Clinical Outcomes in Men with Prostate Cancer Who Selected Active Surveillance Using a Clinical Cell Cycle Risk Score

Overview

Journal Per Med

Specialties General Medicine
Genetics

Date 2019 Sep 5

PMID 31483217

Citations 5

Authors

Sanjeev Kaul

Kirk J Wojno

Steven Stone

Brent Evans

Ryan Bernhisel

Stephanie Meek

Richard E DAnna

Jeffrey Ferguson

Jeffrey Glaser

Todd M Morgan

Jeremy Lieb

Robert Yan

Todd Cohen

Behfar Ehdaie

Affiliations

Soon will be listed here.

Abstract

To evaluate active surveillance (AS) selection, safety and durability among men with low-risk prostate cancer assessed using the clinical cell cycle risk (CCR) score, a combined clinical and molecular score. Initial treatment selection (AS vs treatment) and duration of AS were evaluated for men with low-risk prostate cancer according to the CCR score and National Comprehensive Cancer Network guidelines. Adverse events included biochemical recurrence and metastasis. 82.4% (547/664) of men initially selected AS (median follow-up: 2.2 years), 0.4% (2/547) of whom experienced an adverse event. Two-thirds of patients remained on AS for more than 3 years; patient choice was the most common reason for leaving AS. The CCR score may aid in the identification of men who can safely defer prostate cancer treatment.

Citing Articles

Gene Signatures and Oncology Treatment Implications.

Scarborough J, Weaver D, Scott J Hematol Oncol Clin North Am. 2024; 39(2):295-307.

PMID: 39694780 PMC: 11867875. DOI: 10.1016/j.hoc.2024.11.003.

Using the Cell-Cycle Risk Score to Predict the Benefit of Androgen-Deprivation Therapy Added to Radiation Therapy in Patients With Newly Diagnosed Prostate Cancer.

Tward J, Lenz L, Gutin A, Clegg W, Kasten C, Finch R JCO Precis Oncol. 2024; 8:e2300722.

PMID: 38748970 PMC: 11371120. DOI: 10.1200/PO.23.00722.

Biomarkers for prostate cancer detection and risk stratification.

Farha M, Salami S Ther Adv Urol. 2022; 14:17562872221103988.

PMID: 35719272 PMC: 9201356. DOI: 10.1177/17562872221103988.

Evaluation of an RNAseq-Based Immunogenomic Liquid Biopsy Approach in Early-Stage Prostate Cancer.

Van Neste L, Wojno K, Henao R, Mane S, Korman H, Hafron J Cells. 2021; 10(10).

PMID: 34685549 PMC: 8533765. DOI: 10.3390/cells10102567.

Tissue- and Liquid-Based Biomarkers in Prostate Cancer Precision Medicine.

Meehan J, Gray M, Martinez-Perez C, Kay C, McLaren D, Turnbull A J Pers Med. 2021; 11(7).

PMID: 34357131 PMC: 8306523. DOI: 10.3390/jpm11070664.

References

Cooperberg M, Pasta D, Elkin E, Litwin M, Latini D, Du Chane J . The University of California, San Francisco Cancer of the Prostate Risk Assessment score: a straightforward and reliable preoperative predictor of disease recurrence after radical prostatectomy. J Urol. 2005; 173(6):1938-42. PMC: 2948569. DOI: 10.1097/01.ju.0000158155.33890.e7. View

Cuzick J, Stone S, Fisher G, Yang Z, North B, Berney D . Validation of an RNA cell cycle progression score for predicting death from prostate cancer in a conservatively managed needle biopsy cohort. Br J Cancer. 2015; 113(3):382-9. PMC: 4522632. DOI: 10.1038/bjc.2015.223. View

Nyame Y, Almassi N, Haywood S, Greene D, Ganesan V, Dai C . Intermediate-Term Outcomes for Men with Very Low/Low and Intermediate/High Risk Prostate Cancer Managed by Active Surveillance. J Urol. 2017; 198(3):591-599. DOI: 10.1016/j.juro.2017.03.123. View

Womble P, Montie J, Ye Z, Linsell S, Lane B, Miller D . Contemporary use of initial active surveillance among men in Michigan with low-risk prostate cancer. Eur Urol. 2014; 67(1):44-50. DOI: 10.1016/j.eururo.2014.08.024. View

Aizer A, Paly J, Zietman A, Nguyen P, Beard C, Rao S . Multidisciplinary care and pursuit of active surveillance in low-risk prostate cancer. J Clin Oncol. 2012; 30(25):3071-6. DOI: 10.1200/JCO.2012.42.8466. View

Cooperberg M, Simko J, Cowan J, Reid J, Djalilvand A, Bhatnagar S . Validation of a cell-cycle progression gene panel to improve risk stratification in a contemporary prostatectomy cohort. J Clin Oncol. 2013; 31(11):1428-34. DOI: 10.1200/JCO.2012.46.4396. View

Latini D, Hart S, Knight S, Cowan J, Ross P, DuChane J . The relationship between anxiety and time to treatment for patients with prostate cancer on surveillance. J Urol. 2007; 178(3 Pt 1):826-31. DOI: 10.1016/j.juro.2007.05.039. View

Cooperberg M, Freedland S, Pasta D, Elkin E, Presti Jr J, Amling C . Multiinstitutional validation of the UCSF cancer of the prostate risk assessment for prediction of recurrence after radical prostatectomy. Cancer. 2006; 107(10):2384-91. DOI: 10.1002/cncr.22262. View

Cooperberg M, Broering J, Carroll P . Time trends and local variation in primary treatment of localized prostate cancer. J Clin Oncol. 2010; 28(7):1117-23. PMC: 2834465. DOI: 10.1200/JCO.2009.26.0133. View

10.

Shipitsin M, Small C, Choudhury S, Giladi E, Friedlander S, Nardone J . Identification of proteomic biomarkers predicting prostate cancer aggressiveness and lethality despite biopsy-sampling error. Br J Cancer. 2014; 111(6):1201-12. PMC: 4453845. DOI: 10.1038/bjc.2014.396. View

11.

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

12.

Eldefrawy A, Katkoori D, Abramowitz M, Soloway M, Manoharan M . Active surveillance vs. treatment for low-risk prostate cancer: a cost comparison. Urol Oncol. 2011; 31(5):576-80. DOI: 10.1016/j.urolonc.2011.04.005. View

13.

Cooperberg M, Broering J, Litwin M, Lubeck D, Mehta S, Henning J . The contemporary management of prostate cancer in the United States: lessons from the cancer of the prostate strategic urologic research endeavor (CapSURE), a national disease registry. J Urol. 2004; 171(4):1393-401. DOI: 10.1097/01.ju.0000107247.81471.06. View

14.

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

15.

Cuzick J, Swanson G, Fisher G, Brothman A, Berney D, Reid J . Prognostic value of an RNA expression signature derived from cell cycle proliferation genes in patients with prostate cancer: a retrospective study. Lancet Oncol. 2011; 12(3):245-55. PMC: 3091030. DOI: 10.1016/S1470-2045(10)70295-3. View

16.

Romero-Otero J, Garcia-Gomez B, Duarte-Ojeda J, Rodriguez-Antolin A, Vilaseca A, Carlsson S . Active surveillance for prostate cancer. Int J Urol. 2015; 23(3):211-8. PMC: 4966658. DOI: 10.1111/iju.13016. View

17.

Bonini P, Plebani M, Ceriotti F, Rubboli F . Errors in laboratory medicine. Clin Chem. 2002; 48(5):691-8. View

18.

Jemal A, Bray F, Center M, Ferlay J, Ward E, Forman D . Global cancer statistics. CA Cancer J Clin. 2011; 61(2):69-90. DOI: 10.3322/caac.20107. View

19.

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

20.

Sanda M, Cadeddu J, Kirkby E, Chen R, Crispino T, Fontanarosa J . Clinically Localized Prostate Cancer: AUA/ASTRO/SUO Guideline. Part I: Risk Stratification, Shared Decision Making, and Care Options. J Urol. 2017; 199(3):683-690. DOI: 10.1016/j.juro.2017.11.095. View