BACKGROUND: Prostate specific antigen doubling time (PSAdt) is a dynamic model of prostate tumor biology. It predicts aggressive disease and subsequent clinical recurrence after radical treatment. However, as yet there is only limited evidence for its validity in the watchful waiting population. METHODS: One hundred and thirteen previously untreated patients with adenocarcinoma of the prostate who were referred to the British Columbia Cancer Agency for a management opinion subsequently were placed into a prospective watchful waiting program. The reasons for watchful waiting, previous medical history, serial PSA, and histopathologic data were recorded. RESULTS: The median age of patients was 75 years (range, 49-85 years). The median follow-up from the time of the first appointment was 14 months (range, 0-58 months). The reasons for watchful waiting were correlated highly with T classification (P = 0.003) and past medical history (P = 0.002). Approximately 40% of T1 patients and 51% of T2 patients had clinical progression by 2 years, increasing to 60% at 3 years. On multivariate analysis PSAdt strongly correlated with clinical progression (P < 0.0001), stage progression (P = 0.01), and time to treatment (P = 0.0001); tumor grade and initial stage were not found to be predictive for any of the endpoints studied. Initial PSA only was significant in predicting for time to treatment (P = 0.03). Approximately 50% of patients with a PSAdt of <18 months progressed within 6 months. At last follow-up, no deaths from prostate carcinoma had been recorded. Overall survival at 2 and 5 years was 92% and 68%, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: Using digital rectal examination, the findings of this study demonstrated high rates of clinical tumor progression within the watchful waiting population. PSAdt rather than standard histopathologic criteria was found to be the most powerful indicator of disease activity.
BACKGROUND:Prostate specific antigen doubling time (PSAdt) is a dynamic model of prostate tumor biology. It predicts aggressive disease and subsequent clinical recurrence after radical treatment. However, as yet there is only limited evidence for its validity in the watchful waiting population. METHODS: One hundred and thirteen previously untreated patients with adenocarcinoma of the prostate who were referred to the British Columbia Cancer Agency for a management opinion subsequently were placed into a prospective watchful waiting program. The reasons for watchful waiting, previous medical history, serial PSA, and histopathologic data were recorded. RESULTS: The median age of patients was 75 years (range, 49-85 years). The median follow-up from the time of the first appointment was 14 months (range, 0-58 months). The reasons for watchful waiting were correlated highly with T classification (P = 0.003) and past medical history (P = 0.002). Approximately 40% of T1 patients and 51% of T2 patients had clinical progression by 2 years, increasing to 60% at 3 years. On multivariate analysis PSAdt strongly correlated with clinical progression (P < 0.0001), stage progression (P = 0.01), and time to treatment (P = 0.0001); tumor grade and initial stage were not found to be predictive for any of the endpoints studied. Initial PSA only was significant in predicting for time to treatment (P = 0.03). Approximately 50% of patients with a PSAdt of <18 months progressed within 6 months. At last follow-up, no deaths from prostate carcinoma had been recorded. Overall survival at 2 and 5 years was 92% and 68%, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: Using digital rectal examination, the findings of this study demonstrated high rates of clinical tumor progression within the watchful waiting population. PSAdt rather than standard histopathologic criteria was found to be the most powerful indicator of disease activity.
Authors: Andrew S Chiang; D Andrew Loblaw; Vibhuti Jethava; Perakaa Sethukavalan; Liying Zhang; Danny Vesprini; Alexandre Mamedov; Robert Nam; Laurence Klotz Journal: Can Urol Assoc J Date: 2013 Nov-Dec Impact factor: 1.862
Authors: M Graefen; S Ahyai; R Heuer; G Salomon; T Schlomm; H Isbarn; L Budäus; H Heinzer; H Huland Journal: Urologe A Date: 2008-03 Impact factor: 0.639
Authors: Philip M Arlen; Fernando Bianco; William L Dahut; Anthony D'Amico; William D Figg; Stephen J Freedland; James L Gulley; Philip W Kantoff; Michael W Kattan; Andrew Lee; Meredith M Regan; Oliver Sartor Journal: J Urol Date: 2008-04-18 Impact factor: 7.450
Authors: Stacy Loeb; Anna Kettermann; Luigi Ferrucci; Patricia Landis; E Jeffrey Metter; H Ballentine Carter Journal: Eur Urol Date: 2008-07-02 Impact factor: 20.096
Authors: Alvin R Cabrera; Fergus V Coakley; Antonio C Westphalen; Ying Lu; Shoujun Zhao; Katsuto Shinohara; Peter R Carroll; John Kurhanewicz Journal: Radiology Date: 2008-05 Impact factor: 11.105