PHI and PCA3 improve the prognostic performance of PRIAS and Epstein criteria in predicting insignificant prostate cancer in men eligible for active surveillance
Tóm tắt
To assess the performance of prostate health index (PHI) and prostate cancer antigen 3 (PCA3) when added to the PRIAS or Epstein criteria in predicting the presence of pathologically insignificant prostate cancer (IPCa) in patients who underwent radical prostatectomy (RP) but eligible for active surveillance (AS). An observational retrospective study was performed in 188 PCa patients treated with laparoscopic or robot-assisted RP but eligible for AS according to Epstein or PRIAS criteria. Blood and urinary specimens were collected before initial prostate biopsy for PHI and PCA3 measurements. Multivariate logistic regression analyses and decision curve analysis were carried out to identify predictors of IPCa using the updated ERSPC definition. At the multivariate analyses, the inclusion of both PCA3 and PHI significantly increased the accuracy of the Epstein multivariate model in predicting IPCa with an increase of 17 % (AUC = 0.77) and of 32 % (AUC = 0.92), respectively. The inclusion of both PCA3 and PHI also increased the predictive accuracy of the PRIAS multivariate model with an increase of 29 % (AUC = 0.87) and of 39 % (AUC = 0.97), respectively. DCA revealed that the multivariable models with the addition of PHI or PCA3 showed a greater net benefit and performed better than the reference models. In a direct comparison, PHI outperformed PCA3 performance resulting in higher net benefit. In a same cohort of patients eligible for AS, the addition of PHI and PCA3 to Epstein or PRIAS models improved their prognostic performance. PHI resulted in greater net benefit in predicting IPCa compared to PCA3.
Tài liệu tham khảo
Godtman RA, Holmberg E, Khatami A, Stranne J, Hugosson J (2013) Outcome following active surveillance of men with screen-detected prostate cancer. Results from the Goteborg randomised population-based prostate cancer screening trial. Eur Urol 63:101–107
Louie-Johnsun M, Neill M, Treurnicht K, Jarmulowicz M, Eden C (2009) Final outcomes of patients with low-risk prostate cancer suitable for active surveillance but treated surgically. BJU Int 104:1501–1504
Mufarrij P, Sankin A, Godoy G, Lepor H (2010) Pathologic outcomes of candidates for active surveillance undergoing radical prostatectomy. Urology 76:689–692
Iremashvili V, Pelaez L, Manoharan M, Jorda M, Rosenberg DL, Soloway MS (2012) Pathologic prostate cancer characteristics in patients eligible for active surveillance: a head-to-head comparison of contemporary protocols. Eur Urol 62:462–468
Bul M, Zhu X, Valdagni R et al (2013) Active surveillance for low-risk prostate cancer worldwide: the PRIAS study. Eur Urol 63:597–603
Wolters T, Roobol MJ, van Leeuwen PJ et al (2011) A critical analysis of the tumor volume threshold for clinically insignificant prostate cancer using a data set of a randomized screening trial. J Urol 185:121–125
Terris MK, McNeal JE, Stamey TA (1992) Detection of clinically significant prostate cancer by transrectal ultrasound-guided systematic biopsies. J Urol 148:829–832
Tosoian JJ, Loeb S, Feng Z et al (2012) Association of [-2]proPSA with biopsy reclassification during active surveillance for prostate cancer. J Urol 188:1131–1136
Ploussard G, Durand X, Xylinas E et al (2011) Prostate cancer antigen 3 score accurately predicts tumour volume and might help in selecting prostate cancer patients for active surveillance. Eur Urol 59:422–429
Guazzoni G, Lazzeri M, Nava L et al (2012) Preoperative prostate-specific antigen isoform p2PSA and its derivatives, %p2PSA and prostate health index, predict pathologic outcomes in patients undergoing radical prostatectomy for prostate cancer. Eur Urol 61:455–466
Semjonow A, Kopke T, Eltze E, Pepping-Schefers B, Burgel H, Darte C (2010) Pre-analytical in vitro stability of [-2]proPSA in blood and serum. Clin Biochem 43:926–928
Groskopf J, Aubin SM, Deras IL et al (2006) APTIMA PCA3 molecular urine test: development of a method to aid in the diagnosis of prostate cancer. Clin Chem 52:1089–1095
Van der Kwast TH, Amin MB, Billis A et al (2011) International Society of Urological Pathology (ISUP) Consensus Conference on Handling and Staging of Radical Prostatectomy Specimens. Working group 2: T2 substaging and prostate cancer volume. Mod Pathol 24:16–25
Epstein JI, Allsbrook WC Jr, Amin MB, Egevad LL (2005) The 2005 International Society of Urological Pathology (ISUP) Consensus Conference on Gleason Grading of Prostatic Carcinoma. Am J Surg Pathol 29:1228–1242
Van der Kwast TH (2012) The trade-off between sensitivity and specificity of clinical protocols for identification of insignificant prostate cancer. Eur Urol 62:469–471
Chen ME, Johnston D, Reyes AO, Soto CP, Babaian RJ, Troncoso P (2003) A streamlined three-dimensional volume estimation method accurately classifies prostate tumors by volume. Am J Surg Pathol 27:1291–1301
Cantiello F, Russo GI, Ferro M et al (2015) Prognostic accuracy of Prostate Health Index and urinary Prostate Cancer Antigen 3 in predicting pathologic features after radical prostatectomy. Urol Oncol 33:163.e15–163.e23
Vickers AJ, Elkin EB (2006) Decision curve analysis: a novel method for evaluating prediction models. Med Decis Making 26:565–574
McVey GP, McPhail S, Fowler S, McIntosh G, Gillatt D, Parker CC (2010) Initial management of low-risk localized prostate cancer in the UK: analysis of the British Association of Urological Surgeons Cancer Registry. BJU Int 106:1161–1164
Dall’Era MA, Albertsen PC, Bangma C et al (2012) Active surveillance for prostate cancer: a systematic review of the literature. Eur Urol 62:976–983
Klotz L, Zhang L, Lam A, Nam R, Mamedov A, Loblaw A (2010) Clinical results of long-term follow-up of a large, active surveillance cohort with localized prostate cancer. J Clin Oncol 28:126–131
Selvadurai ED, Singhera M, Thomas K et al (2013) Medium-term outcomes of active surveillance for localised prostate cancer. Eur Urol 64:981–987
Welty CJ, Cowan JE, Nguyen H et al (2015) Extended follow-up and risk factors for disease reclassification from a large active surveillance cohort for localized prostate cancer. J Urol 193:807–811
Xia J, Trock BJ, Cooperberg MR et al (2012) Prostate cancer mortality following active surveillance versus immediate radical prostatectomy. Clin Cancer Res 18:5471–5478
Klotz L, Vesprini D, Sethukavalan P et al (2015) Long-term follow-up of a large active surveillance cohort of patients with prostate cancer. J Clin Oncol 33:272–277
Van den Bergh RC, Ahmed HU, Bangma CH, Cooperberg MR, Villers A, Parker CC (2014) Novel tools to improve patient selection and monitoring on active surveillance for low-risk prostate cancer: a systematic review. Eur Urol 65:1023–1031
Cornu JN, Cancel-Tassin G, Egrot C, Gaffory C, Haab F, Cussenot O (2013) Urine TMPRSS2:ERG fusion transcript integrated with PCA3 score, genotyping, and biological features are correlated to the results of prostatic biopsies in men at risk of prostate cancer. Prostate 73:242–249
Tosoian JJ, Loeb S, Kettermann A et al (2010) Accuracy of PCA3 measurement in predicting short-term biopsy progression in an active surveillance program. J Urol 183:534–538
Hirama H, Sugimoto M, Ito K, Shiraishi T, Kakehi Y (2014) The impact of baseline [-2]proPSA-related indices on the prediction of pathological reclassification at 1 year during active surveillance for low-risk prostate cancer: the Japanese multicenter study cohort. J Cancer Res Clin Oncol 140:257–263
Fossati N, Buffi NM, Haese A et al (2015) Preoperative prostate-specific antigen isoform p2PSA and its derivatives, %p2PSA and prostate health index, predict pathologic outcomes in patients undergoing radical prostatectomy for prostate cancer: results from a multicentric European Prospective Study. Eur Urol 68:132–138