BACKGROUND: Prostate-specific antigen (PSA) doubling time (PSADT) has emerged as an important surrogate marker of disease progression and survival in men with prostate carcinoma. The literature is replete with different methods for calculating PSADT. The objective of the current study was to identify the method that best described PSA growth over time and predicted disease-specific survival in men with androgen-independent prostate carcinoma. METHODS: PSADT was calculated for 122 patients with androgen-independent prostate carcinoma using 2 commonly used methods: best-line fit (BLF) and first and last observations (FLO). Then, PSADT was calculated by using both a random coefficient linear (RCL) model and a random coefficient quadratic (RCQ) model. Statistical analysis was used to compare the ability of the methods to fit the patients' PSA profiles and to predict disease-specific survival. RESULTS: The RCQ model provided the best fit of the patients' PSA profiles, as determined according to the significance of the added parameters for the RCQ equation (P < or = 0.002). The PSADT estimates from the FLO method, the RCL model, and the RCQ model were highly significant predictors (P < 0.001) of disease-specific survival, whereas estimates from the BLF method were not found to be significant predictors (P = 0.66). PSADT estimates from the RCQ and RCL models provided an improved correlation of disease-specific survival (both R(2) = 0.55) compared to the FLO (R(2) = 0.11) and BFL (R(2) = 0.003) methods. CONCLUSIONS: Random coefficient methods provided a more reliable fit of PSA profiles than other models and were superior to other available models for predicting disease-specific survival in patients with androgen-independent prostate carcinoma. The authors concluded that consideration should be given to applying the RCL or RCQ models in future assessments of PSADT as a predictive parameter.
BACKGROUND:Prostate-specific antigen (PSA) doubling time (PSADT) has emerged as an important surrogate marker of disease progression and survival in men with prostate carcinoma. The literature is replete with different methods for calculating PSADT. The objective of the current study was to identify the method that best described PSA growth over time and predicted disease-specific survival in men with androgen-independent prostate carcinoma. METHODS: PSADT was calculated for 122 patients with androgen-independent prostate carcinoma using 2 commonly used methods: best-line fit (BLF) and first and last observations (FLO). Then, PSADT was calculated by using both a random coefficient linear (RCL) model and a random coefficient quadratic (RCQ) model. Statistical analysis was used to compare the ability of the methods to fit the patients' PSA profiles and to predict disease-specific survival. RESULTS: The RCQ model provided the best fit of the patients' PSA profiles, as determined according to the significance of the added parameters for the RCQ equation (P < or = 0.002). The PSADT estimates from the FLO method, the RCL model, and the RCQ model were highly significant predictors (P < 0.001) of disease-specific survival, whereas estimates from the BLF method were not found to be significant predictors (P = 0.66). PSADT estimates from the RCQ and RCL models provided an improved correlation of disease-specific survival (both R(2) = 0.55) compared to the FLO (R(2) = 0.11) and BFL (R(2) = 0.003) methods. CONCLUSIONS: Random coefficient methods provided a more reliable fit of PSA profiles than other models and were superior to other available models for predicting disease-specific survival in patients with androgen-independent prostate carcinoma. The authors concluded that consideration should be given to applying the RCL or RCQ models in future assessments of PSADT as a predictive parameter.
Authors: Amit M Algotar; Steven P Stratton; James Ranger-Moore; M Suzanne Stratton; C H Hsu; Frederick R Ahmann; Raymond B Nagle; Patricia A Thompson Journal: Am J Mens Health Date: 2011-05
Authors: Vera Graute; Nathalie Jansen; Christopher Ubleis; Michael Seitz; Markus Hartenbach; Michael Karl Scherr; Sven Thieme; Paul Cumming; Katharina Klanke; Reinhold Tiling; Peter Bartenstein; Marcus Hacker Journal: Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging Date: 2011-11-16 Impact factor: 9.236
Authors: A M Algotar; P A Thompson; J Ranger-Moore; M S Stratton; C H Hsu; F R Ahmann; R B Nagle; S P Stratton Journal: Intern Med J Date: 2012-04 Impact factor: 2.048
Authors: Amit M Algotar; Patricia A Thompson; James Ranger-Moore; M Suzanne Stratton; Chiu-Hsieh Hsu; Frederick R Ahmann; Raymond B Nagle; Steven P Stratton Journal: Prostate Date: 2010-06-01 Impact factor: 4.104
Authors: Amit M Algotar; M Suzanne Stratton; Frederick R Ahmann; James Ranger-Moore; Raymond B Nagle; Patricia A Thompson; Elizabeth Slate; Chiu H Hsu; Bruce L Dalkin; Puneet Sindhwani; Michael A Holmes; John A Tuckey; David L Graham; Howard L Parnes; Lawrence C Clark; Steven P Stratton Journal: Prostate Date: 2012-08-10 Impact factor: 4.104
Authors: Matthew Frank O'Brien; Angel M Cronin; Paul A Fearn; Brandon Smith; Jason Stasi; Bertrand Guillonneau; Peter T Scardino; James A Eastham; Andrew J Vickers; Hans Lilja Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2009-06-08 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: Priya N Werahera; L Michael Glode; Francisco G La Rosa; M Scott Lucia; E David Crawford; Kenneth Easterday; Holly T Sullivan; Rameshwar S Sidhu; Elizabeth Genova; Tammy Hedlund Journal: Prostate Cancer Date: 2011-09-21
Authors: Elizabeth R Kessler; Lih-Jen Su; Dexiang Gao; Kathleen C Torkko; Michael Wacker; Mary Anduha; Nicole Chronister; Paul Maroni; E David Crawford; Thomas W Flaig; L Michael Glode; Elaine T Lam Journal: Integr Cancer Ther Date: 2018-10-05 Impact factor: 3.279