PURPOSE: We assessed the use of quantitative clinical and pathologic information to predict which patients would eventually require treatment for prostate cancer (CaP) in an expectant management (EM) cohort. EXPERIMENTAL DESIGN: We identified 75 men having prostate cancer with favorable initial biopsy characteristics; 30 developed an unfavorable biopsy (Gleason grade >6, >2 cores with cancer, >50% of a core with cancer, or a palpable nodule) requiring treatment and 45 maintained favorable biopsies throughout a median follow-up of 2.7 years. Demographic, clinical data and quantitative tissue histomorphometry determined by digital image analysis were analyzed. RESULTS: Logistic regression (LR) modeling generated a quantitative nuclear grade (QNG) signature based on the enrollment biopsy for differentiation of Favorable and Unfavorable groups using a variable LR selection criteria of P(z)<0.05. The QNG signature utilized 12 nuclear morphometric descriptors (NMDs) and had an area under the receiver operator characteristic curve (ROC-AUC) of 87% with a sensitivity of 82%, specificity of 70% and accuracy of 75%. A multivariable LR model combining QNG signature with clinical and pathological variables yielded an AUC-ROC of 88% and a sensitivity of 81%, specificity of 78% and accuracy of 79%. A LR model using prostate volume, PSA density, and number of pre-diagnosis biopsies resulted in an AUC-ROC of 68% and a sensitivity of 85%, specificity of 37% and accuracy of 56%. CONCLUSIONS: QNG using EM prostate biopsies improves the predictive accuracy of LR models based on traditional clinicopathologic variables in determining which patients will ultimately develop an unfavorable biopsy. Our QNG-based model must be rigorously, prospectively validated prior to use in the clinical arena.
PURPOSE: We assessed the use of quantitative clinical and pathologic information to predict which patients would eventually require treatment for prostate cancer (CaP) in an expectant management (EM) cohort. EXPERIMENTAL DESIGN: We identified 75 men having prostate cancer with favorable initial biopsy characteristics; 30 developed an unfavorable biopsy (Gleason grade >6, >2 cores with cancer, >50% of a core with cancer, or a palpable nodule) requiring treatment and 45 maintained favorable biopsies throughout a median follow-up of 2.7 years. Demographic, clinical data and quantitative tissue histomorphometry determined by digital image analysis were analyzed. RESULTS: Logistic regression (LR) modeling generated a quantitative nuclear grade (QNG) signature based on the enrollment biopsy for differentiation of Favorable and Unfavorable groups using a variable LR selection criteria of P(z)<0.05. The QNG signature utilized 12 nuclear morphometric descriptors (NMDs) and had an area under the receiver operator characteristic curve (ROC-AUC) of 87% with a sensitivity of 82%, specificity of 70% and accuracy of 75%. A multivariable LR model combining QNG signature with clinical and pathological variables yielded an AUC-ROC of 88% and a sensitivity of 81%, specificity of 78% and accuracy of 79%. A LR model using prostate volume, PSA density, and number of pre-diagnosis biopsies resulted in an AUC-ROC of 68% and a sensitivity of 85%, specificity of 37% and accuracy of 56%. CONCLUSIONS: QNG using EM prostate biopsies improves the predictive accuracy of LR models based on traditional clinicopathologic variables in determining which patients will ultimately develop an unfavorable biopsy. Our QNG-based model must be rigorously, prospectively validated prior to use in the clinical arena.
Authors: Christopher Warlick; Bruce J Trock; Patricia Landis; Jonathan I Epstein; H Ballentine Carter Journal: J Natl Cancer Inst Date: 2006-03-01 Impact factor: 13.506
Authors: Jose D Debes; Thomas J Sebo; Hannelore V Heemers; Benjamin R Kipp; De Anna L Haugen; Christine M Lohse; Donald J Tindall Journal: Cancer Res Date: 2005-02-01 Impact factor: 12.701
Authors: David B Seligson; Steve Horvath; Tao Shi; Hong Yu; Sheila Tze; Michael Grunstein; Siavash K Kurdistani Journal: Nature Date: 2005-06-30 Impact factor: 49.962
Authors: Ahmedin Jemal; Rebecca Siegel; Elizabeth Ward; Taylor Murray; Jiaquan Xu; Carol Smigal; Michael J Thun Journal: CA Cancer J Clin Date: 2006 Mar-Apr Impact factor: 508.702
Authors: Michael K Brawer; Danil V Makarov; Alan W Partin; Claus G Roehrborn; J Curtis Nickel; Michael B Chancellor; Dean G Assimos; Ellen Shapiro; Jacob Rajfer Journal: Rev Urol Date: 2007
Authors: Neil M Carleton; Guangjing Zhu; Mikhail Gorbounov; M Craig Miller; Kenneth J Pienta; Linda M S Resar; Robert W Veltri Journal: Prostate Date: 2018-03-09 Impact factor: 4.104
Authors: Danil V Makarov; Sumit Isharwal; Lori J Sokoll; Patricia Landis; Cameron Marlow; Jonathan I Epstein; Alan W Partin; H Ballentine Carter; Robert W Veltri Journal: Clin Cancer Res Date: 2009-11-24 Impact factor: 12.531
Authors: Daniel T Keefe; Nicola Schieda; Soufiane El Hallani; Rodney H Breau; Chris Morash; Susan J Robertson; Kien T Mai; Eric C Belanger; Trevor A Flood Journal: Virchows Arch Date: 2015-07-31 Impact factor: 4.064
Authors: Madeleine S Q Kortenhorst; Sumit Isharwal; Paul J van Diest; Wasim H Chowdhury; Cameron Marlow; Michael A Carducci; Ronald Rodriguez; Robert W Veltri Journal: Mol Cancer Ther Date: 2009-04 Impact factor: 6.261
Authors: Sumit Isharwal; M Craig Miller; Jonathan I Epstein; Leslie A Mangold; Elizabeth Humphreys; Alan W Partin; Robert W Veltri Journal: Urology Date: 2009-02-03 Impact factor: 2.649