Literature DB >> 27889277

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

Daniel W Lin1, Lisa F Newcomb2, Marshall D Brown3, Daniel D Sjoberg4, Yan Dong5, James D Brooks6, Peter R Carroll7, Matthew Cooperberg7, Atreya Dash8, William J Ellis9, Michael Fabrizio10, Martin E Gleave11, Todd M Morgan12, Peter S Nelson3, Ian M Thompson13, Andrew A Wagner14, Yingye Zheng3.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Diagnosis of Gleason 6 prostate cancer can leave uncertainty about the presence of undetected aggressive disease.
OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the utility of a four kallikrein (4K) panel in predicting the presence of high-grade cancer in men on active surveillance. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: Plasma collected before the first and subsequent surveillance biopsies was assessed for 718 men prospectively enrolled in the multi-institutional Canary PASS trial. Biopsy data were split 2:1 into training and test sets. We developed statistical models that included clinical information and either the 4Kpanel or serum prostate-specific antigen (PSA). OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS AND STATISTICAL ANALYSIS: The endpoint was reclassification to Gleason ≥7. We used receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve analyses and area under the curve (AUC) to assess discriminatory capacity, and decision curve analysis (DCA) to report clinical net benefit. RESULTS AND LIMITATIONS: Significant predictors for reclassification were 4Kpanel (odds ratio [OR] 1.54, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.31-1.81) or PSA (OR 2.11, 95% CI 1.53-2.91), ≥20% cores positive (OR 2.10, 95% CI 1.33-3.32), two or more prior negative biopsies (OR 0.19, 95% CI 0.04-0.85), prostate volume (OR 0.47, 95% CI 0.31-0.70), and body mass index (OR 1.09, 95% CI 1.04-1.14). ROC curve analysis comparing 4K and base models indicated that the 4Kpanel improved accuracy for predicting reclassification (AUC 0.78 vs 0.74) at the first surveillance biopsy. Both models performed comparably for prediction of reclassification at subsequent biopsies (AUC 0.75 vs 0.76). In DCA, both models showed higher net benefit compared to biopsy-all and biopsy-none strategies. Limitations include the single cohort nature of the study and the small numbers; results should be validated in another cohort before clinical use.
CONCLUSIONS: The 4Kpanel provided incremental value over routine clinical information in predicting high-grade cancer in the first biopsy after diagnosis. The 4Kpanel did not add predictive value to the base model at subsequent surveillance biopsies. PATIENT
SUMMARY: Active surveillance is a management strategy for many low-grade prostate cancers. Repeat biopsies monitor for previously undetected high-grade cancer. We show that a model with clinical variables, including a panel of four kallikreins, indicates the presence of high-grade cancer before a biopsy is performed.
Copyright © 2016 European Association of Urology. All rights reserved.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Active surveillance; Biomarker; Kallikrein; Prospective studies; Prostatic neoplasms

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2016        PMID: 27889277      PMCID: PMC7327706          DOI: 10.1016/j.eururo.2016.11.017

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


  16 in total

Review 1.  Gleason 6 Prostate Cancer: Translating Biology into Population Health.

Authors:  Scott E Eggener; Ketan Badani; Daniel A Barocas; Glen W Barrisford; Jed-Sian Cheng; Arnold I Chin; Anthony Corcoran; Jonathan I Epstein; Arvin K George; Gopal N Gupta; Matthew H Hayn; Eric C Kauffman; Brian Lane; Michael A Liss; Moben Mirza; Todd M Morgan; Kelvin Moses; Kenneth G Nepple; Mark A Preston; Soroush Rais-Bahrami; Matthew J Resnick; M Minhaj Siddiqui; Jonathan Silberstein; Eric A Singer; Geoffrey A Sonn; Preston Sprenkle; Kelly L Stratton; Jennifer Taylor; Jeffrey Tomaszewski; Matt Tollefson; Andrew Vickers; Wesley M White; William T Lowrance
Journal:  J Urol       Date:  2015-04-04       Impact factor: 7.450

2.  Gleason score 6 adenocarcinoma: should it be labeled as cancer?

Authors:  H Ballentine Carter; Alan W Partin; Patrick C Walsh; Bruce J Trock; Robert W Veltri; William G Nelson; Donald S Coffey; Eric A Singer; Jonathan I Epstein
Journal:  J Clin Oncol       Date:  2012-10-01       Impact factor: 44.544

3.  Prostate cancer, version 1.2014.

Authors:  James L Mohler; Philip W Kantoff; Andrew J Armstrong; Robert R Bahnson; Michael Cohen; Anthony Victor D'Amico; James A Eastham; Charles A Enke; Thomas A Farrington; Celestia S Higano; Eric Mark Horwitz; Mark H Kawachi; Michael Kuettel; Richard J Lee; Gary R Macvicar; Arnold W Malcolm; David Miller; Elizabeth R Plimack; Julio M Pow-Sang; Sylvia Richey; Mack Roach; Eric Rohren; Stan Rosenfeld; Eric J Small; Sandy Srinivas; Cy Stein; Seth A Strope; Jonathan Tward; Patrick C Walsh; Dorothy A Shead; Maria Ho
Journal:  J Natl Compr Canc Netw       Date:  2013-12-01       Impact factor: 11.908

4.  Improving the Specificity of Screening for Lethal Prostate Cancer Using Prostate-specific Antigen and a Panel of Kallikrein Markers: A Nested Case-Control Study.

Authors:  Pär Stattin; Andrew J Vickers; Daniel D Sjoberg; Robert Johansson; Torvald Granfors; Mattias Johansson; Kim Pettersson; Peter T Scardino; Göran Hallmans; Hans Lilja
Journal:  Eur Urol       Date:  2015-02-11       Impact factor: 20.096

5.  Prediction of prostate cancer risk: the role of prostate volume and digital rectal examination in the ERSPC risk calculators.

Authors:  Monique J Roobol; Heidi A van Vugt; Stacy Loeb; Xiaoye Zhu; Meelan Bul; Chris H Bangma; Arno G L J H van Leenders; Ewout W Steyerberg; Fritz H Schröder
Journal:  Eur Urol       Date:  2011-11-15       Impact factor: 20.096

6.  A multi-institutional prospective trial in the USA confirms that the 4Kscore accurately identifies men with high-grade prostate cancer.

Authors:  Dipen J Parekh; Sanoj Punnen; Daniel D Sjoberg; Scott W Asroff; James L Bailen; James S Cochran; Raoul Concepcion; Richard D David; Kenneth B Deck; Igor Dumbadze; Michael Gambla; Michael S Grable; Ralph J Henderson; Lawrence Karsh; Evan B Krisch; Timothy D Langford; Daniel W Lin; Shawn M McGee; John J Munoz; Christopher M Pieczonka; Kimberley Rieger-Christ; Daniel R Saltzstein; John W Scott; Neal D Shore; Paul R Sieber; Todd M Waldmann; Fredrick N Wolk; Stephen M Zappala
Journal:  Eur Urol       Date:  2014-10-27       Impact factor: 20.096

7.  Decision curve analysis: a novel method for evaluating prediction models.

Authors:  Andrew J Vickers; Elena B Elkin
Journal:  Med Decis Making       Date:  2006 Nov-Dec       Impact factor: 2.583

8.  Reporting recommendations for tumor marker prognostic studies (REMARK).

Authors:  Lisa M McShane; Douglas G Altman; Willi Sauerbrei; Sheila E Taube; Massimo Gion; Gary M Clark
Journal:  J Natl Cancer Inst       Date:  2005-08-17       Impact factor: 13.506

9.  Outcomes of Active Surveillance for Clinically Localized Prostate Cancer in the Prospective, Multi-Institutional Canary PASS Cohort.

Authors:  Lisa F Newcomb; Ian M Thompson; Hilary D Boyer; James D Brooks; Peter R Carroll; Matthew R Cooperberg; Atreya Dash; William J Ellis; Ladan Fazli; Ziding Feng; Martin E Gleave; Priya Kunju; Raymond S Lance; Jesse K McKenney; Maxwell V Meng; Marlo M Nicolas; Martin G Sanda; Jeffry Simko; Alan So; Maria S Tretiakova; Dean A Troyer; Lawrence D True; Funda Vakar-Lopez; Jeff Virgin; Andrew A Wagner; John T Wei; Yingye Zheng; Peter S Nelson; Daniel W Lin
Journal:  J Urol       Date:  2015-08-29       Impact factor: 7.450

10.  Predicting high-grade cancer at ten-core prostate biopsy using four kallikrein markers measured in blood in the ProtecT study.

Authors:  Richard J Bryant; Daniel D Sjoberg; Andrew J Vickers; Mary C Robinson; Rajeev Kumar; Luke Marsden; Michael Davis; Peter T Scardino; Jenny Donovan; David E Neal; Hans Lilja; Freddie C Hamdy
Journal:  J Natl Cancer Inst       Date:  2015-04-11       Impact factor: 13.506

View more
  26 in total

1.  Baseline and longitudinal plasma caveolin-1 level as a biomarker in active surveillance for early-stage prostate cancer.

Authors:  Spyridon P Basourakos; John W Davis; Brian F Chapin; John F Ward; Curtis A Pettaway; Louis L Pisters; Neema Navai; Mary F Achim; Xuemei Wang; Hsiang-Chun Chen; Seungtaek Choi; Deborah Kuban; Patricia Troncoso; Sam Hanash; Timothy C Thompson; Jeri Kim
Journal:  BJU Int       Date:  2017-08-16       Impact factor: 5.588

Review 2.  The role of prostate cancer biomarkers in undiagnosed men.

Authors:  Hasan Dani; Stacy Loeb
Journal:  Curr Opin Urol       Date:  2017-05       Impact factor: 2.309

Review 3.  Current Management Strategy for Active Surveillance in Prostate Cancer.

Authors:  Jamil S Syed; Juan Javier-Desloges; Stephanie Tatzel; Ansh Bhagat; Kevin A Nguyen; Kevin Hwang; Sarah Kim; Preston C Sprenkle
Journal:  Curr Oncol Rep       Date:  2017-02       Impact factor: 5.075

4.  A Contemporary Prostate Biopsy Risk Calculator Based on Multiple Heterogeneous Cohorts.

Authors:  Donna P Ankerst; Johanna Straubinger; Katharina Selig; Lourdes Guerrios; Amanda De Hoedt; Javier Hernandez; Michael A Liss; Robin J Leach; Stephen J Freedland; Michael W Kattan; Robert Nam; Alexander Haese; Francesco Montorsi; Stephen A Boorjian; Matthew R Cooperberg; Cedric Poyet; Emily Vertosick; Andrew J Vickers
Journal:  Eur Urol       Date:  2018-05-16       Impact factor: 20.096

5.  Learning-based biomarker-assisted rules for optimized clinical benefit under a risk constraint.

Authors:  Yanqing Wang; Ying-Qi Zhao; Yingye Zheng
Journal:  Biometrics       Date:  2019-12-25       Impact factor: 2.571

Review 6.  Whom to Biopsy: Prediagnostic Risk Stratification with Biomarkers, Nomograms, and Risk Calculators.

Authors:  Stacy Loeb; Hasan Dani
Journal:  Urol Clin North Am       Date:  2017-11       Impact factor: 2.241

7.  Magnetic Resonance Imaging for the Detection of High Grade Cancer in the Canary Prostate Active Surveillance Study.

Authors:  Michael A Liss; Lisa F Newcomb; Yingye Zheng; Michael P Garcia; Christopher P Filson; Hilary Boyer; James D Brooks; Peter R Carroll; Matthew R Cooperberg; William J Ellis; Martin E Gleave; Frances M Martin; Todd Morgan; Peter S Nelson; Andrew A Wagner; Ian M Thompson; Daniel W Lin
Journal:  J Urol       Date:  2020-04-28       Impact factor: 7.450

Review 8.  Advances in the selection of patients with prostate cancer for active surveillance.

Authors:  James L Liu; Hiten D Patel; Nora M Haney; Jonathan I Epstein; Alan W Partin
Journal:  Nat Rev Urol       Date:  2021-02-23       Impact factor: 14.432

Review 9.  Biomarkers in Prostate Cancer Diagnosis: From Current Knowledge to the Role of Metabolomics and Exosomes.

Authors:  Stefano Salciccia; Anna Laura Capriotti; Aldo Laganà; Stefano Fais; Mariantonia Logozzi; Ettore De Berardinis; Gian Maria Busetto; Giovanni Battista Di Pierro; Gian Piero Ricciuti; Francesco Del Giudice; Alessandro Sciarra; Peter R Carroll; Matthew R Cooperberg; Beatrice Sciarra; Martina Maggi
Journal:  Int J Mol Sci       Date:  2021-04-22       Impact factor: 5.923

Review 10.  Active surveillance for prostate cancer.

Authors:  Daniela K Shill; Monique J Roobol; Behfar Ehdaie; Andrew J Vickers; Sigrid V Carlsson
Journal:  Transl Androl Urol       Date:  2021-06
View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.