Literature DB >> 23746233

Serum prostate-specific antigen (PSA) concentration is positively associated with rate of disease reclassification on subsequent active surveillance prostate biopsy in men with low PSA density.

Martin H Umbehr1, Elizabeth A Platz, Sarah B Peskoe, Nrupen A Bhavsar, Jonathan I Epstein, Patricia Landis, Alan W Partin, H Ballentine Carter.   

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: To investigate the association between serum prostate-specific antigen (PSA) concentration at active surveillance (AS) entry and disease reclassification on subsequent AS biopsy ('biopsy reclassification') in men with low PSA density (PSAD). To investigate whether a clinically meaningful PSA threshold for AS eligibility/ineligibility for men with low PSAD can be identified based on risk of subsequent biopsy reclassification. PATIENTS AND METHODS: We included men enrolled in the Johns Hopkins AS Study (JHAS) who had a PSAD of <0.15 ng/mL/g (640 men). We estimated the incidence rates (IRs; per 100 person years) and hazard ratios (HR) of biopsy reclassification (Gleason score ≥ 7, any Gleason pattern 4 or 5, ≥3 positive cores, or ≥50% cancer involvement/biopsy core) for categories of serum PSA concentration at the time of entry into AS. We generated predicted IRs using Poisson regression to adjust for age and prostate volume, mean percentage free PSA (ratio of free to total PSA) and maximum percentage biopsy core involvement with cancer.
RESULTS: The unadjusted IRs (per 100 person years) of biopsy reclassification across serum PSA concentration at entry into JHAS showed, in general, an increase; however, the pattern was not linear with higher IRs in the group ≥ 4 to <6 ng/mL (14.2, 95% confidence interval [CI] 11.8-17.2%) when compared with ≥6 to <8 ng/mL (8.4, 95% CI 5.7-12.3%) but almost similar IRs when compared with the group ≥ 8 to <10 ng/mL (14.8, 95% CI 8.4-26.1%). The adjusted predicted IRs of reclassification showed a similar non-linear increase in IRs, whereby the rates around 4 ng/mL were similar to the rates around 10 ng/mL.
CONCLUSION: Risk for biopsy reclassification increased non-linearly across PSA concentration in men with low PSAD, whereby no obvious clinically meaningful threshold could be identified. This information could be incorporated into decision-making for AS. However, longer follow-up times are needed to warrant final conclusions.
© 2013 BJU International.

Entities:  

Keywords:  PSA; active surveillance; patient selection

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2013        PMID: 23746233      PMCID: PMC3978167          DOI: 10.1111/bju.12131

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  BJU Int        ISSN: 1464-4096            Impact factor:   5.588


  12 in total

Review 1.  Active surveillance for low-risk prostate cancer: an update.

Authors:  Nathan Lawrentschuk; Laurence Klotz
Journal:  Nat Rev Urol       Date:  2011-04-26       Impact factor: 14.432

2.  NCCN clinical practice guidelines in oncology: prostate cancer.

Authors:  James Mohler; Robert R Bahnson; Barry Boston; J Erik Busby; Anthony D'Amico; James A Eastham; Charles A Enke; Daniel George; Eric Mark Horwitz; Robert P Huben; Philip Kantoff; Mark Kawachi; Michael Kuettel; Paul H Lange; Gary Macvicar; Elizabeth R Plimack; Julio M Pow-Sang; Mack Roach; Eric Rohren; Bruce J Roth; Dennis C Shrieve; Matthew R Smith; Sandy Srinivas; Przemyslaw Twardowski; Patrick C Walsh
Journal:  J Natl Compr Canc Netw       Date:  2010-02       Impact factor: 11.908

3.  Combination of prostate-specific antigen, clinical stage, and Gleason score to predict pathological stage of localized prostate cancer. A multi-institutional update.

Authors:  A W Partin; M W Kattan; E N Subong; P C Walsh; K J Wojno; J E Oesterling; P T Scardino; J D Pearson
Journal:  JAMA       Date:  1997-05-14       Impact factor: 56.272

4.  The ability of prostate-specific antigen (PSA) density to predict an upgrade in Gleason score between initial prostate biopsy and prostatectomy diminishes with increasing tumour grade due to reduced PSA secretion per unit tumour volume.

Authors:  Niall M Corcoran; Rowan G Casey; Matthew K H Hong; John Pedersen; Stephen Connolly; Justin Peters; Laurence Harewood; Martin E Gleave; Anthony J Costello; Chris M Hovens; S Larry Goldenberg
Journal:  BJU Int       Date:  2011-11-15       Impact factor: 5.588

5.  Prostate specific antigen in the staging of localized prostate cancer: influence of tumor differentiation, tumor volume and benign hyperplasia.

Authors:  A W Partin; H B Carter; D W Chan; J I Epstein; J E Oesterling; R C Rock; J P Weber; P C Walsh
Journal:  J Urol       Date:  1990-04       Impact factor: 7.450

6.  Active surveillance program for prostate cancer: an update of the Johns Hopkins experience.

Authors:  Jeffrey J Tosoian; Bruce J Trock; Patricia Landis; Zhaoyong Feng; Jonathan I Epstein; Alan W Partin; Patrick C Walsh; H Ballentine Carter
Journal:  J Clin Oncol       Date:  2011-04-04       Impact factor: 44.544

7.  Expectant management of nonpalpable prostate cancer with curative intent: preliminary results.

Authors:  H Ballentine Carter; Patrick C Walsh; Patricia Landis; Jonathan I Epstein
Journal:  J Urol       Date:  2002-03       Impact factor: 7.450

8.  An updated prostate cancer staging nomogram (Partin tables) based on cases from 2006 to 2011.

Authors:  John B Eifler; Zhaoyang Feng; Brian M Lin; Michael T Partin; Elizabeth B Humphreys; Misop Han; Jonathan I Epstein; Patrick C Walsh; Bruce J Trock; Alan W Partin
Journal:  BJU Int       Date:  2012-07-26       Impact factor: 5.588

9.  Low prostate-specific antigen and no Gleason score upgrade despite more extensive cancer during active surveillance predicts insignificant prostate cancer at radical prostatectomy.

Authors:  Jeong S Han; Adam D Toll; Ali Amin; H Ballentine Carter; Patricia Landis; Stephen Lee; Jonathan I Epstein
Journal:  Urology       Date:  2012-08-22       Impact factor: 2.649

10.  Biochemical outcome after radical prostatectomy, external beam radiation therapy, or interstitial radiation therapy for clinically localized prostate cancer.

Authors:  A V D'Amico; R Whittington; S B Malkowicz; D Schultz; K Blank; G A Broderick; J E Tomaszewski; A A Renshaw; I Kaplan; C J Beard; A Wein
Journal:  JAMA       Date:  1998-09-16       Impact factor: 56.272

View more
  5 in total

Review 1.  Active surveillance for prostate cancer: a systematic review of clinicopathologic variables and biomarkers for risk stratification.

Authors:  Stacy Loeb; Sophie M Bruinsma; Joseph Nicholson; Alberto Briganti; Tom Pickles; Yoshiyuki Kakehi; Sigrid V Carlsson; Monique J Roobol
Journal:  Eur Urol       Date:  2014-10-31       Impact factor: 20.096

Review 2.  Active surveillance for prostate cancer: current evidence and contemporary state of practice.

Authors:  Jeffrey J Tosoian; H Ballentine Carter; Abbey Lepor; Stacy Loeb
Journal:  Nat Rev Urol       Date:  2016-03-08       Impact factor: 14.432

3.  Intermediate and Longer-Term Outcomes From a Prospective Active-Surveillance Program for Favorable-Risk Prostate Cancer.

Authors:  Jeffrey J Tosoian; Mufaddal Mamawala; Jonathan I Epstein; Patricia Landis; Sacha Wolf; Bruce J Trock; H Ballentine Carter
Journal:  J Clin Oncol       Date:  2015-08-31       Impact factor: 44.544

Review 4.  [Follow-up of urological tumor treatment].

Authors:  C-H Ohlmann; P Albers; K Boehm; M Graefen; O W Hakenberg; M Kuczyk; J Graf; I Peters; C Protzel
Journal:  Urologe A       Date:  2015-09       Impact factor: 0.639

Review 5.  Active Surveillance in Prostate Cancer: Role of Available Biomarkers in Daily Practice.

Authors:  Belén Pastor-Navarro; José Rubio-Briones; Ángel Borque-Fernando; Luis M Esteban; Jose Luis Dominguez-Escrig; José Antonio López-Guerrero
Journal:  Int J Mol Sci       Date:  2021-06-10       Impact factor: 5.923

  5 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.