Selin Merdan1, Scott A Tomlins2,3, Christine L Barnett1, Todd M Morgan3, James E Montie3, John T Wei3, Brian T Denton1,3. 1. Department of Industrial and Operations Engineering, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, Michigan. 2. Michigan Center for Translational Pathology, Department of Pathology, University of Michigan Medical School, Ann Arbor, Michigan. 3. Department of Urology, University of Michigan Medical School, Ann Arbor, Michigan.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: In men with clinically localized prostate cancer who have undergone at least 1 previous negative biopsy and have elevated serum prostate-specific antigen (PSA) levels, long-term health outcomes associated with the assessment of urinary prostate cancer antigen 3 (PCA3) and the transmembrane protease, serine 2 (TMPRSS2):v-ets erythroblastosis virus E26 oncogene homolog (avian) (ERG) gene fusion (T2:ERG) have not been investigated previously in relation to the decision to recommend a repeat biopsy. METHODS: The authors performed a decision analysis using a decision tree for men with elevated PSA levels. The probability of cancer was estimated using the Prostate Cancer Prevention Trial Risk Calculator (version 2.0). The use of PSA alone was compared with the use of PCA3 and T2:ERG scores, with each evaluated independently, in combination with PSA to trigger a repeat biopsy. When PCA3 and T2:ERG score evaluations were used, predefined thresholds were established to determine whether the patient should undergo a repeat biopsy. Biopsy outcomes were defined as either positive (with a Gleason score of <7, 7, or >7) or negative. Probabilities and estimates of 10-year overall survival and 15-year cancer-specific survival were derived from previous studies and a literature review. Outcomes were defined as age-dependent and Gleason score-dependent 10-year overall and 15-year cancer-specific survival rates and the percentage of biopsies avoided. RESULTS: Incorporating the PCA3 score (biopsy threshold, 25; generated based on the urine PCA3 level normalized to the amount of PSA messenger RNA) or the T2:ERG score (biopsy threshold, 10; based on the urine T2:ERG level normalized to the amount of PSA messenger RNA) into the decision to recommend repeat biopsy would have avoided 55.4% or 64.7% of repeat biopsies for the base-case patient, respectively, and changes in the 10-year survival rate were only 0.93% or 1.41%, respectively. Multi-way sensitivity analyses suggested that these results were robust with respect to the model parameters. CONCLUSIONS: The use of PCA3 or T2:ERG testing for repeat biopsy decisions can substantially reduce the number of biopsies without significantly affecting 10-year survival.
BACKGROUND: In men with clinically localized prostate cancer who have undergone at least 1 previous negative biopsy and have elevated serum prostate-specific antigen (PSA) levels, long-term health outcomes associated with the assessment of urinary prostate cancer antigen 3 (PCA3) and the transmembrane protease, serine 2 (TMPRSS2):v-ets erythroblastosis virus E26 oncogene homolog (avian) (ERG) gene fusion (T2:ERG) have not been investigated previously in relation to the decision to recommend a repeat biopsy. METHODS: The authors performed a decision analysis using a decision tree for men with elevated PSA levels. The probability of cancer was estimated using the Prostate Cancer Prevention Trial Risk Calculator (version 2.0). The use of PSA alone was compared with the use of PCA3 and T2:ERG scores, with each evaluated independently, in combination with PSA to trigger a repeat biopsy. When PCA3 and T2:ERG score evaluations were used, predefined thresholds were established to determine whether the patient should undergo a repeat biopsy. Biopsy outcomes were defined as either positive (with a Gleason score of <7, 7, or >7) or negative. Probabilities and estimates of 10-year overall survival and 15-year cancer-specific survival were derived from previous studies and a literature review. Outcomes were defined as age-dependent and Gleason score-dependent 10-year overall and 15-year cancer-specific survival rates and the percentage of biopsies avoided. RESULTS: Incorporating the PCA3 score (biopsy threshold, 25; generated based on the urine PCA3 level normalized to the amount of PSA messenger RNA) or the T2:ERG score (biopsy threshold, 10; based on the urine T2:ERG level normalized to the amount of PSA messenger RNA) into the decision to recommend repeat biopsy would have avoided 55.4% or 64.7% of repeat biopsies for the base-case patient, respectively, and changes in the 10-year survival rate were only 0.93% or 1.41%, respectively. Multi-way sensitivity analyses suggested that these results were robust with respect to the model parameters. CONCLUSIONS: The use of PCA3 or T2:ERG testing for repeat biopsy decisions can substantially reduce the number of biopsies without significantly affecting 10-year survival.
Authors: Alexandre de la Taille; Jacques Irani; Markus Graefen; Felix Chun; Theo de Reijke; Paul Kil; Paolo Gontero; Alain Mottaz; Alexander Haese Journal: J Urol Date: 2011-04-15 Impact factor: 7.450
Authors: Ina L Deras; Sheila M J Aubin; Amy Blase; John R Day; Seongjoon Koo; Alan W Partin; William J Ellis; Leonard S Marks; Yves Fradet; Harry Rittenhouse; Jack Groskopf Journal: J Urol Date: 2008-03-04 Impact factor: 7.450
Authors: Marc C Gittelman; Bernard Hertzman; James Bailen; Thomas Williams; Isaac Koziol; Ralph Jonathan Henderson; Mitchell Efros; Mohamed Bidair; John F Ward Journal: J Urol Date: 2013-02-14 Impact factor: 7.450
Authors: Sheila M J Aubin; Jennifer Reid; Mark J Sarno; Amy Blase; Jacqueline Aussie; Harry Rittenhouse; Roger Rittmaster; Gerald L Andriole; Jack Groskopf Journal: J Urol Date: 2010-09-17 Impact factor: 7.450
Authors: Martijn P M Q van Gils; Daphne Hessels; Onno van Hooij; Sander A Jannink; W Pim Peelen; Suzanne L J Hanssen; J Alfred Witjes; Erik B Cornel; Herbert F M Karthaus; Geert A H J Smits; Gerhard A Dijkman; Peter F A Mulders; Jack A Schalken Journal: Clin Cancer Res Date: 2007-02-01 Impact factor: 12.531
Authors: Daphne Hessels; Martijn P M Q van Gils; Onno van Hooij; Sander A Jannink; J Alfred Witjes; Gerald W Verhaegh; Jack A Schalken Journal: Prostate Date: 2010-01-01 Impact factor: 4.104
Authors: Gabriel P Haas; Nicolas Barry Delongchamps; Richard F Jones; Vishal Chandan; Angel M Serio; Andrew J Vickers; Mary Jumbelic; Gregory Threatte; Rus Korets; Hans Lilja; Gustavo de la Roza Journal: J Natl Cancer Inst Date: 2007-09-25 Impact factor: 13.506
Authors: Jan-Erik Johansson; Ove Andrén; Swen-Olof Andersson; Paul W Dickman; Lars Holmberg; Anders Magnuson; Hans-Olov Adami Journal: JAMA Date: 2004-06-09 Impact factor: 56.272
Authors: Madalene A Earp; Rama Raghavan; Qian Li; Junqiang Dai; Stacey J Winham; Julie M Cunningham; Yanina Natanzon; Kimberly R Kalli; Xiaonan Hou; S John Weroha; Paul Haluska; Kate Lawrenson; Simon A Gayther; Chen Wang; Ellen L Goode; Brooke L Fridley Journal: Oncotarget Date: 2017-07-18
Authors: William E Jarrard; Adam Schultz; Tyler Etheridge; Shivashankar Damodaran; Glenn O Allen; David Jarrard; Bing Yang Journal: PLoS One Date: 2019-06-24 Impact factor: 3.240
Authors: Boshen Jiao; Roman Gulati; Nathaniel Hendrix; John L Gore; Soroush Rais-Bahrami; Todd M Morgan; Ruth Etzioni Journal: Value Health Date: 2021-04-22 Impact factor: 5.101