Liam C Macleod1, William J Ellis2, Lisa F Newcomb3, Yingye Zheng4, James D Brooks5, Peter R Carroll6, Martin E Gleave7, Raymond S Lance8, Peter S Nelson4, Ian M Thompson9, Andrew A Wagner10, John T Wei11, Daniel W Lin12. 1. University of Washington School of Medicine, Seattle, Washington. Electronic address: liamcm@uw.edu. 2. University of Washington School of Medicine, Seattle, Washington; Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center, Seattle, Washington. 3. University of Washington School of Medicine, Seattle, Washington. 4. Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center, Seattle, Washington. 5. Department of Urology, Stanford University School of Medicine, Stanford, California. 6. University of California-San Francisco School of Medicine, San Francisco, California. 7. University of British Columbia, Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada. 8. Eastern Virginia Medical School, Norfolk, Virginia. 9. University of Texas Health Sciences Center at San Antonio, San Antonio, Texas. 10. Beth Deaconess Medical Center, Boston, Massachusetts. 11. University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, Michigan. 12. University of Washington School of Medicine, Seattle, Washington; Seattle Puget Sound Health Care System, Veterans Affairs Hospital, Seattle, Washington; Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center, Seattle, Washington. Electronic address: dlin@uw.edu.
Abstract
PURPOSE: During active surveillance for localized prostate cancer, the timing of the first surveillance biopsy varies. We analyzed the Canary PASS (Prostate Cancer Active Surveillance Study) to determine biopsy timing influence on rates of prostate cancer adverse reclassification at the first active surveillance biopsy. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Of 1,085 participants in PASS, 421 had fewer than 34% of cores involved with cancer and Gleason sum 6 or less, and thereafter underwent on-study active surveillance biopsy. Reclassification was defined as an increase in Gleason sum and/or 34% or more of cores with prostate cancer. First active surveillance biopsy reclassification rates were categorized as less than 8, 8 to 13 and greater than 13 months after diagnosis. Multivariable logistic regression determined association between reclassification and first biopsy timing. RESULTS: Of 421 men, 89 (21.1%) experienced reclassification at the first active surveillance biopsy. Median time from prostate cancer diagnosis to first active surveillance biopsy was 11 months (IQR 7.8-13.8). Reclassification rates at less than 8, 8 to 13 and greater than 13 months were 24%, 19% and 22% (p = 0.65). On multivariable analysis, compared to men biopsied at less than 8 months the OR of reclassification at 8 to 13 and greater than 13 months were 0.88 (95% CI 0.5,1.6) and 0.95 (95% CI 0.5,1.9), respectively. Prostate specific antigen density 0.15 or greater (referent less than 0.15, OR 1.9, 95% CI 1.1, 4.1) and body mass index 35 kg/m2 or greater (referent less than 25 kg/m2, OR 2.4, 95% CI 1.1,5.7) were associated with increased odds of reclassification. CONCLUSIONS: Timing of the first active surveillance biopsy was not associated with increased adverse reclassification but prostate specific antigen density and body mass index were. In low risk patients on active surveillance, it may be reasonable to perform the first active surveillance biopsy at a later time, reducing the overall cost and morbidity of active surveillance.
PURPOSE: During active surveillance for localized prostate cancer, the timing of the first surveillance biopsy varies. We analyzed the Canary PASS (Prostate Cancer Active Surveillance Study) to determine biopsy timing influence on rates of prostate cancer adverse reclassification at the first active surveillance biopsy. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Of 1,085 participants in PASS, 421 had fewer than 34% of cores involved with cancer and Gleason sum 6 or less, and thereafter underwent on-study active surveillance biopsy. Reclassification was defined as an increase in Gleason sum and/or 34% or more of cores with prostate cancer. First active surveillance biopsy reclassification rates were categorized as less than 8, 8 to 13 and greater than 13 months after diagnosis. Multivariable logistic regression determined association between reclassification and first biopsy timing. RESULTS: Of 421 men, 89 (21.1%) experienced reclassification at the first active surveillance biopsy. Median time from prostate cancer diagnosis to first active surveillance biopsy was 11 months (IQR 7.8-13.8). Reclassification rates at less than 8, 8 to 13 and greater than 13 months were 24%, 19% and 22% (p = 0.65). On multivariable analysis, compared to men biopsied at less than 8 months the OR of reclassification at 8 to 13 and greater than 13 months were 0.88 (95% CI 0.5,1.6) and 0.95 (95% CI 0.5,1.9), respectively. Prostate specific antigen density 0.15 or greater (referent less than 0.15, OR 1.9, 95% CI 1.1, 4.1) and body mass index 35 kg/m2 or greater (referent less than 25 kg/m2, OR 2.4, 95% CI 1.1,5.7) were associated with increased odds of reclassification. CONCLUSIONS: Timing of the first active surveillance biopsy was not associated with increased adverse reclassification but prostate specific antigen density and body mass index were. In low risk patients on active surveillance, it may be reasonable to perform the first active surveillance biopsy at a later time, reducing the overall cost and morbidity of active surveillance.
Authors: A A Hussein; C J Welty; N Ameli; J E Cowan; M Leapman; S P Porten; K Shinohara; P R Carroll Journal: J Urol Date: 2015-01-23 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: 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
Authors: Matthew R Cooperberg; David J Pasta; Eric P Elkin; Mark S Litwin; David M Latini; Janeen Du Chane; Peter R Carroll Journal: J Urol Date: 2005-06 Impact factor: 7.450
Authors: Marc A Dall'Era; Peter C Albertsen; Christopher Bangma; Peter R Carroll; H Ballentine Carter; Matthew R Cooperberg; Stephen J Freedland; Laurence H Klotz; Christopher Parker; Mark S Soloway Journal: Eur Urol Date: 2012-06-07 Impact factor: 20.096
Authors: Lisa F Newcomb; James D Brooks; Peter R Carroll; Ziding Feng; Martin E Gleave; Peter S Nelson; Ian M Thompson; Daniel W Lin Journal: Urology Date: 2009-09-16 Impact factor: 2.649
Authors: Jeannette M Schenk; Marian L Neuhouser; Sarah J Beatty; Matthew VanDoren; Daniel W Lin; Michael Porter; John L Gore; Roman Gulati; Stephen R Plymate; Jonathan L Wright Journal: Contemp Clin Trials Date: 2019-04-16 Impact factor: 2.226
Authors: Michelle M Kouspou; Jenna E Fong; Nadine Brew; Sarah T F Hsiao; Seanna L Davidson; Peter L Choyke; Tony Crispino; Suneil Jain; Guido W Jenster; Beatrice S Knudsen; Jeremy L Millar; Nicole Mittmann; Charles J Ryan; Bertrand Tombal; Mark Buzza Journal: Nat Rev Urol Date: 2020-07-22 Impact factor: 14.432