Timing of Adverse Prostate Cancer Reclassification on First Surveillance Biopsy: Results from the Canary Prostate Cancer Active Surveillance Study

被引:15
|
作者
Macleod, Liam C. [1 ]
Ellis, William J. [1 ,3 ]
Newcomb, Lisa F. [1 ]
Zheng, Yingye [3 ]
Brooks, James D. [4 ]
Carroll, Peter R. [5 ]
Gleave, Martin E. [6 ]
Lance, Raymond S. [7 ]
Nelson, Peter S. [3 ]
Thompson, Ian M., Jr. [8 ]
Wagner, Andrew A. [9 ]
Wei, John T. [10 ]
Lin, Daniel W. [1 ,2 ,3 ]
机构
[1] Univ Washington, Sch Med, Seattle, WA USA
[2] Vet Affairs Hosp, Seattle Puget Sound Hlth Care Syst, Seattle, WA USA
[3] Fred Hutchinson Canc Res Ctr, 1124 Columbia St, Seattle, WA 98104 USA
[4] Stanford Univ, Dept Urol, Sch Med, Stanford, CA 94305 USA
[5] Univ Calif San Francisco, Sch Med, San Francisco, CA USA
[6] Univ British Columbia, Vancouver, BC, Canada
[7] Eastern Virginia Med Sch, Norfolk, VA 23501 USA
[8] Univ Texas Hlth Sci Ctr San Antonio, San Antonio, TX 78229 USA
[9] Beth Deaconess Med Ctr, Boston, MA USA
[10] Univ Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI 48109 USA
来源
JOURNAL OF UROLOGY | 2017年 / 197卷 / 04期
关键词
prostatic neoplasms; prostate specific antigen; body mass index; biopsy; watchful waiting; RISK; GRADE; PROGRESSION; OUTCOMES; COHORT; SCORE; MEN;
D O I
10.1016/j.juro.2016.10.090
中图分类号
R5 [内科学]; R69 [泌尿科学(泌尿生殖系疾病)];
学科分类号
1002 ; 100201 ;
摘要
Purpose: During active surveillance for localized prostate cancer, the timing of the first surveillance biopsy varies. We analyzed the Canary PASS (Prostate Cancer Active Surveillance Study) to determine biopsy timing influence on rates of prostate cancer adverse reclassification at the first active surveillance biopsy. Materials and Methods: Of 1,085 participants in PASS, 421 had fewer than 34% of cores involved with cancer and Gleason sum 6 or less, and thereafter underwent on-study active surveillance biopsy. Reclassification was defined as an increase in Gleason sum and/or 34% or more of cores with prostate cancer. First active surveillance biopsy reclassification rates were categorized as less than 8, 8 to 13 and greater than 13 months after diagnosis. Multivariable logistic regression determined association between reclassification and first biopsy timing. Results: Of 421 men, 89 (21.1%) experienced reclassification at the first active surveillance biopsy. Median time from prostate cancer diagnosis to first active surveillance biopsy was 11 months (IQR 7.8-13.8). Reclassification rates at less than 8, 8 to 13 and greater than 13 months were 24%, 19% and 22% (p = 0.65). On multivariable analysis, compared to men biopsied at less than 8 months the OR of reclassification at 8 to 13 and greater than 13 months were 0.88 (95% CI 0.5,1.6) and 0.95 (95% CI 0.5,1.9), respectively. Prostate specific antigen density 0.15 or greater (referent less than 0.15, OR 1.9, 95% CI 1.1, 4.1) and body mass index 35 kg/m(2) or greater (referent less than 25 kg/m(2), OR 2.4, 95% CI 1.1,5.7) were associated with increased odds of reclassification. Conclusions: Timing of the first active surveillance biopsy was not associated with increased adverse reclassification but prostate specific antigen density and body mass index were. In low risk patients on active surveillance, it may be reasonable to perform the first active surveillance biopsy at a later time, reducing the overall cost and morbidity of active surveillance.
引用
收藏
页码:1026 / 1033
页数:8
相关论文
共 50 条
  • [21] Effect of Diagnostic Biopsy Practice Location on Grade/Volume Reclassification in Active Surveillance for Prostate Cancer: A Multicenter Analysis from the Canary PASS Cohort
    Malaret, Adrian J. Waisman
    Chang, Peter
    Newcomb, Lisa
    Faino, Anna
    Zheng, Yingye
    Zhu, Kehao
    McKenney, Jesse K.
    Brooks, James D.
    Dash, Atreya
    Ellis, William J.
    Filson, Christopher P.
    Gleave, Martin
    Liss, Michael
    Martin, Frances M.
    Morgan, Todd
    Carro, Peter
    Nelson, Peter
    Lin, Daniel W.
    Wagner, Andrew A.
    UROLOGY PRACTICE, 2021, 8 (05) : 576 - 582
  • [22] The management of active surveillance in prostate cancer: validation of the Canary Prostate Active Surveillance Study risk calculator with the Spanish Urological Association Registry
    Borque-Fernando, Angel
    Rubio-Briones, Jose
    Mariano Esteban, Luis
    Collado-Serra, Argimiro
    Pallas-Costa, Yoni
    Angel Lopez-Gonzalez, Pedro
    Huguet-Perez, Jorge
    Ignacio Sanz-Velez, Jose
    Manuel Gil-Fabra, Jesus
    Gomez-Gomez, Enrique
    Quicios-Dorado, Cristina
    Fumado, Lluis
    Martinez-Breijo, Sara
    Soto-Villalba, Juan
    ONCOTARGET, 2017, 8 (65) : 108451 - 108462
  • [23] Performance of diagnostic biomarkers in the Canary Prostate cancer Active Surveillance Study (PASS)
    Newcomb, Lisa F.
    Zheng, Yingye
    Liu, Menghan
    Brooks, James D.
    Carroll, Peter R.
    Dash, Atreya
    Ellis, William J.
    Filson, Christopher J.
    Gleave, Martin E.
    Liss, Michael A.
    Martin, Frances M.
    Morgan, Todd M.
    Nelson, Peter S.
    Wagner, Andrew A.
    CANCER RESEARCH, 2023, 83 (11)
  • [24] Active surveillance of prostate cancer
    Hammerer, Peter
    Manka, Lukas
    ONKOLOGE, 2020, 26 (11): : 1069 - 1078
  • [25] Active surveillance for prostate cancer
    Dariane, C.
    PROGRES EN UROLOGIE, 2015, 25 (14): : 884 - 887
  • [26] Active Surveillance of Prostate Cancer
    Choyke, Peter L.
    Loeb, Stacy
    ONCOLOGY-NEW YORK, 2017, 31 (01): : 67 - 70
  • [27] Active surveillance for prostate cancer
    Romero-Otero, Javier
    Garcia-Gomez, Borja
    Duarte-Ojeda, Jose M.
    Rodriguez-Antolin, Alfredo
    Vilaseca, Antoni
    Carlsson, Sigrid V.
    Touijer, Karim A.
    INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF UROLOGY, 2016, 23 (03) : 211 - 218
  • [28] Active surveillance in prostate cancer
    Erne, E.
    Kaufmann, S.
    Nikolaou, K.
    Stenzl, A.
    Bedke, J.
    UROLOGE, 2019, 58 (05): : 511 - 517
  • [29] Active surveillance of prostate cancer
    Ploussard, G.
    Hennequin, C.
    Rozet, F.
    CANCER RADIOTHERAPIE, 2017, 21 (6-7): : 437 - 441
  • [30] Active Surveillance for Prostate Cancer
    Thompson, Ian M.
    Klotz, Laurence
    JAMA-JOURNAL OF THE AMERICAN MEDICAL ASSOCIATION, 2010, 304 (21): : 2411 - 2412