Literature DB >> 19303695

Development of a new method for monitoring prostate-specific antigen changes in men with localised prostate cancer: a comparison of observational cohorts.

Kate Tilling1, Hans Garmo, Chris Metcalfe, Lars Holmberg, Freddie C Hamdy, David E Neal, Jan Adolfsson, Richard M Martin, Michael Davis, Katja Fall, J Athene Lane, Hans-Olaf Adami, Anna Bill-Axelson, Jan-Eric Johansson, Jenny L Donovan.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Prostate-specific antigen (PSA) measurements are increasingly used to monitor men with localised prostate cancer (PCa), but there is little consensus about the method to use.
OBJECTIVE: To apply age-specific predictions of PSA level (developed in men without cancer) to one cohort of men with clinically identified PCa and one cohort of men with PSA-detected PCa. We hypothesise that among men with clinically identified cancer, the annual increase in PSA level would be steeper than in men with PSA-detected cancer. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: The Scandinavian Prostate Cancer Group 4 (SPCG-4) cohort consisted of 321 men assigned to the watchful waiting arm of the SPCG-4 trial. The UK cohort consisted of 320 men with PSA-detected PCa in the Prostate testing for cancer and Treatment (ProtecT) study who opted for monitoring. Multilevel models describing changes in PSA level were fitted to the two cohorts, and average PSA level at age 50, change in PSA level with age, and predicted PSA values were derived. MEASUREMENTS: PSA level. RESULTS AND LIMITATIONS: In the SPCG-4 cohort, mean PSA at age 50 was similar to the cancer-free cohort but with a steeper yearly increase in PSA level (16.4% vs 4.0%). In the UK cohort, mean PSA level was higher than that in the cancer-free cohort (due to a PSA biopsy threshold of 3.0 ng/ml) but with a similar yearly increase in PSA level (4.1%). Predictions were less accurate for the SPCG-4 cohort (median difference between observed and predicted PSA level: -2.0 ng/ml; interquartile range [IQR]: -7.6-0.7 ng/ml) than for the UK cohort (median difference between observed and predicted PSA level: -0.8 ng/ml; IQR: -2.1-0.1 ng/ml).
CONCLUSIONS: In PSA-detected men, yearly change in PSA was similar to that in cancer-free men, whereas in men with symptomatic PCa, the yearly change in PSA level was considerably higher. Our method needs further evaluation but has promise for refining active monitoring protocols. 2009 European Association of Urology. Published by Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2009        PMID: 19303695      PMCID: PMC2910432          DOI: 10.1016/j.eururo.2009.03.023

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Eur Urol        ISSN: 0302-2838            Impact factor:   20.096


  20 in total

1.  Prostate Testing for Cancer and Treatment (ProtecT) feasibility study.

Authors:  J Donovan; F Hamdy; D Neal; T Peters; S Oliver; L Brindle; D Jewell; P Powell; D Gillatt; D Dedman; N Mills; M Smith; S Noble; A Lane
Journal:  Health Technol Assess       Date:  2003       Impact factor: 4.014

2.  Natural experiment examining impact of aggressive screening and treatment on prostate cancer mortality in two fixed cohorts from Seattle area and Connecticut.

Authors:  Grace Lu-Yao; Peter C Albertsen; Janet L Stanford; Therese A Stukel; Elizabeth S Walker-Corkery; Michael J Barry
Journal:  BMJ       Date:  2002-10-05

3.  Multilevel growth curve models with covariate effects: application to recovery after stroke.

Authors:  K Tilling; J A Sterne; C D Wolfe
Journal:  Stat Med       Date:  2001-03-15       Impact factor: 2.373

Review 4.  Screening for prostate cancer.

Authors:  Stephen Frankel; George Davey Smith; Jenny Donovan; David Neal
Journal:  Lancet       Date:  2003-03-29       Impact factor: 79.321

5.  A new method for predicting recovery after stroke.

Authors:  K Tilling; J A Sterne; A G Rudd; T A Glass; R J Wityk; C D Wolfe
Journal:  Stroke       Date:  2001-12-01       Impact factor: 7.914

6.  Prostate-specific antigen levels as a predictor of lethal prostate cancer.

Authors:  Katja Fall; Hans Garmo; Ove Andrén; Anna Bill-Axelson; Jan Adolfsson; Hans-Olov Adami; Jan-Erik Johansson; Lars Holmberg
Journal:  J Natl Cancer Inst       Date:  2007-04-04       Impact factor: 13.506

7.  Strong effects of definition and nonresponse bias on prevalence rates of clinical benign prostatic hyperplasia: the Krimpen study of male urogenital tract problems and general health status.

Authors:  M H Blanker; F P Groeneveld; A Prins; R M Bernsen; A M Bohnen; J L Bosch
Journal:  BJU Int       Date:  2000-04       Impact factor: 5.588

8.  13-year outcomes following treatment for clinically localized prostate cancer in a population based cohort.

Authors:  Peter C Albertsen; James A Hanley; David F Penson; George Barrows; Judith Fine
Journal:  J Urol       Date:  2007-03       Impact factor: 7.450

9.  Radical prostatectomy versus watchful waiting in localized prostate cancer: the Scandinavian prostate cancer group-4 randomized trial.

Authors:  Anna Bill-Axelson; Lars Holmberg; Frej Filén; Mirja Ruutu; Hans Garmo; Christer Busch; Stig Nordling; Michael Häggman; Swen-Olof Andersson; Stefan Bratell; Anders Spångberg; Juni Palmgren; Hans-Olov Adami; Jan-Erik Johansson
Journal:  J Natl Cancer Inst       Date:  2008-08-11       Impact factor: 13.506

10.  Prostate-cancer mortality in the USA and UK in 1975-2004: an ecological study.

Authors:  Simon M Collin; Richard M Martin; Chris Metcalfe; David Gunnell; Peter C Albertsen; David Neal; Freddie Hamdy; Peter Stephens; J Athene Lane; Rollo Moore; Jenny Donovan
Journal:  Lancet Oncol       Date:  2008-04-16       Impact factor: 41.316

View more
  4 in total

1.  Prostate cancer mortality following active surveillance versus immediate radical prostatectomy.

Authors:  Jing Xia; Bruce J Trock; Matthew R Cooperberg; Roman Gulati; Steven B Zeliadt; John L Gore; Daniel W Lin; Peter R Carroll; H Ballentine Carter; Ruth Etzioni
Journal:  Clin Cancer Res       Date:  2012-09-24       Impact factor: 12.531

2.  Active monitoring, radical prostatectomy and radical radiotherapy in PSA-detected clinically localised prostate cancer: the ProtecT three-arm RCT.

Authors:  Freddie C Hamdy; Jenny L Donovan; J Athene Lane; Malcolm Mason; Chris Metcalfe; Peter Holding; Julia Wade; Sian Noble; Kirsty Garfield; Grace Young; Michael Davis; Tim J Peters; Emma L Turner; Richard M Martin; Jon Oxley; Mary Robinson; John Staffurth; Eleanor Walsh; Jane Blazeby; Richard Bryant; Prasad Bollina; James Catto; Andrew Doble; Alan Doherty; David Gillatt; Vincent Gnanapragasam; Owen Hughes; Roger Kockelbergh; Howard Kynaston; Alan Paul; Edgar Paez; Philip Powell; Stephen Prescott; Derek Rosario; Edward Rowe; David Neal
Journal:  Health Technol Assess       Date:  2020-08       Impact factor: 4.014

3.  A longitudinal model for disease progression was developed and applied to multiple sclerosis.

Authors:  Michael Lawton; Kate Tilling; Neil Robertson; Helen Tremlett; Feng Zhu; Katharine Harding; Joel Oger; Yoav Ben-Shlomo
Journal:  J Clin Epidemiol       Date:  2015-05-14       Impact factor: 6.437

4.  Current strategies for monitoring men with localised prostate cancer lack a strong evidence base: observational longitudinal study.

Authors:  C Metcalfe; K Tilling; M Davis; J A Lane; R M Martin; H Kynaston; P Powell; D E Neal; F Hamdy; J L Donovan
Journal:  Br J Cancer       Date:  2009-07-14       Impact factor: 7.640

  4 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.