Comparative Analysis of Biopsy Upgrading in Four Prostate Cancer Active Surveillance Cohorts

Overview

Journal Ann Intern Med

Specialty General Medicine

Date 2017 Nov 29

PMID 29181514

Citations 23

Authors

Lurdes Y T Inoue

Daniel W Lin

Lisa F Newcomb

Amy S Leonardson

Donna Ankerst

Roman Gulati

H Ballentine Carter

Bruce J Trock

Peter R Carroll

Matthew R Cooperberg

Janet E Cowan

Laurence H Klotz

Alexandre Mamedov

David F Penson

Ruth Etzioni

Affiliations

Soon will be listed here.

Abstract

Background: Active surveillance (AS) is increasingly accepted for managing low-risk prostate cancer, yet there is no consensus about implementation. This lack of consensus is due in part to uncertainty about risks for disease progression, which have not been systematically compared or integrated across AS studies with variable surveillance protocols and dropout to active treatment.

Objective: To compare risks for upgrading from a Gleason score (GS) of 6 or less to 7 or more across AS studies after accounting for differences in surveillance intervals and competing treatments and to evaluate tradeoffs of more versus less frequent biopsies.

Design: Joint statistical model of longitudinal prostate-specific antigen (PSA) levels and risks for biopsy upgrading.

Setting: Johns Hopkins University (JHU); Canary Prostate Active Surveillance Study (PASS); University of California, San Francisco (UCSF); and University of Toronto (UT) AS studies.

Patients: 2576 men aged 40 to 80 years with a GS between 2 and 6 and clinical stage T1 or T2 prostate cancer enrolled between 1995 and 2014.

Measurements: PSA levels and biopsy GSs.

Results: After variable surveillance intervals and competing treatments were accounted for, estimated risks for biopsy upgrading were similar in the PASS and UT studies but higher in UCSF and lower in JHU studies. All cohorts had a delay of 3 to 5 months in detecting upgrading with biennial biopsies starting after a first confirmatory biopsy versus annual biopsies.

Limitation: The model does not account for possible misclassification of biopsy GS.

Conclusion: Men in different AS studies have different risks for biopsy upgrading after variable surveillance protocols and competing treatments are accounted for. Despite these differences, the consequences of more versus less frequent biopsies seem to be similar across cohorts. Biennial biopsies seem to be an acceptable alternative to annual biopsies.

Primary Funding Source: National Cancer Institute.

Citing Articles

Association between beta-blocker atenolol use and prostate cancer upgrading in active surveillance.

Zahalka A, Fram E, Garden E, Howard L, Wiggins E, Babar M BJUI Compass. 2024; 5(11):1095-1100.

PMID: 39539558 PMC: 11557265. DOI: 10.1002/bco2.441.

Exploring the relation of active surveillance schedules and prostate cancer mortality.

Yang Z, Heijnsdijk E, Newcomb L, Rizopoulos D, Erler N Cancer Med. 2024; 13(5):e6977.

PMID: 38491826 PMC: 10943374. DOI: 10.1002/cam4.6977.

Abbreviated Versus Multiparametric Prostate MRI in Active Surveillance for Prostate-Cancer Patients: Comparison of Accuracy and Clinical Utility as a Decisional Tool.

Zattoni F, Maresca S, Dal Moro F, Bednarova I, Randazzo G, Basso G Diagnostics (Basel). 2023; 13(4).

PMID: 36832066 PMC: 9955028. DOI: 10.3390/diagnostics13040578.

Dietary Patterns and Risk of Gleason Grade Progression among Men on Active Surveillance for Prostate Cancer: Results from the Canary Prostate Active Surveillance Study.

Schenk J, Liu M, Neuhouser M, Newcomb L, Zheng Y, Zhu K Nutr Cancer. 2022; 75(2):618-626.

PMID: 36343223 PMC: 9974882. DOI: 10.1080/01635581.2022.2143537.

Cost-Effectiveness Analysis and Microsimulation of Serial Multiparametric Magnetic Resonance Imaging in Active Surveillance of Localized Prostate Cancer.

Magnani C, Hernandez-Boussard T, Baker L, Goldhaber-Fiebert J, Brooks J J Urol. 2022; 208(1):80-89.

PMID: 35212570 PMC: 10153427. DOI: 10.1097/JU.0000000000002490.

References

Tosoian J, Carter H, Lepor A, Loeb S . Active surveillance for prostate cancer: current evidence and contemporary state of practice. Nat Rev Urol. 2016; 13(4):205-15. PMC: 4940050. DOI: 10.1038/nrurol.2016.45. View

Chiang A, Chen J, Chung Y, Huang H, Liou W, Chang C . A longitudinal analysis with CA-125 to predict overall survival in patients with ovarian cancer. J Gynecol Oncol. 2014; 25(1):51-7. PMC: 3893675. DOI: 10.3802/jgo.2014.25.1.51. View

Ibrahim J, Chu H, Chen L . Basic concepts and methods for joint models of longitudinal and survival data. J Clin Oncol. 2010; 28(16):2796-801. PMC: 4503792. DOI: 10.1200/JCO.2009.25.0654. View

Gooley T, Leisenring W, Crowley J, Storer B . Estimation of failure probabilities in the presence of competing risks: new representations of old estimators. Stat Med. 1999; 18(6):695-706. DOI: 10.1002/(sici)1097-0258(19990330)18:6<695::aid-sim60>3.0.co;2-o. View

Klotz L, Vesprini D, Sethukavalan P, Jethava V, Zhang L, Jain S . Long-term follow-up of a large active surveillance cohort of patients with prostate cancer. J Clin Oncol. 2014; 33(3):272-7. DOI: 10.1200/JCO.2014.55.1192. View

Chen R, Rumble R, Jain S . Active Surveillance for the Management of Localized Prostate Cancer (Cancer Care Ontario guideline): American Society of Clinical Oncology Clinical Practice Guideline Endorsement Summary. J Oncol Pract. 2018; 12(3):267-269. DOI: 10.1200/JOP.2015.010017. View

Taylor J, Park Y, Ankerst D, Proust-Lima C, Williams S, Kestin L . Real-time individual predictions of prostate cancer recurrence using joint models. Biometrics. 2013; 69(1):206-13. PMC: 3622120. DOI: 10.1111/j.1541-0420.2012.01823.x. View

Alam R, Carter H, Landis P, Epstein J, Mamawala M . Conditional probability of reclassification in an active surveillance program for prostate cancer. J Urol. 2015; 193(6):1950-5. PMC: 4696016. DOI: 10.1016/j.juro.2014.12.091. View

Fossati N, Rossi M, Cucchiara V, Gandaglia G, Delloglio P, Moschini M . Evaluating the effect of time from prostate cancer diagnosis to radical prostatectomy on cancer control: Can surgery be postponed safely?. Urol Oncol. 2016; 35(4):150.e9-150.e15. DOI: 10.1016/j.urolonc.2016.11.010. View

10.

Newcomb L, Thompson Jr I, Boyer H, Brooks J, Carroll P, Cooperberg M . Outcomes of Active Surveillance for Clinically Localized Prostate Cancer in the Prospective, Multi-Institutional Canary PASS Cohort. J Urol. 2015; 195(2):313-20. PMC: 4970462. DOI: 10.1016/j.juro.2015.08.087. View

11.

Inoue L, Gulati R, Yu C, Kattan M, Etzioni R . Deriving benefit of early detection from biomarker-based prognostic models. Biostatistics. 2012; 14(1):15-27. PMC: 3577108. DOI: 10.1093/biostatistics/kxs018. View

12.

Bul M, Zhu X, Valdagni R, Pickles T, Kakehi Y, Rannikko A . Active surveillance for low-risk prostate cancer worldwide: the PRIAS study. Eur Urol. 2012; 63(4):597-603. DOI: 10.1016/j.eururo.2012.11.005. View

13.

Bruinsma S, Bangma C, Carroll P, Leapman M, Rannikko A, Petrides N . Active surveillance for prostate cancer: a narrative review of clinical guidelines. Nat Rev Urol. 2016; 13(3):151-67. DOI: 10.1038/nrurol.2015.313. View

14.

Tosoian J, Mamawala M, Epstein J, Landis P, Wolf S, Trock B . Intermediate and Longer-Term Outcomes From a Prospective Active-Surveillance Program for Favorable-Risk Prostate Cancer. J Clin Oncol. 2015; 33(30):3379-85. PMC: 4863946. DOI: 10.1200/JCO.2015.62.5764. View

15.

Welty C, Cowan J, Nguyen H, Shinohara K, Perez N, Greene K . Extended followup and risk factors for disease reclassification in a large active surveillance cohort for localized prostate cancer. J Urol. 2014; 193(3):807-11. DOI: 10.1016/j.juro.2014.09.094. View

16.

Pepe M, Mori M . Kaplan-Meier, marginal or conditional probability curves in summarizing competing risks failure time data?. Stat Med. 1993; 12(8):737-51. DOI: 10.1002/sim.4780120803. View

17.

Inoue L, Trock B, Partin A, Carter H, Etzioni R . Modeling grade progression in an active surveillance study. Stat Med. 2013; 33(6):930-9. PMC: 3955104. DOI: 10.1002/sim.6003. View

18.

Ankerst D, Xia J, Thompson Jr I, Hoefler J, Newcomb L, Brooks J . Precision Medicine in Active Surveillance for Prostate Cancer: Development of the Canary-Early Detection Research Network Active Surveillance Biopsy Risk Calculator. Eur Urol. 2015; 68(6):1083-8. PMC: 4583313. DOI: 10.1016/j.eururo.2015.03.023. View

19.

Boorjian S, Bianco Jr F, Scardino P, Eastham J . Does the time from biopsy to surgery affect biochemical recurrence after radical prostatectomy?. BJU Int. 2005; 96(6):773-6. DOI: 10.1111/j.1464-410X.2005.05763.x. View