Literature DB >> 24035632

Predictors of pathologic progression on biopsy among men on active surveillance for localized prostate cancer: the value of the pattern of surveillance biopsies.

K Clint Cary1, Janet E Cowan2, Melissa Sanford2, Katsuto Shinohara2, Nannette Perez2, June M Chan2, Maxwell V Meng2, Peter R Carroll2.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: A better understanding of the independent predictors of disease progression for prostate cancer (PCa) patients is needed to improve the selection of ideal candidates for active surveillance (AS) and refine the surveillance regimen.
OBJECTIVE: To examine the association of clinical and pathologic characteristics, as well as patterns of surveillance biopsy results, with the risk of progression in men on AS. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: The retrospective study consisted of men with PCa who were on AS in the prospectively maintained University of California, San Francisco, institutional database from 1996 to 2011. Strict criteria for AS were prostate-specific antigen (PSA) ≤10 ng/ml, clinical stage T1 or T2, biopsy Gleason grade 6, <33% positive cores, and <50% tumor in any single core. Men were then categorized based on results of their confirmatory surveillance biopsy. OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS AND STATISTICAL ANALYSIS: Disease progression was defined as an increase in Gleason grade and/or biopsy volume beyond prespecified cut points. Serial biopsy patterns over the course of surveillance were stratified by confirmatory biopsy findings: negative, positive without progression, and positive with progression. Multivariable logistic regression models were used to evaluate predictors of progression during AS. RESULTS AND LIMITATIONS: A total of 465 men met inclusion criteria (median follow-up: 51 mo). Of these men, 23% had negative confirmatory biopsies. Only 3% of the men (1 of 30) progressed by the fourth surveillance biopsy following a biopsy pattern of negative confirmatory and negative third biopsy findings. Negative confirmatory biopsy and lower PSA density (both p<0.01) were independently associated with decreased odds of biopsy progression at 3 yr. The main limitation of this study is its observational nature.
CONCLUSIONS: The patterns of surveillance biopsy results yield additional important information in AS. Negative confirmatory biopsy and PSA density are important independent predictors of progression on AS and may be used to better counsel men opting for AS.
Copyright © 2013. Published by Elsevier B.V.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Active surveillance; Biopsy; Disease progression; Pathology; Prostatic neoplasms

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2013        PMID: 24035632     DOI: 10.1016/j.eururo.2013.08.060

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


  19 in total

1.  Predicting Gleason Group Progression for Men on Prostate Cancer Active Surveillance: Role of a Negative Confirmatory Magnetic Resonance Imaging-Ultrasound Fusion Biopsy.

Authors:  Jonathan B Bloom; Graham R Hale; Samuel A Gold; Kareem N Rayn; Clayton Smith; Sherif Mehralivand; Marcin Czarniecki; Vladimir Valera; Bradford J Wood; Maria J Merino; Peter L Choyke; Howard L Parnes; Baris Turkbey; Peter A Pinto
Journal:  J Urol       Date:  2019-01       Impact factor: 7.450

2.  Copy number alteration burden predicts prostate cancer relapse.

Authors:  Haley Hieronymus; Nikolaus Schultz; Anuradha Gopalan; Brett S Carver; Matthew T Chang; Yonghong Xiao; Adriana Heguy; Kety Huberman; Melanie Bernstein; Melissa Assel; Rajmohan Murali; Andrew Vickers; Peter T Scardino; Chris Sander; Victor Reuter; Barry S Taylor; Charles L Sawyers
Journal:  Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A       Date:  2014-07-14       Impact factor: 11.205

Review 3.  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 4.  Prostate Biopsy in Active Surveillance Protocols: Immediate Re-biopsy and Timing of Subsequent Biopsies.

Authors:  Jonathan H Wang; Tracy M Downs; E Jason Abel; Kyle A Richards; David F Jarrard
Journal:  Curr Urol Rep       Date:  2017-07       Impact factor: 3.092

5.  Active Surveillance in Younger Men With Prostate Cancer.

Authors:  Michael S Leapman; Janet E Cowan; Hao G Nguyen; Katsuto K Shinohara; Nannette Perez; Matthew R Cooperberg; William J Catalona; Peter R Carroll
Journal:  J Clin Oncol       Date:  2017-03-27       Impact factor: 44.544

Review 6.  Standard and Targeted Biopsy During Follow-up for Active Surveillance.

Authors:  Brian Weiss; Stacy Loeb
Journal:  Rev Urol       Date:  2015

Review 7.  Meaningful end points and outcomes in men on active surveillance for early-stage prostate cancer.

Authors:  Christopher J Welty; Matthew R Cooperberg; Peter R Carroll
Journal:  Curr Opin Urol       Date:  2014-05       Impact factor: 2.309

8.  Biopsy Core Features are Poor Predictors of Adverse Pathology in Men with Grade Group 1 Prostate Cancer.

Authors:  François Audenet; Emily A Vertosick; Samson W Fine; Daniel D Sjoberg; Andrew J Vickers; Victor E Reuter; James A Eastham; Peter T Scardino; Karim A Touijer
Journal:  J Urol       Date:  2017-10-10       Impact factor: 7.450

9.  Association between number of prostate biopsies and patient-reported functional outcomes after radical prostatectomy: implications for active surveillance protocols.

Authors:  Christopher B Anderson; Amy L Tin; Daniel D Sjoberg; John P Mulhall; Jaspreet Sandhu; Karim Touijer; Vincent P Laudone; James A Eastham; Peter T Scardino; Behfar Ehdaie
Journal:  BJU Int       Date:  2015-07-20       Impact factor: 5.588

10.  Further reduction of disqualification rates by additional MRI-targeted biopsy with transperineal saturation biopsy compared with standard 12-core systematic biopsies for the selection of prostate cancer patients for active surveillance.

Authors:  J P Radtke; T H Kuru; D Bonekamp; M T Freitag; M B Wolf; C D Alt; G Hatiboglu; S Boxler; S Pahernik; W Roth; M C Roethke; H P Schlemmer; M Hohenfellner; B A Hadaschik
Journal:  Prostate Cancer Prostatic Dis       Date:  2016-05-17       Impact factor: 5.554

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.