Evaluation of models predicting insignificant prostate cancer to select men for active surveillance of prostate cancer

Prostate Cancer and Prostatic Diseases

Volumn 18, Issue 2, 2015, Pages 137-143

  Wong, L M ^a,b   Neal, D E ^c   Finelli, A ^d   Davis, S ^b   Bonner, C ^b   Kapoor, J ^b   Trachtenberg, J ^d   Thomas, B ^c   Hovens, C M ^b   Costello, A J ^b   Corcoran, N M ^b  

^a ST VINCENT S HOSPITAL   (Australia)

^b UNIVERSITY OF MELBOURNE   (Australia)

^c UNIVERSITY OF CAMBRIDGE   (United Kingdom)

^d UNIVERSITY OF TORONTO   (Canada)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

PROSTATE SPECIFIC ANTIGEN;

ADULT; AGE; ARTICLE; BRIER SCORE; CANCER EPIDEMIOLOGY; CANCER MODEL; CANCER STAGING; CHUN MODEL; DISEASE DURATION; GLEASON SCORE; HUMAN; HUMAN TISSUE; KATTAN MODEL; LOW RISK POPULATION; MAJOR CLINICAL STUDY; MALE; O'BRIEN MODEL; PATIENT SELECTION; PREDICTIVE VALUE; PRIORITY JOURNAL; PROSTATE CANCER; RETROSPECTIVE STUDY; SCORING SYSTEM; STEYERBERG MODEL; TUMOR VOLUME; BLOOD; CANCER GRADING; DECISION SUPPORT SYSTEM; NEEDLE BIOPSY; NOMOGRAM; PATHOLOGY; PERSONALIZED MEDICINE; PROSTATECTOMY; PROSTATIC NEOPLASMS; RISK FACTOR;

BIOPSY, NEEDLE; DECISION SUPPORT TECHNIQUES; HUMANS; MALE; NEOPLASM GRADING; NOMOGRAMS; PATIENT SELECTION; PRECISION MEDICINE; PROSTATE-SPECIFIC ANTIGEN; PROSTATECTOMY; PROSTATIC NEOPLASMS; RISK FACTORS;

EID: 84929269502     PISSN: 13657852     EISSN: 14765608     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1038/pcan.2015.1     Document Type: Article

References (32)

1. Schröder FH, Hugosson J, Roobol MJ, Tammela TL, Ciatto S, Nelen V et al. Prostate-cancer mortality at 11 years of follow-up. N Engl J Med 2012; 366: 981-990.
2. Andriole GL, Crawford ED, Grubb RL 3rd, Buys SS, Chia D, Church TR et al. Prostate cancer screening in the randomized prostate, lung, colorectal, and ovarian cancer screening trial: mortality results after 13 years of follow-up. J Natl Cancer Inst 2012; 104: 125-132.
3. Epstein JI, Walsh P.C., Carmichael M, Brendler CB. Pathologic and clinical findings to predict tumor extent of nonpalpable (stage T1c) prostate cancer. Clev Clin J Med 1994; 271: 368.
4. Stamey TA, Freiha FS, McNeal JE, Redwine EA, Whittemore AS, Schmid HP. Localized prostate cancer. Relationship of tumor volume to clinical significance for treatment of prostate cancer. Cancer 1993; 71: 933.
5. Klotz L, Zhang L, Lam A, Nam R, Mamedov A, Loblaw A. Clinical results of longterm follow-up of a large, active surveillance cohort with localized prostate cancer. J Clin Oncol 2010; 28: 126-131.
6. Bangma C, Bul M, Zhu X, Valdagni R, Pickles T, Kakehi Y et al. Active surveillance for low-risk prostate cancer worldwide: The PRIAS Study. Eur Urol 2012; 63: 597-603.
7. Wong L-M, Alibhai SMH, Trottier G, Timilshina N, Van der Kwast T, Zlotta A et al. A negative confirmatory biopsy among men on active surveillance for prostate cancer does not protect them from histologic grade progression. Eur Urol 2013; 66: 406-413.
8. Tosoian JJ, Trock BJ, Landis P, Feng Z, Epstein JI, Partin AW et al. Active surveillance program for prostate cancer: an update of the Johns Hopkins experience. J Clin Oncol 2011; 29: 2185-2190.
9. Adamy A, Yee DS, Matsushita K, Maschino A, Cronin A, Vickers A et al. Role of prostate specific antigen and immediate confirmatory biopsy in predicting progression during active surveillance for low risk prostate cancer. J Urol 2011; 185: 477-482.
10. Hardie C, Parker C, Norman A, Eeles R, Horwich A, Huddart R et al. Early outcomes of active surveillance for localized prostate cancer. BJU Int 2005; 95: 956-960.
11. Wong L-M, Johnston R, Sharma N, Shah N, Warren A, Neal DE. General application of the National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence (NICE) guidance for active surveillance for men with prostate cancer is not appropriate in unscreened populations. BJU Int 2012; 110: 24-27.
12. Wong L-M, Neal DE, Johnston RB, Shah N, Sharma N, Warren AY et al. International multicentre study examining selection criteria for active surveillance in men undergoing radical prostatectomy. Br J Cancer 2012; 107: 1467-1473.
13. Steyerberg EW, Roobol MJ, Kattan TH, van der Kwast TH, Koning HJ, Schröder FH. Prediction of indolent prostate cancer: validation and updating of a prognostic nomogram. J Urol 2007; 177: 107-112.
14. Nakanishi H, Wang X, Ochiai A, Trpkov K, Yilmaz A, Donnelly JB et al. A nomogram for predicting low-volume/low-grade prostate cancer. A tool for selecting patients for active surveillance. Cancer 2007; 110: 2441-2447.
15. O?Brien BA, Cohen RJ, Ryan A, Sengupta S, Mills J. A new preoperative nomogram to predict minimal prostate cancer: accuracy and error rates compared to other tools to select patients for active surveillance. J Urol 2011; 186: 1811-1817.
16. Kattan MW, Eastham JA, Wheeler TM, Maru N, Scardino PT, Erbersdobler A et al. Counseling men with prostate cancer: a nomogram for predicting the presence of small, moderately differentiated, confined tumors. J Urol 2003; 170: 1792-1797.
17. Chun FK, Haese A, Ahyai SA, Walz J, Suardi N, Capitanio U et al. Critical assessment of tools to predict clinically insignificant prostate cancer at radical prostatectomy in contemporary men. Cancer 2008; 113: 701.
18. Wolters T, Roobol MJ, van Leeuwen PJ, van den Bergh RCN, Hoedemaeker RF, Van Leenders GJLH et al. A critical analysis of the tumor volume threshold for clinically insignificant prostate cancer using a data set of a randomized screening trial. J Urol 2011; 185: 121-125.
19. Cooperberg MR, Cowan JE, Hilton JF, Reese AC, Zaid HB, Porten SP et al. Outcomes of active surveillance for men with intermediate-risk prostate cancer. J Clin Oncol 2011; 29: 228-234.
20. Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center. Prostate Cancer. Prediction Tools. mskcc.org. 2013 (cited 2014 May 5). Available from http://www.mskcc.org/cancercare/adult/prostate/prediction-tools.
21. SWOP - The Prostate Cancer Research Foundation, Rotterdam. Calculate your prostate cancer risk - Risk Calculator 5. Roobol M, editor. prostatecancerriskcalculator. com. Rotterdam; 2013 (cited 2014 May 5). Available from http:// www.prostatecancer-riskcalculator.com/.
22. Vickers AJ, Cronin AM. Everything you always wanted to know about evaluating prediction models (but were too afraid to ask). Urology 2010; 76: 1298-1301.
23. Hanley JA, McNeil BJ. The meaning and use of the area under a receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve. Radiology 1982; 143: 29-36.
24. Vickers A, Elkin EB. Decision curve analysis: a novel method for evaluating prediction models. Med Decis Making 2006; 26: 565-574.
25. Corcoran NM, Hong MK, Casey RG, Hurtado-Coll A, Peters J, Harewood L et al. Upgrade in Gleason score between prostate biopsies and pathology following radical prostatectomy significantly impacts upon the risk of biochemical recurrence. BJU Int 2011; 108: E202-E210.
26. Iremashvili V, Soloway MS, Pelaez LT, Rosenberg DL, Manoharan M. Comparative validation of nomograms predicting clinically insignificant prostate cancer. Urology 2013; 81: 1202-1208.
27. Eichler K, Hempel S, Wilby J, Myers L, Bachmann LM, Kleijnen J. Diagnostic value of systematic biopsy methods in the investigation of prostate cancer: a systematic review. J Urol 2006; 175: 1605-1612.
28. Epstein JI, Allsbrook WCJ, Amin MB, Egevad LLISUP Grading Committee. The 2005 International Society of Urological Pathology (ISUP) consensus conference on Gleason grading of prostatic carcinoma. Am J Surg Pathol 2005; 29: 1228-1242.
29. Wang S-Y, Cowan JE, Cary KC, Chan JM, Carroll PR, Cooperberg MR. Limited ability of existing nomograms to predict outcomes in men undergoing active surveillance for prostate cancer. BJU Int 2014; 114: E18-E24.
30. Vargas HA, Akin O, Franiel T, Mazaheri Y, Zheng J, Moskowitz C et al. Diffusionweighted endorectal MR imaging at 3 T for prostate cancer: tumor detection and assessment of aggressiveness. Radiology, 2011 ed. 2011; 259: 775-784.
31. Scattoni V, Lazzeri M, Lughezzani G, De Luca S, Passera R, Bollito E et al. Head-tohead comparison of prostate health index and urinary PCA3 for predicting cancer at initial or repeat biopsy. J Urol 2013; 190: 496-501.
32. Cooperberg M, Simko J, Falzarano S, Maddala T, Chan J, Cowan J et al. Development and validation of the biopsy-based genomic prostate score (GPS) as a predictor of high grade or extracapsular prostate cancer to improve patient selection for active surveillance. J Urol 2013; 189: e873.