Literature DB >> 24123208

Modeling grade progression in an active surveillance study.

Lurdes Y T Inoue1, Bruce J Trock, Alan W Partin, Herbert B Carter, Ruth Etzioni.   

Abstract

Prostate cancer grade, assessed with the Gleason score, describes how abnormal the tumor tissue and cells appear, and it is an important prognostic indicator of disease progression. Whether prostate tumors change grade is a question that has implications for screening and treatment. Empirical data on tumor grade over time have become available from men biopsied regularly as part of active surveillance (AS). However, biopsy (BX) grade is subject to misclassification. In this article, we develop a model that allows for estimation of the time of grade change while accounting for the misclassification error from BX grade. We use misclassification rates from studies of prostate cancer BXs followed by radical prostatectomy. Estimation of the transition times from true low-grade to high-grade disease is conducted within a Bayesian framework. We apply our model to serial observations on BX grade among 627 cases enrolled in a cohort of AS patients at Johns Hopkins University who were biopsied annually and referred to treatment if there was any evidence of disease progression on BX. We consider different prior distributions for the time to true grade progression. The estimated likelihood of grade progression within 10 years of study entry ranges from 12% to 24% depending on the prior. We conclude that knowledge of rates of grade misclassification allows for determination of true grade progression rates among men with serial BXs on AS. Although our results are sensitive to prior specifications, they indicate that in a nontrivial fraction of the patient population, tumor grade can progress.
Copyright © 2013 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Bayesian analysis; prostate cancer; simulation modeling

Mesh:

Year:  2013        PMID: 24123208      PMCID: PMC3955104          DOI: 10.1002/sim.6003

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Stat Med        ISSN: 0277-6715            Impact factor:   2.373


  17 in total

1.  Screening sensitivity and sojourn time from breast cancer early detection clinical trials: mammograms and physical examinations.

Authors:  Y Shen; M Zelen
Journal:  J Clin Oncol       Date:  2001-08-01       Impact factor: 44.544

2.  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

3.  Changes in prostate cancer grade on serial biopsy in men undergoing active surveillance.

Authors:  Sima P Porten; Jared M Whitson; Janet E Cowan; Matthew R Cooperberg; Katsuto Shinohara; Nannette Perez; Kirsten L Greene; Maxwell V Meng; Peter R Carroll
Journal:  J Clin Oncol       Date:  2011-05-31       Impact factor: 44.544

4.  Robust modeling in screening studies: estimation of sensitivity and preclinical sojourn time distribution.

Authors:  Yu Shen; Marvin Zelen
Journal:  Biostatistics       Date:  2005-04-28       Impact factor: 5.899

5.  Delayed versus immediate surgical intervention and prostate cancer outcome.

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

6.  Gleason score, age and screening: modeling dedifferentiation in prostate cancer.

Authors:  Gerrit Draisma; Renske Postma; Fritz H Schröder; Theo H van der Kwast; Harry J de Koning
Journal:  Int J Cancer       Date:  2006-11-15       Impact factor: 7.396

7.  Upgrading and downgrading of prostate cancer from biopsy to radical prostatectomy: incidence and predictive factors using the modified Gleason grading system and factoring in tertiary grades.

Authors:  Jonathan I Epstein; Zhaoyong Feng; Bruce J Trock; Phillip M Pierorazio
Journal:  Eur Urol       Date:  2012-02-08       Impact factor: 20.096

8.  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

9.  Bayesian estimation of disease prevalence and the parameters of diagnostic tests in the absence of a gold standard.

Authors:  L Joseph; T W Gyorkos; L Coupal
Journal:  Am J Epidemiol       Date:  1995-02-01       Impact factor: 4.897

10.  PSA-detected prostate cancer and the potential for dedifferentiation--estimating the proportion capable of progression.

Authors:  Nora Pashayan; Paul Pharoah; David E Neal; Freddie Hamdy; Jenny Donovan; Richard M Martin; David Greenberg; Stephen W Duffy
Journal:  Int J Cancer       Date:  2011-03-15       Impact factor: 7.396

View more
  15 in total

1.  Comparative Analysis of Biopsy Upgrading in Four Prostate Cancer Active Surveillance Cohorts.

Authors:  Lurdes Y T Inoue; Daniel W Lin; Lisa F Newcomb; Amy S Leonardson; Donna Ankerst; Roman Gulati; H Ballentine Carter; Bruce J Trock; Peter R Carroll; Matthew R Cooperberg; Janet E Cowan; Laurence H Klotz; Alexandre Mamedov; David F Penson; Ruth Etzioni
Journal:  Ann Intern Med       Date:  2017-11-28       Impact factor: 25.391

Review 2.  Active Surveillance for Intermediate Risk Prostate Cancer.

Authors:  Laurence Klotz
Journal:  Curr Urol Rep       Date:  2017-08-11       Impact factor: 3.092

3.  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

4.  Active Surveillance Versus Watchful Waiting for Localized Prostate Cancer: A Model to Inform Decisions.

Authors:  Stacy Loeb; Qinlian Zhou; Uwe Siebert; Ursula Rochau; Beate Jahn; Nikolai Mühlberger; H Ballentine Carter; Herbert Lepor; R Scott Braithwaite
Journal:  Eur Urol       Date:  2017-08-23       Impact factor: 20.096

5.  Prostate cancer mortality and metastasis under different biopsy frequencies in North American active surveillance cohorts.

Authors:  Jane M Lange; Aaron A Laviana; David F Penson; Daniel W Lin; Anna Bill-Axelson; Sigrid V Carlsson; Lisa F Newcomb; Bruce J Trock; H Ballentine Carter; Peter R Carroll; Mathew R Cooperberg; Janet E Cowan; Laurence H Klotz; Ruth B Etzioni
Journal:  Cancer       Date:  2019-10-22       Impact factor: 6.860

6.  Diagnostic Accuracy of Contemporary Selection Criteria in Prostate Cancer Patients Eligible for Active Surveillance: A Bayesian Network Meta-Analysis.

Authors:  Yu Fan; Yelin Mulati; Lingyun Zhai; Yuke Chen; Yu Wang; Juefei Feng; Wei Yu; Qian Zhang
Journal:  Front Oncol       Date:  2022-01-10       Impact factor: 6.244

Review 7.  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

8.  Serial Molecular Profiling of Low-grade Prostate Cancer to Assess Tumor Upgrading: A Longitudinal Cohort Study.

Authors:  Simpa S Salami; Jeffrey J Tosoian; Srinivas Nallandhighal; Tonye A Jones; Scott Brockman; Fuad F Elkhoury; Selena Bazzi; Komal R Plouffe; Javed Siddiqui; Chia-Jen Liu; Lakshmi P Kunju; Todd M Morgan; Shyam Natarajan; Philip S Boonstra; Lauren Sumida; Scott A Tomlins; Aaron M Udager; Anthony E Sisk; Leonard S Marks; Ganesh S Palapattu
Journal:  Eur Urol       Date:  2020-07-03       Impact factor: 20.096

9.  Active Surveillance Strategies for Low-Grade Prostate Cancer: Comparative Benefits and Cost-effectiveness.

Authors:  Stella K Kang; Rahul D Mali; Vinay Prabhu; Bart S Ferket; Stacy Loeb
Journal:  Radiology       Date:  2021-07-13       Impact factor: 29.146

10.  Association between a 17-gene genomic prostate score and multi-parametric prostate MRI in men with low and intermediate risk prostate cancer (PCa).

Authors:  Michael S Leapman; Antonio C Westphalen; Niloufar Ameli; H Jeffrey Lawrence; Phillip G Febbo; Matthew R Cooperberg; Peter R Carroll
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2017-10-10       Impact factor: 3.240

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.