Literature DB >> 27469419

Risk prediction tool for grade re-classification in men with favourable-risk prostate cancer on active surveillance.

Mufaddal M Mamawala1, Karthik Rao1, Patricia Landis1, Jonathan I Epstein1, Bruce J Trock1, Jeffrey J Tosoian1, Kenneth J Pienta1, H Ballentine Carter1.   

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: To create a nomogram for men on active surveillance (AS) for prediction of grade re-classification (GR) above Gleason score 6 (Grade group >2) at surveillance biopsy. PATIENTS AND METHODS: From a cohort of men enrolled in an AS programme, a multivariable model was used to identify clinical and pathological parameters predictive of GR. Nomogram performance was assessed using receiver operating characteristic curves, calibration, and decision curve analysis.
RESULTS: Of 1 374 men, 254 (18.50%) were re-classified to Gleason ≥7 on surveillance prostate biopsy. Variables predictive of GR were earlier year of diagnosis [≤2004 vs ≥2005; odds ratio (OR) 2.16, P < 0.001], older age (OR 1.05, P < 0.001), higher prostate-specific antigen density [OR 1.19 (per 0.1 unit increase), P = 0.04], bilateral disease (OR 2.86, P < 0.001), risk strata (low-risk vs very-low-risk, OR 1.79, P < 0.001), and total number of biopsies without GR (OR 0.68, P < 0.001). On internal validation, a nomogram created using the multivariable model had an area under the curve of 0.757 (95% confidence interval 0.730-0.797) for predicting GR at the time of next surveillance biopsy.
CONCLUSION: The nomogram described is currently being used at each return visit to assess the need for a surveillance biopsy, and could increase retention in AS.
© 2016 The Authors BJU International © 2016 BJU International Published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd.

Entities:  

Keywords:  active surveillance; grade re-classification; prediction nomogram; prostate cancer

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2016        PMID: 27469419     DOI: 10.1111/bju.13608

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  BJU Int        ISSN: 1464-4096            Impact factor:   5.588


  8 in total

1.  Active surveillance of prostate cancer: Current state of practice and utility of multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging.

Authors:  Ridwan Alam; H Ballentine Carter; Jonathan I Epstein; Jeffrey J Tosoian
Journal:  Rev Urol       Date:  2017

2.  Value of Tracking Biopsy in Men Undergoing Active Surveillance of Prostate Cancer.

Authors:  Edward Chang; Tonye A Jones; Shyam Natarajan; Devi Sharma; Demetrios Simopoulos; Daniel J Margolis; Jiaoti Huang; Frederick J Dorey; Leonard S Marks
Journal:  J Urol       Date:  2017-07-18       Impact factor: 7.450

3.  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

4.  Re; Singh S, Patil S, Tamhankar AS, Ahluwalia P, Gautam G. Low-risk prostate cancer in India: Is active surveillance a valid treatment option? Indian J Urol 2020;36:184-90.

Authors:  Abhishek Pandey; Swarnendu Mandal; Manoj K Das; Prasant Nayak
Journal:  Indian J Urol       Date:  2020-10-01

Review 5.  Active surveillance for prostate cancer: a systematic review of contemporary worldwide practices.

Authors:  Netty Kinsella; Jozien Helleman; Sophie Bruinsma; Sigrid Carlsson; Declan Cahill; Christian Brown; Mieke Van Hemelrijck
Journal:  Transl Androl Urol       Date:  2018-02

Review 6.  Biomarkers in active surveillance.

Authors:  Stacy Loeb; Jeffrey J Tosoian
Journal:  Transl Androl Urol       Date:  2018-02

7.  17-Gene Genomic Prostate Score Test Results in the Canary Prostate Active Surveillance Study (PASS) Cohort.

Authors:  Daniel W Lin; Yingye Zheng; Jesse K McKenney; Marshall D Brown; Ruixiao Lu; Michael Crager; Hilary Boyer; Maria Tretiakova; James D Brooks; Atreya Dash; Michael D Fabrizio; Martin E Gleave; Suzanne Kolb; Michael Liss; Todd M Morgan; Ian M Thompson; Andrew A Wagner; Athanasios Tsiatis; Andrea Pingitore; Peter S Nelson; Lisa F Newcomb
Journal:  J Clin Oncol       Date:  2020-03-04       Impact factor: 44.544

8.  Prevalence, Cognitive and Socio-Demographic Determinants of Prostate Cancer Screening

Authors:  Mehdi Mirzaei-Alavijeh; Touraj Ahmadi-Jouybari; Masoumeh Vaezi; Farzad Jalilian
Journal:  Asian Pac J Cancer Prev       Date:  2018-04-27
  8 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.