Literature DB >> 25819722

Precision Medicine in Active Surveillance for Prostate Cancer: Development of the Canary-Early Detection Research Network Active Surveillance Biopsy Risk Calculator.

Donna P Ankerst1, Jing Xia2, Ian M Thompson3, Josef Hoefler4, Lisa F Newcomb4, James D Brooks5, Peter R Carroll6, William J Ellis4, Martin E Gleave7, Raymond S Lance8, Peter S Nelson9, Andrew A Wagner10, John T Wei11, Ruth Etzioni2, Daniel W Lin4.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Men on active surveillance (AS) face repeated biopsies. Most biopsy specimens will not show disease progression or change management. Such biopsies do not contribute to patient management and are potentially morbid and costly.
OBJECTIVE: To use a contemporary AS prospective trial to develop a tool to predict AS biopsy outcomes. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: Biopsy samples (median: 2; range: 2-9 per patient) from 859 men participating in the Canary Prostate Active Surveillance Study and with Gleason 6 prostate cancer (median follow-up: 35.8 mo; range: 3.0-148.7 mo) were analyzed. OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS AND STATISTICAL ANALYSIS: Logistic regression was used to predict progression, defined as an increase in Gleason score from ≤6 to ≥7 or increase in percentage of cores positive for cancer from <34% to ≥34%. Fivefold internal cross-validation was performed to evaluate the area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC). RESULTS AND LIMITATIONS: Statistically significant risk factors for progression on biopsy were prostate-specific antigen (odds ratio [OR]: 1.045; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.028-1.063), percentage of cores positive for cancer on most recent biopsy (OR: 1.401; 95% CI, 1.301-1.508), and history of at least one prior negative biopsy (OR: 0.524; 95% CI, 0.417-0.659). A multivariable predictive model incorporating these factors plus age and number of months since last biopsy achieved an AUC of 72.4%.
CONCLUSIONS: A combination of readily available clinical measures can stratify patients considering AS prostate biopsy. Risk of progression or upgrade can be estimated and incorporated into clinical practice. PATIENT
SUMMARY: The Canary-Early Detection Research Network Active Surveillance Biopsy Risk Calculator, an online tool, can be used to guide patient decision making regarding follow-up prostate biopsy.
Copyright © 2015 European Association of Urology. Published by Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Active surveillance; Biopsy; Progression; Prostate-specific antigen

Mesh:

Year:  2015        PMID: 25819722      PMCID: PMC4583313          DOI: 10.1016/j.eururo.2015.03.023

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


  23 in total

1.  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

2.  The Next Generation of Clinical Decision Making Tools: Development of a Real-Time Prediction Tool for Outcome of Prostate Biopsy in Response to a Continuously Evolving Prostate Cancer Landscape.

Authors:  Andreas N Strobl; Ian M Thompson; Andrew J Vickers; Donna P Ankerst
Journal:  J Urol       Date:  2015-01-28       Impact factor: 7.450

3.  20-year outcomes following conservative management of clinically localized prostate cancer.

Authors:  Peter C Albertsen; James A Hanley; Judith Fine
Journal:  JAMA       Date:  2005-05-04       Impact factor: 56.272

4.  Long-term follow-up of a large active surveillance cohort of patients with prostate cancer.

Authors:  Laurence Klotz; Danny Vesprini; Perakaa Sethukavalan; Vibhuti Jethava; Liying Zhang; Suneil Jain; Toshihiro Yamamoto; Alexandre Mamedov; Andrew Loblaw
Journal:  J Clin Oncol       Date:  2014-12-15       Impact factor: 44.544

5.  Prostate biopsy clinical and pathological variables that predict significant grading changes in patients with intermediate and high grade prostate cancer.

Authors:  Ayman S Moussa; Jianbo Li; Meghan Soriano; Eric A Klein; Fei Dong; J Stephen Jones
Journal:  BJU Int       Date:  2008-09-08       Impact factor: 5.588

6.  Quantifying the role of PSA screening in the US prostate cancer mortality decline.

Authors:  Ruth Etzioni; Alex Tsodikov; Angela Mariotto; Aniko Szabo; Seth Falcon; Jake Wegelin; Dante DiTommaso; Kent Karnofski; Roman Gulati; David F Penson; Eric Feuer
Journal:  Cancer Causes Control       Date:  2007-11-20       Impact factor: 2.506

7.  Clinical results of long-term follow-up of a large, active surveillance cohort with localized prostate cancer.

Authors:  Laurence Klotz; Liying Zhang; Adam Lam; Robert Nam; Alexandre Mamedov; Andrew Loblaw
Journal:  J Clin Oncol       Date:  2009-11-16       Impact factor: 44.544

Review 8.  Prostate cancer: the new landscape.

Authors:  Judd W Moul; Vladimir Mouraviev; Leon Sun; Florian R Schroeck; Thomas J Polascik
Journal:  Curr Opin Urol       Date:  2009-03       Impact factor: 2.309

9.  The changing face of low-risk prostate cancer: trends in clinical presentation and primary management.

Authors:  Matthew R Cooperberg; Deborah P Lubeck; Maxwell V Meng; Shilpa S Mehta; Peter R Carroll
Journal:  J Clin Oncol       Date:  2004-06-01       Impact factor: 44.544

10.  Expectant management of localized prostatic cancer.

Authors:  W F Whitmore; J A Warner; I M Thompson
Journal:  Cancer       Date:  1991-02-15       Impact factor: 6.860

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 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.  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

4.  Informational needs during active surveillance for prostate cancer: A qualitative study.

Authors:  Stacy Loeb; Caitlin Curnyn; Angela Fagerlin; R Scott Braithwaite; Mark D Schwartz; Herbert Lepor; H Ballentine Carter; Shannon Ciprut; Erica Sedlander
Journal:  Patient Educ Couns       Date:  2017-09-01

5.  Role of Surveillance Biopsy with No Cancer as a Prognostic Marker for Reclassification: Results from the Canary Prostate Active Surveillance Study.

Authors:  James T Kearns; Anna V Faino; Lisa F Newcomb; James D Brooks; Peter R Carroll; Atreya Dash; William J Ellis; Michael Fabrizio; Martin E Gleave; Todd M Morgan; Peter S Nelson; Ian M Thompson; Andrew A Wagner; Yingye Zheng; Daniel W Lin
Journal:  Eur Urol       Date:  2018-02-09       Impact factor: 20.096

6.  Evaluating the Four Kallikrein Panel of the 4Kscore for Prediction of High-grade Prostate Cancer in Men in the Canary Prostate Active Surveillance Study.

Authors:  Daniel W Lin; Lisa F Newcomb; Marshall D Brown; Daniel D Sjoberg; Yan Dong; James D Brooks; Peter R Carroll; Matthew Cooperberg; Atreya Dash; William J Ellis; Michael Fabrizio; Martin E Gleave; Todd M Morgan; Peter S Nelson; Ian M Thompson; Andrew A Wagner; Yingye Zheng
Journal:  Eur Urol       Date:  2016-11-23       Impact factor: 20.096

Review 7.  Active surveillance for prostate cancer: selection criteria, guidelines, and outcomes.

Authors:  Colton H Walker; Kathryn A Marchetti; Udit Singhal; Todd M Morgan
Journal:  World J Urol       Date:  2021-03-02       Impact factor: 4.226

8.  The management of active surveillance in prostate cancer: validation of the Canary Prostate Active Surveillance Study risk calculator with the Spanish Urological Association Registry.

Authors:  Ángel Borque-Fernando; José Rubio-Briones; Luis Mariano Esteban; Argimiro Collado-Serra; Yoni Pallás-Costa; Pedro Ángel López-González; Jorge Huguet-Pérez; José Ignacio Sanz-Vélez; Jesús Manuel Gil-Fabra; Enrique Gómez-Gómez; Cristina Quicios-Dorado; Lluis Fumadó; Sara Martínez-Breijo; Juan Soto-Villalba
Journal:  Oncotarget       Date:  2017-10-24

9.  Determining Clinically Based Factors Associated With Reclassification in the Pre-MRI Era using a Large Prospective Active Surveillance Cohort.

Authors:  Justin R Gregg; John W Davis; Chad Reichard; Xuemei Wang; Mary Achim; Brian F Chapin; Louis Pisters; Curtis Pettaway; John F Ward; Seungtaek Choi; Quynh-Nhu Nguyen; Deborah Kuban; Richard Babaian; Patricia Troncoso; Lydia T Madsen; Christopher Logothetis; Jeri Kim
Journal:  Urology       Date:  2019-12-30       Impact factor: 2.649

10.  Use of the MyProstateScore Test to Rule Out Clinically Significant Cancer: Validation of a Straightforward Clinical Testing Approach.

Authors:  Jeffrey J Tosoian; Bruce J Trock; Todd M Morgan; Simpa S Salami; Scott A Tomlins; Daniel E Spratt; Javed Siddiqui; Lakshmi P Kunju; Rachel Botbyl; Zoey Chopra; Balaji Pandian; Nicholas W Eyrich; Gary Longton; Yingye Zheng; Ganesh S Palapattu; John T Wei; Yashar S Niknafs; Arul M Chinnaiyan
Journal:  J Urol       Date:  2020-10-20       Impact factor: 7.450

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.