
| | - Jolanta Kunikowska
- Department of Nuclear Medicine, Medical University of Warsaw, Warsaw, Poland
| | - Anna Malczewska
- Department of Endocrinology, Medical University of Silesia, Katowice, Poland
| | | | | | - Kambiz Rahbar
- Department of Nuclear Medicine, Münster University Hospital, Münster, Germany
| |
Collapse
|
2
|
Lischalk JW, Sanchez A, Santos VF, Mendez C, Akerman M, Carpenter T, Tam M, Byun D, Wise DR, Mahadevan A, Evans A, Huang W, Katz A, Lepor H, Haas JA. High-volume prostate biopsy core involvement is not associated with an increased risk of cancer recurrence following 5-fraction stereotactic body radiation therapy monotherapy. Radiat Oncol 2024; 19:29. [PMID: 38439040 PMCID: PMC10913228 DOI: 10.1186/s13014-023-02397-z] [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: 09/01/2023] [Accepted: 12/27/2023] [Indexed: 03/06/2024] Open
Abstract
PURPOSE Percentage of positive cores involved on a systemic prostate biopsy has been established as a risk factor for adverse oncologic outcomes and is a National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN) independent parameter for unfavorable intermediate-risk disease. Most data from a radiation standpoint was published in an era of conventional fractionation. We explore whether the higher biological dose delivered with SBRT can mitigate this risk factor. METHODS A large single institutional database was interrogated to identify all patients diagnosed with localized prostate cancer (PCa) treated with 5-fraction SBRT without ADT. Pathology results were reviewed to determine detailed core involvement as well as Gleason score (GS). High-volume biopsy core involvement was defined as ≥ 50%. Weighted Gleason core involvement was reviewed, giving higher weight to higher-grade cancer. The PSA kinetics and oncologic outcomes were analyzed for association with core involvement. RESULTS From 2009 to 2018, 1590 patients were identified who underwent SBRT for localized PCa. High-volume core involvement was a relatively rare event observed in 19% of our cohort, which was observed more in patients with small prostates (p < 0.0001) and/or intermediate-risk disease (p = 0.005). Higher PSA nadir was observed in those patients with low-volume core involvement within the intermediate-risk cohort (p = 0.004), which was confirmed when core involvement was analyzed as a continuous variable weighted by Gleason score (p = 0.049). High-volume core involvement was not associated with biochemical progression (p = 0.234). CONCLUSIONS With a median follow-up of over 4 years, biochemical progression was not associated with pretreatment high-volume core involvement for patients treated with 5-fraction SBRT alone. In the era of prostate SBRT and MRI-directed prostate biopsies, the use of high-volume core involvement as an independent predictor of unfavorable intermediate risk disease should be revisited.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Jonathan W Lischalk
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Perlmutter Cancer Center at New York University Langone Hospital-Long Island, 150 Amsterdam Ave., New York, NY, 10023, USA.
| | - Astrid Sanchez
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Perlmutter Cancer Center at New York University Langone Hospital-Long Island, Mineola, NY, 11501, USA
| | - Vianca F Santos
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Perlmutter Cancer Center at New York University Langone Hospital-Long Island, 150 Amsterdam Ave., New York, NY, 10023, USA
| | - Christopher Mendez
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Perlmutter Cancer Center at New York University Langone Hospital-Long Island, Mineola, NY, 11501, USA
| | - Meredith Akerman
- Division of Health Services Research, NYU Grossman Long Island School of Medicine, Mineola, NY, 11501, USA
| | - Todd Carpenter
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Perlmutter Cancer Center at New York University Langone Hospital-Long Island, Mineola, NY, 11501, USA
| | - Moses Tam
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Perlmutter Cancer Center at New York University Langone Hospital-Long Island, Mineola, NY, 11501, USA
| | - David Byun
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Perlmutter Cancer Center at New York University Grossman School of Medicine, New York, NY, 10017, USA
| | - David R Wise
- Department of Medicine, Perlmutter Cancer Center at NYU Langone Medical Center, New York, NY, 10017, USA
| | - Anand Mahadevan
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Perlmutter Cancer Center at New York University Langone Hospital, New York, NY, 10017, USA
| | - Andrew Evans
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Perlmutter Cancer Center at New York University Langone Hospital, New York, NY, 10017, USA
| | - William Huang
- Department of Urology, Perlmutter Cancer Center at New York University Grossman School of Medicine, New York, NY, 10017, USA
| | - Aaron Katz
- Department of Urology, Perlmutter Cancer Center at New York University Langone Hospital-Long Island, Mineola, NY, 11501, USA
| | - Herbert Lepor
- Department of Urology, Perlmutter Cancer Center at New York University Grossman School of Medicine, New York, NY, 10017, USA
| | - Jonathan A Haas
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Perlmutter Cancer Center at New York University Langone Hospital-Long Island, Mineola, NY, 11501, USA
| |
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
|
Kirk PS, Zhu K, Zheng Y, Newcomb LF, Schenk JM, Brooks JD, Carroll PR, Dash A, Ellis WJ, Filson CP, Gleave ME, Liss M, Martin F, McKenney JK, Morgan TM, Nelson PS, Thompson IM, Wagner AA, Lin DW, Gore JL. Treatment in the absence of disease reclassification among men on active surveillance for prostate cancer. Cancer 2022; 128:269-274. [PMID: 34516660 PMCID: PMC8738121 DOI: 10.1002/cncr.33911] [Citation(s) in RCA: 1] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.3] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 07/14/2021] [Revised: 08/06/2021] [Accepted: 08/07/2021] [Indexed: 01/17/2023]
Abstract
BACKGROUND Maintaining men on active surveillance for prostate cancer can be challenging. Although most men who eventually undergo treatment have experienced clinical progression, a smaller subset elects treatment in the absence of disease reclassification. This study sought to understand factors associated with treatment in a large, contemporary, prospective cohort. METHODS This study identified 1789 men in the Canary Prostate Cancer Active Surveillance Study cohort enrolled as of 2020 with a median follow-up of 5.6 years. Clinical and demographic data as well as information on patient-reported quality of life and urinary symptoms were used in multivariable Cox proportional hazards regression models to identify factors associated with the time to treatment RESULTS: Within 4 years of their diagnosis, 33% of men (95% confidence interval [CI], 30%-35%) underwent treatment, and 10% (95% CI, 9%-12%) were treated in the absence of reclassification. The most significant factor associated with any treatment was an increasing Gleason grade group (adjusted hazard ratio [aHR], 14.5; 95% CI, 11.7-17.9). Urinary quality-of-life scores were associated with treatment without reclassification (aHR comparing "mostly dissatisfied/terrible" with "pleased/mixed," 2.65; 95% CI, 1.54-4.59). In a subset analysis (n = 692), married men, compared with single men, were more likely to undergo treatment in the absence of reclassification (aHR, 2.63; 95% CI, 1.04-6.66). CONCLUSIONS A substantial number of men with prostate cancer undergo treatment in the absence of clinical changes in their cancers, and quality-of-life changes and marital status may be important factors in these decisions. LAY SUMMARY This analysis of men on active surveillance for prostate cancer shows that approximately 1 in 10 men will decide to be treated within 4 years of their diagnosis even if their cancer is stable. These choices may be related in part to quality-or-life or spousal concerns.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Peter S. Kirk
- Department of Urology, University of Washington, Seattle, WA
| | - Kehao Zhu
- Biostatistics Program, Public Health Sciences, Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center, Seattle, WA
| | - Yingye Zheng
- Biostatistics Program, Public Health Sciences, Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center, Seattle, WA
| | - Lisa F. Newcomb
- Department of Urology, University of Washington, Seattle, WA
- Cancer Prevention Program, Public Health Sciences, Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center, Seattle, WA
| | - Jeannette M. Schenk
- Cancer Prevention Program, Public Health Sciences, Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center, Seattle, WA
| | | | - Peter R. Carroll
- Department of Urology, University of California, San Francisco, CA
| | - Atreya Dash
- VA Puget Sound Health Care Systems, Seattle, WA
| | | | | | - Martin E. Gleave
- Department of Urologic Sciences, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, BC
| | - Michael Liss
- Department of Urology, University of Texas Health Sciences Center, San Antonio, TX
| | - Frances Martin
- Department of Urology, Eastern Virginia Medical School, Virginia Beach, VA
| | - Jesse K. McKenney
- Robert J. Tomsich Pathology and Laboratory Medicine Institute, Cleveland Clinic, Cleveland, OH
| | - Todd M. Morgan
- Department of Urology, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI
| | - Peter S. Nelson
- Division of Human Biology and Clinical Research, Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center, Seattle, WA
| | | | - Andrew A. Wagner
- Division of Urology, Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center, Boston, MA
| | - Daniel W. Lin
- Department of Urology, University of Washington, Seattle, WA
- Cancer Prevention Program, Public Health Sciences, Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center, Seattle, WA
| | - John L. Gore
- Department of Urology, University of Washington, Seattle, WA
| |
Collapse
|
5
|
Rubio-Briones J, Pastor Navarro B, Esteban Escaño LM, Borque Fernando A. Update and optimization of active surveillance in prostate cancer in 2021. Actas Urol Esp 2021; 45:1-7. [PMID: 33070989 DOI: 10.1016/j.acuro.2020.09.002] [Citation(s) in RCA: 5] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.3] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 08/20/2020] [Accepted: 09/06/2020] [Indexed: 11/28/2022]
Abstract
INTRODUCTION AND OBJECTIVES Within the paradigm shift of the last decade in the management of prostate cancer (PCa), perhaps the most relevant event has been the emergence of active surveillance (AS) as a mandatory strategy in low-risk disease. We carry out a critical review of the clinical, pathological and radiological improvements that allow optimizing AS in 2021. MATERIAL AND METHODS Critical narrative review of the literature on improvement issues and controversial aspects of AS. RESULTS Adequate use of traditional criteria, optimized by enhanced biopsy and calculation of the prostate volume technique thanks to multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging (mpMRI) allow a better selection of patients for AS. This management should not be limited to patients under 60years of age, and patients with intermediate-risk PCa should be carefully selected to be included. Biopsies are still required in the follow-up, which can be personalized according to risk patterns. The pathologist must identify the cribriform or intraductal histology on biopsies in order to exclude these patients from AS, in the same way as with patients with alterations in DNA repair genes. CONCLUSIONS Controversial indications such as the inclusion of patients from intermediate-risk groups, or the transition to active treatment due to exclusive progression in tumor volume, should be further optimized. It is possible that the future competition of tissue biomarkers, the refinement of objective parameters of mpMRI and the validation of PSA kinetics calculators may sub-stratify risk groups.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- J Rubio-Briones
- Servicio de Urología, Instituto Valenciano de Oncología, Valencia, España.
| | - B Pastor Navarro
- Laboratorio de Biología Molecular, Instituto Valenciano de Oncología, Valencia, España
| | | | - A Borque Fernando
- Servicio Urología, Hospital Universitario Miguel Servet, Zaragoza, España
| |
Collapse
|
6
|
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
|
7
|
Cumulative Cancer Locations is a Novel Metric for Predicting Active Surveillance Outcomes: A Multicenter Study. Eur Urol Oncol 2019; 1:268-275. [PMID: 31100247 DOI: 10.1016/j.euo.2018.04.006] [Citation(s) in RCA: 5] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.8] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 03/22/2018] [Revised: 04/06/2018] [Accepted: 04/13/2018] [Indexed: 11/20/2022]
Abstract
BACKGROUND Active surveillance (AS) of prostate cancer (PC) has increased in popularity to address overtreatment. OBJECTIVE To determine whether a novel metric, cumulative cancer locations (CCLO), can predict AS outcomes in a group of AS patients with low and very low risk. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS CCLO is obtained by summing the total number of histological cancer-positive locations in both diagnostic and confirmatory biopsies (Bx). The retrospective study cohort comprised three prospective AS cohorts (Helsinki University Hospital: n=316; European Institute of Oncology: n=204; and University of Münster: n=89). OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS AND STATISTICAL ANALYSIS We analyzed whether risk stratification based on CCLO predicts different AS outcomes: protocol-based discontinuation (PBD), Gleason upgrading (GU) during AS, and adverse findings in radical prostatectomy (RP) specimens. RESULTS In Kaplan Meier analyses, patients in the CCLO high-risk group experienced significantly shorter event-free survival for all outcomes (PBD, GU, and adverse RP findings; all p<0.002). In multivariable Cox regression analysis, patients in the CCLO high-risk group had a significantly higher risk of experiencing PBD (hazard ratio [HR] 12.15, 95% confidence interval [CI] 6.18-23.9; p<0.001), GU (HR 6.01, 95% CI 2.16-16.8; p=0.002), and adverse RP findings (HR 9.144, 95% CI 2.27-36.9; p=0.006). In receiver operating characteristic analyses, the area under the curve for CCLO outperformed the number of cancer-positive Bxs in confirmatory Bx in predicting PBD (0.734 vs 0.682), GU (0.655 vs 0.576) and adverse RP findings (0.662 vs 0.561) and the added value was supported by decision curve analysis. CONCLUSIONS CCLO is distinct from the number of positive Bx cores. Higher CCLO predicts AS outcomes and may aid in selection of patients for AS. PATIENT SUMMARY For patients on active surveillance for prostate cancer, the cumulative number of cancer-positive locations in diagnostic and confirmatory biopsies is a predictor of active surveillance outcomes.
Collapse
|
8
|
Initial diagnosis of insignificant cancer, high-grade prostatic intraepithelial neoplasia, atypical small acinar proliferation, and negative have the same rate of upgrade to a Gleason score of 7 or higher on repeat prostate biopsy. Hum Pathol 2018; 79:116-121. [DOI: 10.1016/j.humpath.2018.05.011] [Citation(s) in RCA: 4] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.6] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 03/14/2018] [Revised: 05/05/2018] [Accepted: 05/20/2018] [Indexed: 11/19/2022]
|
9
|
Preventing clinical progression and need for treatment in patients on active surveillance for prostate cancer. Curr Opin Urol 2017; 28:46-54. [PMID: 29028765 DOI: 10.1097/mou.0000000000000455] [Citation(s) in RCA: 7] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.9] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 01/04/2023]
Abstract
PURPOSE OF REVIEW Active surveillance is an established treatment option for men with localized, low-risk prostate cancer (CaP). It entails the postponement of immediate therapy with the option of delayed intervention upon disease progression. The rate of clinical progression and need for treatment on active surveillance is approximately 50% over 15 years. The present review summarizes recent data on current methods, attempting to prevent clinical progression. RECENT FINDINGS Patient selection for active surveillance is the first mandatory step required to lower progression. Adherence to active surveillance protocols is critical in making sure patients are monitored well and treated early when progression occurs. Before active surveillance allocation and during active surveillance follow-up, methods involving multiparametric MRI, prostate specific antigen derivatives, biopsy factors, urinary, tissue and genetic markers can be used to prevent clinical progression and/or identify those at risk for progression. Medications such as 5α-reductase inhibitors and others might inhibit disease progression in patients on active surveillance. SUMMARY Active surveillance is required because of overdiagnosis, along with our inability to accurately predict individual CaP behavior. Several methods can potentially reduce the risk of CaP progression in patients with active surveillance. However, a measure of uncertainty and fear of progression will always accompany patients with active surveillance and the physicians treating them.
Collapse
|
10
|
Nachsorge urologischer Tumorbehandlungen. Urologe A 2015; 54:1223-33. [DOI: 10.1007/s00120-015-3936-7] [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]
|
11
|
Ukimura O, Gross ME, de Castro Abreu AL, Azhar RA, Matsugasumi T, Ushijima S, Kanazawa M, Aron M, Gill IS. A novel technique using three-dimensionally documented biopsy mapping allows precise re-visiting of prostate cancer foci with serial surveillance of cell cycle progression gene panel. Prostate 2015; 75:863-71. [PMID: 25663102 DOI: 10.1002/pros.22969] [Citation(s) in RCA: 17] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.7] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 11/23/2014] [Accepted: 12/26/2014] [Indexed: 11/09/2022]
Abstract
BACKGROUND Conventional systematic biopsy has the shortcoming of sampling error and reveals "no evidence of cancer" with a rate of >50% on active surveillance (AS). The objective of this study is to report our initial experience of applying a 3D-documented biopsy-mapping technology to precisely re-visit geographically documented low-risk prostate cancer and to perform serial analysis of cell-cycle-progression (CCP) gene-panel. METHODS Over a period of 40 months (1/2010-4/2013), the 3D-biopsy-mapping technique, in which the spatial location of biopsy-trajectory was digitally recorded (Koelis), was carried out. A pair of diagnostic (1st-look) and surveillance (2nd-look) biopsy were performed per subject (n = 25), with median interval of 12 months. The documented biopsy-trajectory was used as a target to guide the re-visiting biopsy from the documented cancer focus, as well as the targeted field-biopsy from the un-sampled prostatic field adjacent to negative diagnostic biopsies. The accuracy of re-visiting biopsy and biopsy-derived CCP signatures were evaluated in the pair of the serial biopsy-cores. RESULTS The 1st-look-biopsy revealed a total of 43 cancer lesions (1.7 per patient). The accuracy of re-visiting cancer was 86% (37/43) per lesion, 76% (65/86) per core, and 80% (20/25) per patient. This technology also provided an opportunity for 3D-targeted field-biopsy in order to potentially minimize sampling errors. The CCP gene-panel of the 1st-look (-0.59) versus 2nd-look (-0.37) samples had no significant difference (P = 0.4); which suggested consistency in the molecular signature of the known cancer foci during the short-time interval of median 12 months. Any change in CCP of the same cancer foci would be likely due to change in sampling location from the less to more significant portion in the cancer foci rather than true molecular progression. The study limitations include a small number of the patients. CONCLUSION The 3D-documented biopsy-mapping technology achieved an encouraging re-sampling accuracy of 86% from the known prostate cancer foci, allowing the serial analysis of biopsy-derived CCP signatures.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Osamu Ukimura
- USC Institute of Urology, Keck School of Medicine, University of Southern California, Los Angeles, California
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Collapse
|
12
|
Rubio-Briones J, Iborra I, Ramírez M, Calatrava A, Collado A, Casanova J, Domínguez-Escrig J, Gómez-Ferrer A, Ricós JV, Monrós JL, Dumont R, López-Guerrero JA, Salas D, Solsona E. Obligatory information that a patient diagnosed of prostate cancer and candidate for an active surveillance protocol must know. Actas Urol Esp 2014; 38:559-65. [PMID: 24636075 DOI: 10.1016/j.acuro.2014.02.007] [Citation(s) in RCA: 25] [Impact Index Per Article: 2.3] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 02/03/2014] [Accepted: 02/06/2014] [Indexed: 11/17/2022]
Abstract
OBJECTIVES To know the necessary information to reproduce the results found in the literature on active surveillance (AS) in prostate cancer (PCa) in our own center so that the information would be objective and correctly given to the patients. We have aimed to study the percentage of candidates for AS chosen in our setting, and the data on infrastaging, subgrading and prediction of insignificant PCa, debugging the predictive value of clinical variables to improve our selection criteria and finally to analyze the results of our patients enrolled in AS. MATERIALS AND METHODS A retro- and prospective review of our data bases was performed. A one-year period was analyzed to know AS candidates. Analysis of our radical prostatectomy specimens for infrastaging, subgrading and prediction of insignificant PCa (Epstein's criteria) was made as well as a uni/multivariate analysis of clinical variables in patients with insignificant PCa in the specimen. A prospective validation was performed with overall survival and survival free of active treatment (SFAT) as endpoints in patients enrolled in AS. RESULTS Between October-2010/October-2011, 44.7% of our PCa were candidates for AS, but only 11.2% choose it. The percentages found for infrastaging, subgrading and prediction of insignificant PCa were 14%, 31.4% and 55.7%, respectively. However, only just 6 patients (6.97%) had≥pT3a+Gleason≥7+volume>0.5cc PCa. The multivariate analysis showed that PSA density and number of affected cores were independent predictors of insignificant PCa. With a mean follow-up of 36±39months, 63 out of 232 patients enrolled in AS went on to active treatment (27.1%), with only 13 due to anxiety without pathologic progression. Median time of SFAT was 72.7 months (CI 95% 30.9-114.4). SFAT at 24 months was 76.4% (69.7-83.1%) and at 48 months 58.1% (48.8-67.4%). Only 10 patients died (4.3%), 9 due to causes different of PCa. Estimated overall survival at 5 years was 92.8% (CI 95% 86.7-98.9%). CONCLUSIONS It should be mandatory to have the exact knowledge of the local data of each Center in order to objectively inform patients about prostate biopsy efficiency, and if percentages of infrastaging, subgrading and prediction of insignificant PCa are in accordance with the literature. At 3 years, we reproduced the results of the longest series of AS, so we have ascertained that our AS protocol can be implemented with increasingly more patients.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- J Rubio-Briones
- Servicio de Urología, Instituto Valenciano de Oncología, Valencia, España.
| | - I Iborra
- Servicio de Urología, Instituto Valenciano de Oncología, Valencia, España
| | - M Ramírez
- Servicio de Urología, Instituto Valenciano de Oncología, Valencia, España
| | - A Calatrava
- Servicio de Anatomía Patológica, Instituto Valenciano de Oncología, Valencia, España
| | - A Collado
- Servicio de Urología, Instituto Valenciano de Oncología, Valencia, España
| | - J Casanova
- Servicio de Urología, Instituto Valenciano de Oncología, Valencia, España
| | - J Domínguez-Escrig
- Servicio de Urología, Instituto Valenciano de Oncología, Valencia, España
| | - A Gómez-Ferrer
- Servicio de Urología, Instituto Valenciano de Oncología, Valencia, España
| | - J V Ricós
- Servicio de Urología, Instituto Valenciano de Oncología, Valencia, España
| | - J L Monrós
- Servicio de Urología, Instituto Valenciano de Oncología, Valencia, España
| | - R Dumont
- Servicio de Urología, Instituto Valenciano de Oncología, Valencia, España
| | - J A López-Guerrero
- Laboratorio de Biología Molecular, Instituto Valenciano de Oncología, Valencia, España
| | - D Salas
- Departamento de Salud Pública, Consellería de Sanidad, Generalitat Valenciana, Valencia, España
| | - E Solsona
- Servicio de Urología, Instituto Valenciano de Oncología, Valencia, España
| |
Collapse
|
13
|
Obligatory information that a patient diagnosed of prostate cancer and candidate for an active surveillance protocol must know. ACTA ACUST UNITED AC 2014. [DOI: 10.1016/j.acuroe.2014.09.004] [Citation(s) in RCA: 1] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.1] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 11/23/2022]
|
14
|
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
|
15
|
Barayan GA, Brimo F, Bégin LR, Hanley JA, Liu Z, Kassouf W, Aprikian AG, Tanguay S. Factors influencing disease progression of prostate cancer under active surveillance: a McGill University Health Center cohort. BJU Int 2014; 114:E99-E104. [DOI: 10.1111/bju.12754] [Citation(s) in RCA: 36] [Impact Index Per Article: 3.3] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 11/30/2022]
Affiliation(s)
- Ghassan A. Barayan
- Division of Urology; Department of Surgery; McGill University; Montreal QC Canada
| | - Fadi Brimo
- Department of Pathology; McGill University; Montreal QC Canada
| | - Louis R. Bégin
- Department of Pathology; McGill University; Montreal QC Canada
| | - James A. Hanley
- Department of Epidemiology and Biostatistics; McGill University; Montreal QC Canada
| | - Zhihui Liu
- Department of Epidemiology and Biostatistics; McGill University; Montreal QC Canada
| | - Wassim Kassouf
- Division of Urology; Department of Surgery; McGill University; Montreal QC Canada
| | - Armen G. Aprikian
- Division of Urology; Department of Surgery; McGill University; Montreal QC Canada
| | - Simon Tanguay
- Division of Urology; Department of Surgery; McGill University; Montreal QC Canada
| |
Collapse
|
16
|
The accuracy of prostate cancer localization diagnosed on transrectal ultrasound-guided biopsy compared to 3-dimensional transperineal approach. Adv Urol 2013; 2013:249080. [PMID: 24470798 PMCID: PMC3891607 DOI: 10.1155/2013/249080] [Citation(s) in RCA: 8] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.7] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 10/26/2013] [Revised: 12/03/2013] [Accepted: 12/11/2013] [Indexed: 11/18/2022] Open
Abstract
Background. Prostate cancer is often understaged following 12-core transrectal ultrasound- (TRUS-) guided biopsies. Our goal is to understand where cancers are typically missed by this method. Methods. Transperineal 3-dimensional mapping biopsy (3DMB) provides a more accurate depiction of disease status than transrectal ultrasound- (TRUS-) guided biopsy. We compared 3DMB findings in men with prior TRUS-guided biopsies to determine grade and location of missed cancer. Results were evaluated for 161 men with low-risk organ confined prostate cancer. Results. The number of cancer-positive biopsy zones per patient with TRUS was 1.38 ± 1.21 compared to 3.33 ± 4.06 with 3DMB, with most newly discovered cancers originating from the middle lobe and apex. Approximately half of all newly discovered cancerous zones resulted from anterior 3DMB sampling. Gleason upgrade was recognized in 56 patients using 3DMB. When both biopsy methods found positive cores in a given zone, Gleason upgrades occurred most frequently in the middle left and right zones. TRUS cancer-positive zones not confirmed by 3DMB were most often the basal zones. Conclusion. Most cancer upgrades and cancers missed from TRUS biopsy originated in the middle left zone of the prostate, specifically in anterior regions. Anterior sampling may lead to more accurate diagnosis and appropriate followup.
Collapse
|
17
|
Alonzo DG, Mure AL, Soloway MS. Prostate cancer and the increasing role of active surveillance. Postgrad Med 2013; 125:109-16. [PMID: 24113669 DOI: 10.3810/pgm.2013.09.2705] [Citation(s) in RCA: 6] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.5] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 11/05/2022]
Abstract
Prostate cancer (PC) is the most often diagnosed non-skin cancer and the second leading cause of cancer-related death among men in the United States. As a result, for many years the American Urological Association (AUA) and the American Cancer Society have issued statements recommending screening for PC, resulting in its widespread implementation in the United States. Recently, the United States Preventative Services Task Force gave PC screening a recommendation of D, that is, against PC screening for all men. The AUA countered this recommendation, stating that since the development of PC screening using prostate-specific antigen, a reduction in PC-specific mortality has been seen, and that the risk reduction occurred in a setting in which many of the patients were not aggressively treated for prostate cancer. Active surveillance may be described as a method to potentially delay or obviate the need for treatment in men with clinically insignificant PC or PC thought to be at low risk for progression. Studies have shown no significant difference in outcome or pathology between men with low risk PC who receive treatment at the point of progression and those undergoing immediate treatment. Ongoing studies are evaluating the efficacy and utility of active surveillance for low-risk PC. Interim results of these studies have shown that approximately 30% of patients progress on active surveillance. However, "progression" does not necessarily mean treatment failure; rarely do patients develop locally advanced or metastatic disease. Active surveillance has also been shown to be cost-effective when compared with immediate treatment for PC. Longer follow-up may continue to show an increased benefit of active surveillance as a reasonable initial approach to the management of men with low-risk, clinically localized PC.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- David Gabriel Alonzo
- The University of Miami Miller School of Medicine, Department of Urology, Miami, FL
| | | | | |
Collapse
|
18
|
Cussenot O, Cornu JN, Drouin SJ, Mozer P, Egrot C, Vaessen C, Haab F, Bitker MO, Rouprêt M. Secondary chemoprevention of localized prostate cancer by short-term androgen deprivation to select indolent tumors suitable for active surveillance: a prospective pilot phase II study. World J Urol 2013; 32:545-50. [DOI: 10.1007/s00345-013-1196-y] [Citation(s) in RCA: 7] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.6] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 08/12/2013] [Accepted: 10/16/2013] [Indexed: 10/26/2022] Open
|
19
|
Increased incidence of pathologically nonorgan confined prostate cancer in African-American men eligible for active surveillance. Urology 2013; 81:831-5. [PMID: 23465143 DOI: 10.1016/j.urology.2012.12.046] [Citation(s) in RCA: 38] [Impact Index Per Article: 3.2] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 10/17/2012] [Revised: 11/24/2012] [Accepted: 12/04/2012] [Indexed: 11/23/2022]
Abstract
OBJECTIVE To compare the clinicopathologic findings of African-American (AA) and White-American (WA) men with prostate cancer (PCa) who were candidates for active surveillance (AS) and underwent radical prostatectomy (RP). METHODS Prospectively maintained database of men who underwent RP from 2 academic centers were analyzed retrospectively. Postoperative pathologic characteristics of patients who met the AS inclusion criteria of the University of California, San Francisco (UCSF) and National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN) were evaluated. After RP, the rate of pathological upstaging and Gleason upgrading were compared between AA and WA men. RESULTS In the AA cohort, 196 and 124 men met the UCSF and NCCN criteria for AS, respectively. With respect to WA patients, 191 and 148 fulfilled the AS criteria for UCSF and NCCN, respectively. AA men had a higher percentage of maximum biopsy core than WA men (15.3%-20.4% vs 11.5%-15.0%, P <.05, respectively) in both cohorts. In addition, a greater proportion of AA men had multiple positive biopsy cores compared to WA men (45.2% vs 33.1%, P = .046) under the NCCN criteria. A higher proportion of AA men were upstaged (≥pT3) compared to WA men (19.4% vs 10.1%, P = .037). A multivariate regression test revealed that age, preoperative PSA, and number of positive cores were independent predictors of more advanced disease (upstaging and/or upgrading) in AA men. CONCLUSION AA men who were candidates for AS criteria had worse clinicopathological features on final surgical pathology than WA men. These results suggest that a more stringent AS criteria should be considered in AA men with prostate cancer.
Collapse
|