Literature DB >> 31451332

Predicting Biopsy Outcomes During Active Surveillance for Prostate Cancer: External Validation of the Canary Prostate Active Surveillance Study Risk Calculators in Five Large Active Surveillance Cohorts.

Frank-Jan H Drost1, Daan Nieboer2, Todd M Morgan3, Peter R Carroll4, Monique J Roobol2.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Men with prostate cancer (PCa) on active surveillance (AS) are followed through regular prostate biopsies, a burdensome and often unnecessary intervention, not without risks. Identifying men with at a low risk of disease reclassification may help reduce the number of biopsies.
OBJECTIVE: To assess the external validity of two Canary Prostate Active Surveillance Study Risk Calculators (PASS-RCs), which estimate the probability of reclassification (Gleason grade ≥7 with or without >34% of biopsy cores positive for PCa) on a surveillance biopsy, using a mix of months since last biopsy, age, body mass index, prostate-specific antigen, prostate volume, number of prior negative biopsies, and percentage (or ratio) of positive cores on last biopsy. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: We used data up to November 2017 from the Movember Foundation's Global Action Plan (GAP3) consortium, a global collaboration between AS studies. OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS AND STATISTICAL ANALYSIS: External validity of the PASS-RCs for estimating reclassification on biopsy was assessed by calibration, discrimination, and decision curve analyses. RESULTS AND LIMITATIONS: Five validation cohorts (Prostate Cancer Research International: Active Surveillance, Johns Hopkins, Toronto, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, and University of California San Francisco), comprising 5105 men on AS, were eligible for analysis. The individual cohorts comprised 429-2416 men, with a median follow-up between 36 and 84 mo, in both community and academic practices mainly from western countries. Abilities of the PASS-RCs to discriminate between men with and without reclassification on biopsy were reasonably good (area under the receiver operating characteristic curve values 0.68 and 0.65). The PASS-RCs were moderately well calibrated, and had a greater net benefit than most default strategies between a predicted 10% and 30% risk of reclassification.
CONCLUSIONS: Both PASS-RCs improved the balance between detecting reclassification and performing surveillance biopsies by reducing unnecessary biopsies. Recalibration to the local setting will increase their clinical usefulness and is therefore required before implementation. PATIENT
SUMMARY: Unnecessary prostate biopsies while on active surveillance (AS) should be avoided as much as possible. The ability of two calculators to selectively identify men at risk of progression was tested in a large cohort of men with low-risk prostate cancer on AS. The calculators were able to prevent unnecessary biopsies in some men. Usefulness of the calculators can be increased by adjusting them to the characteristics of the population of the clinic in which the calculators will be used.
Copyright © 2019 European Association of Urology. Published by Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Active surveillance; Decision curve analyses; Disease reclassification; External validation; Low-risk prostate cancer; Net benefit; Prostate biopsy; Risk calculator

Year:  2019        PMID: 31451332     DOI: 10.1016/j.eururo.2019.07.041

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


  8 in total

1.  Treatment in the absence of disease reclassification among men on active surveillance for prostate cancer.

Authors:  Peter S Kirk; Kehao Zhu; Yingye Zheng; Lisa F Newcomb; Jeannette M Schenk; James D Brooks; Peter R Carroll; Atreya Dash; William J Ellis; Christopher P Filson; Martin E Gleave; Michael Liss; Frances Martin; Jesse K McKenney; Todd M Morgan; Peter S Nelson; Ian M Thompson; Andrew A Wagner; Daniel W Lin; John L Gore
Journal:  Cancer       Date:  2021-09-13       Impact factor: 6.860

2.  Multiparametric MRI Versus SelectMDx Accuracy in the Diagnosis of Clinically Significant PCa in Men Enrolled in Active Surveillance.

Authors:  Pietro Pepe; Giuseppe Dibenedetto; Ludovica Pepe; Michele Pennisi
Journal:  In Vivo       Date:  2020 Jan-Feb       Impact factor: 2.155

Review 3.  Active surveillance for prostate cancer: selection criteria, guidelines, and outcomes.

Authors:  Colton H Walker; Kathryn A Marchetti; Udit Singhal; Todd M Morgan
Journal:  World J Urol       Date:  2021-03-02       Impact factor: 4.226

4.  A first step towards a global nomogram to predict disease progression for men on active surveillance.

Authors:  Mieke Van Hemelrijck; Xinge Ji; Jozien Helleman; Monique J Roobol; Daan Nieboer; Chris Bangma; Mark Frydenberg; Antti Rannikko; Lui Shiong Lee; Vincent Gnanapragasam; Michael W Kattan
Journal:  Transl Androl Urol       Date:  2021-03

5.  Role of Multiparametric Prostate Magnetic Resonance Imaging before Confirmatory Biopsy in Assessing the Risk of Prostate Cancer Progression during Active Surveillance.

Authors:  Joseba Salguero; Enrique Gómez-Gómez; José Valero-Rosa; Julia Carrasco-Valiente; Juan Mesa; Cristina Martin; Juan Pablo Campos-Hernández; Juan Manuel Rubio; Daniel López; María José Requena
Journal:  Korean J Radiol       Date:  2020-11-26       Impact factor: 3.500

6.  Developing machine learning algorithms for dynamic estimation of progression during active surveillance for prostate cancer.

Authors:  Changhee Lee; Alexander Light; Evgeny S Saveliev; Mihaela van der Schaar; Vincent J Gnanapragasam
Journal:  NPJ Digit Med       Date:  2022-08-06

Review 7.  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

Review 8.  The Movember Prostate Cancer Landscape Analysis: an assessment of unmet research needs.

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

  8 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.