Literature DB >> 16858675

Gleason score, age and screening: modeling dedifferentiation in prostate cancer.

Gerrit Draisma1, Renske Postma, Fritz H Schröder, Theo H van der Kwast, Harry J de Koning.   

Abstract

Tumor differentiation as measured by the Gleason score is highly predictive of the course of prostatic cancer after diagnosis. Since the introduction of the prostate-specific antigen (PSA) test tumors are diagnosed with a favorable tumor stage and differentiation grade. Does screening with PSA just detect more tumors with favorable characteristics or is dedifferentiation actually being prevented by early detection and consequent treatment? The latter option implies that tumors dedifferentiate in the preclinical screen-detectable phase. To model the natural history of prostate cancer, we analyzed the age-specific distribution of clinical stage and Gleason score of 2,204 tumors diagnosed in the ERSPC-Rotterdam trial. We fitted 2 MISCAN simulation models to the observed data: Model I where tumors dedifferentiate before becoming screen-detectable and Model II where dedifferentiation occurs during the screen-detectable preclinical phase. The hypothesis of dedifferentiation during the screen-detectable phase was tested by a goodness of fit test of both models. In ERSPC-Rotterdam, we observed a significantly more favorable distribution of Gleason scores in screen-detected cancers compared to cancers found in the control arm, and in cancers detected in the second round compared to cancers detected in the first round of screening. Also, a significant association between Gleason score and age at diagnosis was found, most notably in cancers detected in the first round of screening. These findings were reproduced by Model II and less so by Model I, with a significant difference in goodness of fit between the 2 models (p < 0.001). This study provides epidemiological evidence of dedifferentiation as a major mechanism of progression in prostate cancer. Tumors dedifferentiate during the screen-detectable phase and consequently screening with PSA and early treatment can possibly prevent dedifferentiation.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2006        PMID: 16858675     DOI: 10.1002/ijc.22158

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Int J Cancer        ISSN: 0020-7136            Impact factor:   7.396


  25 in total

Review 1.  Calibration methods used in cancer simulation models and suggested reporting guidelines.

Authors:  Natasha K Stout; Amy B Knudsen; Chung Yin Kong; Pamela M McMahon; G Scott Gazelle
Journal:  Pharmacoeconomics       Date:  2009       Impact factor: 4.981

2.  Modeling grade progression in an active surveillance study.

Authors:  Lurdes Y T Inoue; Bruce J Trock; Alan W Partin; Herbert B Carter; Ruth Etzioni
Journal:  Stat Med       Date:  2013-10-09       Impact factor: 2.373

3.  Screening for prostate cancer in the US? Reduce the harms and keep the benefit.

Authors:  Tiago M de Carvalho; Eveline A M Heijnsdijk; Harry J de Koning
Journal:  Int J Cancer       Date:  2014-09-01       Impact factor: 7.396

4.  The efficacy of prostate-specific antigen screening: Impact of key components in the ERSPC and PLCO trials.

Authors:  Harry J de Koning; Roman Gulati; Sue M Moss; Jonas Hugosson; Paul F Pinsky; Christine D Berg; Anssi Auvinen; Gerald L Andriole; Monique J Roobol; E David Crawford; Vera Nelen; Maciej Kwiatkowski; Marco Zappa; Marcos Luján; Arnauld Villers; Tiago M de Carvalho; Eric J Feuer; Alex Tsodikov; Angela B Mariotto; Eveline A M Heijnsdijk; Ruth Etzioni
Journal:  Cancer       Date:  2017-12-06       Impact factor: 6.860

5.  [Status of care for prostate cancer in 2008].

Authors:  B Arndt; M Kwiatkowski; F Recker
Journal:  Urologe A       Date:  2008-08       Impact factor: 0.639

6.  Change in prostate cancer grade over time in men followed expectantly for stage T1c disease.

Authors:  Todd B Sheridan; H Ballentine Carter; Wenle Wang; Patricia B Landis; Jonathan I Epstein
Journal:  J Urol       Date:  2008-01-22       Impact factor: 7.450

7.  Prostate-specific antigen screening in the United States vs in the European Randomized Study of Screening for Prostate Cancer-Rotterdam.

Authors:  Elisabeth M Wever; Gerrit Draisma; Eveline A M Heijnsdijk; Monique J Roobol; Rob Boer; Suzie J Otto; Harry J de Koning
Journal:  J Natl Cancer Inst       Date:  2010-02-08       Impact factor: 13.506

Review 8.  Defining the threshold for significant versus insignificant prostate cancer.

Authors:  Theo H Van der Kwast; Monique J Roobol
Journal:  Nat Rev Urol       Date:  2013-05-28       Impact factor: 14.432

9.  Lead time and overdiagnosis in prostate-specific antigen screening: importance of methods and context.

Authors:  Gerrit Draisma; Ruth Etzioni; Alex Tsodikov; Angela Mariotto; Elisabeth Wever; Roman Gulati; Eric Feuer; Harry de Koning
Journal:  J Natl Cancer Inst       Date:  2009-03-10       Impact factor: 13.506

10.  Overdetection, overtreatment and costs in prostate-specific antigen screening for prostate cancer.

Authors:  E A M Heijnsdijk; A der Kinderen; E M Wever; G Draisma; M J Roobol; H J de Koning
Journal:  Br J Cancer       Date:  2009-11-10       Impact factor: 7.640

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.