OBJECTIVES: A preoperative nomogram is an effective tool for assessing the risk of disease progression after radical prostatectomy for localized prostate cancer. To better understand the performance of nomograms for patients with a low prostate-specific antigen (PSA) level, we examined whether patients with a PSA level <2.5 ng/mL had outcomes different than predicted by a validated preoperative nomogram. METHODS: A cohort of 6130 patients from 2 referral centers was analyzed. Kaplan-Meier methods were used to estimate the recurrence-free probabilities stratified by PSA group (<2.5 vs >or=2.5 ng/mL). Cox proportional hazards regression analysis was used to evaluate whether the PSA grouping was associated with biochemical recurrence, controlling for preoperative nomogram probability. RESULTS: Of 6130 patients, 399 (6.5%) had a PSA level <2.5 ng/mL. Patients with a PSA level of <or=0.5 ng/mL had a high rate of nonorgan-confined disease (33% vs 15% for PSA levels of 0.6-2.5 ng/mL). The median follow-up for recurrence-free patients was 2.4 years, and 10 patients with a PSA level of <2.5 ng/mL and 597 patients with a PSA level >2.5 ng/mL developed recurrence (total 607/6130). With adjustment for the preoperative nomogram probability, no significant difference was found in recurrence by PSA grouping (hazard ratio 0.78 for PSA <2.5 vs >or=2.5 ng/mL; 95% confidence interval 0.42-1.48; P = .5). CONCLUSIONS: Patients with a low PSA comprise a small proportion of those treated, and most have palpable disease. Patients with especially low PSA values (<or=0.5 ng/mL) have a high rate of nonorgan-confined disease. We saw no evidence that patients with low PSA levels have worse outcomes, after the stage and grade were taken into account.
OBJECTIVES: A preoperative nomogram is an effective tool for assessing the risk of disease progression after radical prostatectomy for localized prostate cancer. To better understand the performance of nomograms for patients with a low prostate-specific antigen (PSA) level, we examined whether patients with a PSA level <2.5 ng/mL had outcomes different than predicted by a validated preoperative nomogram. METHODS: A cohort of 6130 patients from 2 referral centers was analyzed. Kaplan-Meier methods were used to estimate the recurrence-free probabilities stratified by PSA group (<2.5 vs >or=2.5 ng/mL). Cox proportional hazards regression analysis was used to evaluate whether the PSA grouping was associated with biochemical recurrence, controlling for preoperative nomogram probability. RESULTS: Of 6130 patients, 399 (6.5%) had a PSA level <2.5 ng/mL. Patients with a PSA level of <or=0.5 ng/mL had a high rate of nonorgan-confined disease (33% vs 15% for PSA levels of 0.6-2.5 ng/mL). The median follow-up for recurrence-free patients was 2.4 years, and 10 patients with a PSA level of <2.5 ng/mL and 597 patients with a PSA level >2.5 ng/mL developed recurrence (total 607/6130). With adjustment for the preoperative nomogram probability, no significant difference was found in recurrence by PSA grouping (hazard ratio 0.78 for PSA <2.5 vs >or=2.5 ng/mL; 95% confidence interval 0.42-1.48; P = .5). CONCLUSIONS:Patients with a low PSA comprise a small proportion of those treated, and most have palpable disease. Patients with especially low PSA values (<or=0.5 ng/mL) have a high rate of nonorgan-confined disease. We saw no evidence that patients with low PSA levels have worse outcomes, after the stage and grade were taken into account.
Authors: Anna Bill-Axelson; Lars Holmberg; Mirja Ruutu; Michael Häggman; Swen-Olof Andersson; Stefan Bratell; Anders Spångberg; Christer Busch; Stig Nordling; Hans Garmo; Juni Palmgren; Hans-Olov Adami; Bo Johan Norlén; Jan-Erik Johansson Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 2005-05-12 Impact factor: 91.245
Authors: Dan Leibovici; Philippe E Spiess; Piyush K Agarwal; Shi-Ming Tu; Curtis A Pettaway; Kate Hitzhusen; Randall E Millikan; Louis L Pisters Journal: Cancer Date: 2007-01-15 Impact factor: 6.860
Authors: Ian M Thompson; Donna Pauler Ankerst; Chen Chi; M Scott Lucia; Phyllis J Goodman; John J Crowley; Howard L Parnes; Charles A Coltman Journal: JAMA Date: 2005-07-06 Impact factor: 56.272
Authors: Claartje Gosselaar; Monique J Roobol; Stijn Roemeling; Theo H van der Kwast; Fritz H Schröder Journal: Prostate Date: 2007-02-01 Impact factor: 4.104
Authors: Andrew J Stephenson; Peter T Scardino; James A Eastham; Fernando J Bianco; Zohar A Dotan; Paul A Fearn; Michael W Kattan Journal: J Natl Cancer Inst Date: 2006-05-17 Impact factor: 13.506
Authors: Ahmedin Jemal; Rebecca Siegel; Elizabeth Ward; Taylor Murray; Jiaquan Xu; Michael J Thun Journal: CA Cancer J Clin Date: 2007 Jan-Feb Impact factor: 508.702
Authors: Ryan Stuchbery; Geoff Macintyre; Marek Cmero; Laurence M Harewood; Justin S Peters; Anthony J Costello; Christopher M Hovens; Niall M Corcoran Journal: Oncotarget Date: 2016-05-24