PHI and PCA3 improve the prognostic performance of PRIAS and Epstein criteria in predicting insignificant prostate cancer in men eligible for active surveillance

World Journal of Urology

Volumn 34, Issue 4, 2016, Pages 485-493

  Cantiello, Francesco ^a   Russo, Giorgio Ivan ^b   Cicione, Antonio ^a   Ferro, Matteo ^c   Cimino, Sebastiano ^b   Favilla, Vincenzo ^b   Perdonà, Sisto ^d   De Cobelli, Ottavio ^c   Magno, Carlo ^e   Morgia, Giuseppe ^b   Damiano, Rocco ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY MAGNA GRAECIA OF CATANZARO   (Italy)

^b UNIVERSITY OF CATANIA   (Italy)

^c EUROPEAN INSTITUTE OF ONCOLOGY   (Italy)

^d NATIONAL CANCER INSTITUTE   (Italy)

^e UNIVERSITY OF MESSINA   (Italy)

Author keywords

Active surveillance; PCA3; PHI; Prognostic accuracy; Prostate cancer; Radical prostatectomy

Indexed keywords

PROSTATE CANCER ANTIGEN 3, HUMAN; TUMOR ANTIGEN; TUMOR MARKER;

AGED; BIOPSY; BLOOD; CANCER REGISTRY; CANCER STAGING; HUMAN; MALE; MIDDLE AGED; PREDICTIVE VALUE; PROCEDURES; PROGNOSIS; PROSTATECTOMY; PROSTATIC NEOPLASMS; RECEIVER OPERATING CHARACTERISTIC; RETROSPECTIVE STUDY;

AGED; ANTIGENS, NEOPLASM; BIOMARKERS, TUMOR; BIOPSY; HUMANS; MALE; MIDDLE AGED; NEOPLASM STAGING; PREDICTIVE VALUE OF TESTS; PROGNOSIS; PROSTATECTOMY; PROSTATIC NEOPLASMS; RETROSPECTIVE STUDIES; ROC CURVE; SEER PROGRAM;

EID: 84961210329     PISSN: 07244983     EISSN: 14338726     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1007/s00345-015-1643-z     Document Type: Article

References (30)

1. 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
2. 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
3. Mufarrij P, Sankin A, Godoy G, Lepor H (2010) Pathologic outcomes of candidates for active surveillance undergoing radical prostatectomy. Urology 76:689–692
4. 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
5. 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
6. 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
7. Terris MK, McNeal JE, Stamey TA (1992) Detection of clinically significant prostate cancer by transrectal ultrasound-guided systematic biopsies. J Urol 148:829–832
8. 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
9. 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
10. 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
11. 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
12. 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
13. 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
14. 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
15. 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
16. 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
17. 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
18. Vickers AJ, Elkin EB (2006) Decision curve analysis: a novel method for evaluating prediction models. Med Decis Making 26:565–574
19. 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
20. 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
21. 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
22. Selvadurai ED, Singhera M, Thomas K et al (2013) Medium-term outcomes of active surveillance for localised prostate cancer. Eur Urol 64:981–987
23. 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
24. 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
25. 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
26. 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
27. 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
28. 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
29. 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
30. 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