Prassannah Satasivam1, Bing Ying Poon2, Behfar Ehdaie1, Andrew J Vickers2, James A Eastham3. 1. Department of Surgery, Urology Service, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, New York. 2. Department of Epidemiology and Biostatistics, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, New York. 3. Department of Surgery, Urology Service, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, New York. Electronic address: easthamj@mskcc.org.
Abstract
PURPOSE: We evaluated whether initial diagnostic parameters could predict the confirmatory biopsy result in patients initiating active surveillance for prostate cancer, to determine whether some men at low risk for disease reclassification could be spared unnecessary biopsy. MATERIALS AND METHODS: The cohort included 392 men with Gleason 6 prostate cancer on initial biopsy undergoing confirmatory biopsy. We used univariate and multivariable logistic regression to assess if high grade cancer (Gleason 7 or greater) on confirmatory biopsy could be predicted from initial diagnostic parameters (prostate specific antigen density, magnetic resonance imaging result, percent positive cores, percent cancer in positive cores and total tumor length). RESULTS: Median patient age was 62 years (IQR 56-66) and 47% of patients had a dominant or focal lesion on magnetic resonance imaging. Of the 392 patients 44 (11%) had high grade cancer on confirmatory biopsy, of whom 39 had Gleason 3+4, 1 had 4+3, 3 had Gleason 8 and 1 had Gleason 9 disease. All predictors were significantly associated with high grade cancer at confirmatory biopsy on univariate analysis. However, in the multivariable model only prostate specific antigen density and total tumor length were significantly associated (AUC 0.85). Using this model to select patients for confirmatory biopsy would generally provide a higher net benefit than performing confirmatory biopsy in all patients, across a wide range of threshold probabilities. CONCLUSIONS: If externally validated, a model based on initial diagnostic criteria could be used to avoid confirmatory biopsy in many patients initiating active surveillance.
PURPOSE: We evaluated whether initial diagnostic parameters could predict the confirmatory biopsy result in patients initiating active surveillance for prostate cancer, to determine whether some men at low risk for disease reclassification could be spared unnecessary biopsy. MATERIALS AND METHODS: The cohort included 392 men with Gleason 6 prostate cancer on initial biopsy undergoing confirmatory biopsy. We used univariate and multivariable logistic regression to assess if high grade cancer (Gleason 7 or greater) on confirmatory biopsy could be predicted from initial diagnostic parameters (prostate specific antigen density, magnetic resonance imaging result, percent positive cores, percent cancer in positive cores and total tumor length). RESULTS: Median patient age was 62 years (IQR 56-66) and 47% of patients had a dominant or focal lesion on magnetic resonance imaging. Of the 392 patients 44 (11%) had high grade cancer on confirmatory biopsy, of whom 39 had Gleason 3+4, 1 had 4+3, 3 had Gleason 8 and 1 had Gleason 9 disease. All predictors were significantly associated with high grade cancer at confirmatory biopsy on univariate analysis. However, in the multivariable model only prostate specific antigen density and total tumor length were significantly associated (AUC 0.85). Using this model to select patients for confirmatory biopsy would generally provide a higher net benefit than performing confirmatory biopsy in all patients, across a wide range of threshold probabilities. CONCLUSIONS: If externally validated, a model based on initial diagnostic criteria could be used to avoid confirmatory biopsy in many patients initiating active surveillance.
Authors: Ashley E Ross; Stacy Loeb; Patricia Landis; Alan W Partin; Jonathan I Epstein; Anna Kettermann; Zhaoyong Feng; H Ballentine Carter; Patrick C Walsh Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2010-05-03 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: Vincent Fradet; John Kurhanewicz; Janet E Cowan; Alexander Karl; Fergus V Coakley; Katsuto Shinohara; Peter R Carroll Journal: Radiology Date: 2010-05-26 Impact factor: 11.105
Authors: Ryan K Berglund; Timothy A Masterson; Kinjal C Vora; Scott E Eggener; James A Eastham; Bertrand D Guillonneau Journal: J Urol Date: 2008-09-17 Impact factor: 7.450
Authors: Ari Adamy; David S Yee; Kazuhito Matsushita; Alexandra Maschino; Angel Cronin; Andrew Vickers; Bertrand Guillonneau; Peter T Scardino; James A Eastham Journal: J Urol Date: 2010-12-17 Impact factor: 7.450
Authors: Ignacio F San Francisco; Lillian Werner; Meredith M Regan; Marc B Garnick; Glenn Bubley; William C DeWolf Journal: J Urol Date: 2010-12-17 Impact factor: 7.450
Authors: David Margel; Stanley A Yap; Nathan Lawrentschuk; Laurence Klotz; Masoom Haider; Karen Hersey; Antonio Finelli; Alexandre Zlotta; John Trachtenberg; Neil Fleshner Journal: J Urol Date: 2012-02-14 Impact factor: 7.450
Authors: Meelan Bul; Xiaoye Zhu; Riccardo Valdagni; Tom Pickles; Yoshiyuki Kakehi; Antti Rannikko; Anders Bjartell; Deric K van der Schoot; Erik B Cornel; Giario N Conti; Egbert R Boevé; Frédéric Staerman; Jenneke J Vis-Maters; Henk Vergunst; Joris J Jaspars; Petra Strölin; Erik van Muilekom; Fritz H Schröder; Chris H Bangma; Monique J Roobol Journal: Eur Urol Date: 2012-11-12 Impact factor: 20.096
Authors: Rajiv Jayadevan; Ely R Felker; Lorna Kwan; Danielle E Barsa; Haoyue Zhang; Anthony E Sisk; Merdie Delfin; Leonard S Marks Journal: JAMA Netw Open Date: 2019-09-04