Literature DB >> 34254851

Active Surveillance Strategies for Low-Grade Prostate Cancer: Comparative Benefits and Cost-effectiveness.

Stella K Kang1, Rahul D Mali1, Vinay Prabhu1, Bart S Ferket1, Stacy Loeb1.   

Abstract

Background Active surveillance (AS) is the recommended treatment option for low-risk prostate cancer (PC). Surveillance varies in MRI, frequency of follow-up, and the Prostate Imaging Reporting and Data System (PI-RADS) score that would repeat biopsy. Purpose To compare the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of AS strategies for low-risk PC with versus without MRI. Materials and Methods This study developed a mathematical model to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of surveillance strategies in a simulation of men with a diagnosis of low-risk PC. The following strategies were compared: watchful waiting, prostate-specific antigen (PSA) and annual biopsy without MRI, and PSA testing and MRI with varied PI-RADS thresholds for biopsy. MRI strategies differed regarding scheduling and use of PI-RADS score of at least 3, or a PI-RADS score of at least 4 to indicate the need for biopsy. Life-years, quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs), and incremental cost-effectiveness ratios were calculated by using microsimulation. Sensitivity analysis was used to assess the impact of varying parameter values on results. Results For the base case of 60-year-old men, all strategies incorporating prostate MRI extended QALYs and life-years compared with watchful waiting and non-MRI strategies. Annual MRI strategies yielded 16.19 QALYs, annual biopsy with no MRI yielded 16.14 QALYs, and watchful waiting yielded 15.94 QALYs. Annual MRI with PI-RADS score of at least 3 or of at least 4 as the biopsy threshold and annual MRI with biopsy even after MRI with negative findings offered similar QALYs and the same unadjusted life expectancy: 23.05 life-years. However, a PI-RADS score of at least 4 yielded 42% fewer lifetime biopsies. With a cost-effectiveness threshold of $100 000 per QALY, annual MRI with biopsy for lesions with PI-RADS scores of 4 or greater was most cost-effective (incremental cost-effectiveness ratio, $67 221 per QALY). Age, treatment type, risk of initial grade misclassification, and quality-of-life impact of procedural complications affected results. Conclusion The use of active surveillance (AS) with biopsy decisions guided by findings from annual MRI reduces the number of biopsies while preserving life expectancy and quality of life. Biopsy in lesions with PI-RADS scores of 4 or greater is likely the most cost-effective AS strategy for men with low-risk prostate cancer who are younger than 70 years. © RSNA, 2021 Online supplemental material is available for this article. An earlier incorrect version appeared online. This article was corrected on July 13, 2021.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2021        PMID: 34254851      PMCID: PMC8409107          DOI: 10.1148/radiol.2021204321

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Radiology        ISSN: 0033-8419            Impact factor:   29.146


  62 in total

1.  30-day mortality and major complications after radical prostatectomy: influence of age and comorbidity.

Authors:  Shabbir M H Alibhai; Marc Leach; George Tomlinson; Murray D Krahn; Neil Fleshner; Eric Holowaty; Gary Naglie
Journal:  J Natl Cancer Inst       Date:  2005-10-19       Impact factor: 13.506

2.  Comparison of MR/ultrasound fusion-guided biopsy with ultrasound-guided biopsy for the diagnosis of prostate cancer.

Authors:  M Minhaj Siddiqui; Soroush Rais-Bahrami; Baris Turkbey; Arvin K George; Jason Rothwax; Nabeel Shakir; Chinonyerem Okoro; Dima Raskolnikov; Howard L Parnes; W Marston Linehan; Maria J Merino; Richard M Simon; Peter L Choyke; Bradford J Wood; Peter A Pinto
Journal:  JAMA       Date:  2015-01-27       Impact factor: 56.272

3.  Cancer statistics, 2020.

Authors:  Rebecca L Siegel; Kimberly D Miller; Ahmedin Jemal
Journal:  CA Cancer J Clin       Date:  2020-01-08       Impact factor: 508.702

4.  Prostate Cancer, Version 2.2019, NCCN Clinical Practice Guidelines in Oncology.

Authors:  James L Mohler; Emmanuel S Antonarakis; Andrew J Armstrong; Anthony V D'Amico; Brian J Davis; Tanya Dorff; James A Eastham; Charles A Enke; Thomas A Farrington; Celestia S Higano; Eric Mark Horwitz; Michael Hurwitz; Joseph E Ippolito; Christopher J Kane; Michael R Kuettel; Joshua M Lang; Jesse McKenney; George Netto; David F Penson; Elizabeth R Plimack; Julio M Pow-Sang; Thomas J Pugh; Sylvia Richey; Mack Roach; Stan Rosenfeld; Edward Schaeffer; Ahmad Shabsigh; Eric J Small; Daniel E Spratt; Sandy Srinivas; Jonathan Tward; Dorothy A Shead; Deborah A Freedman-Cass
Journal:  J Natl Compr Canc Netw       Date:  2019-05-01       Impact factor: 11.908

5.  Active Surveillance for Intermediate Risk Prostate Cancer: Survival Outcomes in the Sunnybrook Experience.

Authors:  Hima Bindu Musunuru; Toshihiro Yamamoto; Laurence Klotz; Gabriella Ghanem; Alexandre Mamedov; Peraka Sethukavalan; Vibhuti Jethava; Suneil Jain; Liying Zhang; Danny Vesprini; Andrew Loblaw
Journal:  J Urol       Date:  2016-08-26       Impact factor: 7.450

6.  Active surveillance for low-risk prostate cancer worldwide: the PRIAS study.

Authors:  Meelan Bul; Xiaoye Zhu; Riccardo Valdagni; Tom Pickles; Yoshiyuki Kakehi; Antti Rannikko; Anders Bjartell; Deric K van der Schoot; Erik B Cornel; Giario N Conti; Egbert R Boevé; Frédéric Staerman; Jenneke J Vis-Maters; Henk Vergunst; Joris J Jaspars; Petra Strölin; Erik van Muilekom; Fritz H Schröder; Chris H Bangma; Monique J Roobol
Journal:  Eur Urol       Date:  2012-11-12       Impact factor: 20.096

7.  Chemohormonal Therapy in Metastatic Hormone-Sensitive Prostate Cancer.

Authors:  Christopher J Sweeney; Yu-Hui Chen; Michael Carducci; Glenn Liu; David F Jarrard; Mario Eisenberger; Yu-Ning Wong; Noah Hahn; Manish Kohli; Matthew M Cooney; Robert Dreicer; Nicholas J Vogelzang; Joel Picus; Daniel Shevrin; Maha Hussain; Jorge A Garcia; Robert S DiPaola
Journal:  N Engl J Med       Date:  2015-08-05       Impact factor: 91.245

8.  Addition of docetaxel, zoledronic acid, or both to first-line long-term hormone therapy in prostate cancer (STAMPEDE): survival results from an adaptive, multiarm, multistage, platform randomised controlled trial.

Authors:  Nicholas D James; Matthew R Sydes; Noel W Clarke; Malcolm D Mason; David P Dearnaley; Melissa R Spears; Alastair W S Ritchie; Christopher C Parker; J Martin Russell; Gerhardt Attard; Johann de Bono; William Cross; Rob J Jones; George Thalmann; Claire Amos; David Matheson; Robin Millman; Mymoona Alzouebi; Sharon Beesley; Alison J Birtle; Susannah Brock; Richard Cathomas; Prabir Chakraborti; Simon Chowdhury; Audrey Cook; Tony Elliott; Joanna Gale; Stephanie Gibbs; John D Graham; John Hetherington; Robert Hughes; Robert Laing; Fiona McKinna; Duncan B McLaren; Joe M O'Sullivan; Omi Parikh; Clive Peedell; Andrew Protheroe; Angus J Robinson; Narayanan Srihari; Rajaguru Srinivasan; John Staffurth; Santhanam Sundar; Shaun Tolan; David Tsang; John Wagstaff; Mahesh K B Parmar
Journal:  Lancet       Date:  2015-12-21       Impact factor: 79.321

Review 9.  The primacy of multiparametric MRI in men with suspected prostate cancer.

Authors:  Jonathan Richenberg; Vibeke Løgager; Valeria Panebianco; Olivier Rouviere; Geert Villeirs; Ivo G Schoots
Journal:  Eur Radiol       Date:  2019-06-06       Impact factor: 5.315

10.  Adherence to Active Surveillance Protocols for Low-risk Prostate Cancer: Results of the Movember Foundation's Global Action Plan Prostate Cancer Active Surveillance Initiative.

Authors:  Arveen A Kalapara; Jan F M Verbeek; Daan Nieboer; Michael Fahey; Vincent Gnanapragasam; Mieke Van Hemelrijck; Lui Shiong Lee; Chris H Bangma; Ewout W Steyerberg; Tim Harkin; Jozien Helleman; Monique J Roobol; Mark Frydenberg
Journal:  Eur Urol Oncol       Date:  2019-09-26
View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.