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. 1. Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center, Seattle, WA, USA; University of Washington, Seattle, WA, USA; Veterans Affairs Puget Sound Health Care System, Seattle, WA, USA. Electronic address: dlin@uw.edu. 2. Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center, Seattle, WA, USA; University of Washington, Seattle, WA, USA. 3. Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center, Seattle, WA, USA. 4. Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center, New York, NY, USA. 5. OPKO Labs, Nashville, TN, USA. 6. Stanford University, Stanford, CA, USA. 7. University of California at San Francisco, San Francisco, CA, USA. 8. Veterans Affairs Puget Sound Health Care System, Seattle, WA, USA. 9. University of Washington, Seattle, WA, USA. 10. Eastern Virginia Medical School, Norfolk, VA, USA. 11. University of British Columbia, Vancouver, Canada. 12. University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI, USA. 13. University of Texas Health Sciences Center at San Antonio, San Antonio, TX, USA. 14. Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center, Boston, MA, USA.
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.
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.
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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