Frank-Jan H Drost1, Daan Nieboer2, Todd M Morgan3, Peter R Carroll4, Monique J Roobol2. 1. Department of Radiology and Nuclear medicine, Erasmus University Medical Center, Rotterdam, The Netherlands; Department of Urology, Erasmus University Medical Center, Rotterdam, The Netherlands. Electronic address: f.drost@erasmusmc.nl. 2. Department of Urology, Erasmus University Medical Center, Rotterdam, The Netherlands. 3. Department of Urology, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI, USA. 4. Department of Urology, Helen Diller Family Comprehensive Cancer Center, University of California at San Francisco, San Francisco, CA, USA.
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.
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.
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
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
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
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