Evaluating the Four Kallikrein Panel of the 4Kscore for Prediction of High-grade Prostate Cancer in Men in the Canary Prostate Active Surveillance Study

European Urology

Volumn 72, Issue 3, 2017, Pages 448-454

  Lin, Daniel W ^a,b,c   Newcomb, Lisa F ^a,b   Brown, Marshall D ^a   Sjoberg, Daniel D ^d   Dong, Yan ^e   Brooks, James D ^f   Carroll, Peter R ^g   Cooperberg, Matthew ^g   Dash, Atreya ^c   Ellis, William J ^b   Fabrizio, Michael ^h   Gleave, Martin E ⁱ   Morgan, Todd M ^j   Nelson, Peter S ^a   Thompson, Ian M ^k   Wagner, Andrew A ^l   Zheng, Yingye ^a  

^a Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center   (United States)

^b UNIVERSITY OF WASHINGTON   (United States)

^c VA PUGET SOUND HEALTH CARE SYSTEM   (United States)

^d MEMORIAL SLOAN KETTERING CANCER CENTER   (United States)

^e OPKO Health Inc   (United States)

^f STANFORD UNIVERSITY   (United States)

^g UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA   (United States)

^h EASTERN VIRGINIA MEDICAL SCHOOL   (United States)

ⁱ UNIVERSITY OF BRITISH COLUMBIA   (Canada)

^j UNIVERSITY OF MICHIGAN   (United States)

^k UNIVERSITY OF TEXAS HEALTH SCIENCE CENTER AT SAN ANTONIO   (United States)

^l BETH ISRAEL DEACONESS MEDICAL CENTER   (United States)

more..

Author keywords

Active surveillance; Biomarker; Kallikrein; Prospective studies; Prostatic neoplasms

Indexed keywords

KALLIKREIN; PROSTATE SPECIFIC ANTIGEN; KALLIKREIN-RELATED PEPTIDASE 3, HUMAN; KLK2 PROTEIN, HUMAN;

4KSCORE; ACTIVE SURVEILLANCE; ADULT; AGED; ARTICLE; BODY MASS; CANCER DIAGNOSIS; CANCER GRADING; CLINICAL EVALUATION; COHORT ANALYSIS; CONSERVATIVE TREATMENT; COST BENEFIT ANALYSIS; DECISION CURVE ANALYSIS; DIAGNOSTIC ACCURACY; DIAGNOSTIC TEST ACCURACY STUDY; DIAGNOSTIC VALUE; DISCRIMINANT ANALYSIS; GENITAL SYSTEM DISEASE ASSESSMENT; GLEASON SCORE; HUMAN; MAJOR CLINICAL STUDY; MALE; MULTICENTER STUDY (TOPIC); OCCULT CANCER; PLASMA; PREDICTIVE VALUE; PRIORITY JOURNAL; PROSTATE BIOPSY; PROSTATE CANCER; PROSTATE VOLUME; STATISTICAL ANALYSIS; TUMOR BIOPSY; ALGORITHM; AREA UNDER THE CURVE; BIOPSY; BLOOD; CLINICAL TRIAL; COMPARATIVE STUDY; DECISION SUPPORT SYSTEM; MIDDLE AGED; MULTICENTER STUDY; NORTH AMERICA; ODDS RATIO; PATHOLOGY; PROSPECTIVE STUDY; PROSTATE TUMOR; RECEIVER OPERATING CHARACTERISTIC; REPRODUCIBILITY; RISK ASSESSMENT; RISK FACTOR; WATCHFUL WAITING;

AGED; ALGORITHMS; AREA UNDER CURVE; BIOPSY; DECISION SUPPORT TECHNIQUES; HUMANS; KALLIKREINS; MALE; MIDDLE AGED; NEOPLASM GRADING; NORTH AMERICA; ODDS RATIO; PREDICTIVE VALUE OF TESTS; PROSPECTIVE STUDIES; PROSTATE-SPECIFIC ANTIGEN; PROSTATIC NEOPLASMS; REPRODUCIBILITY OF RESULTS; RISK ASSESSMENT; RISK FACTORS; ROC CURVE; WATCHFUL WAITING;

EID: 85007258363     PISSN: 03022838     EISSN: 18737560     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.eururo.2016.11.017     Document Type: Article

References (17)

1. Ankerst, D.P., Xia, J., Thompson, I.M. Jr., et al. Precision medicine in active surveillance for prostate cancer: development of the Canary-Early Detection Research Network active surveillance biopsy risk calculator. Eur Urol 68 (2015), 1083–1088.
2. Parekh, D.J., Punnen, S., Sjoberg, D.D., et al. A multi-institutional prospective trial in the USA confirms that the 4Kscore accurately identifies men with high-grade prostate cancer. Eur Urol 68 (2015), 464–470.
3. Bryant, R.J., Sjoberg, D.D., Vickers, A.J., et al. Predicting high-grade cancer at ten-core prostate biopsy using four kallikrein markers measured in blood in the ProtecT study. J Natl Cancer Inst., 107(7), 2015.
4. Newcomb, L.F., Thompson, I.M. Jr., Boyer, H.D., et al. Outcomes of active surveillance for clinically localized prostate cancer in the prospective, multi-institutional Canary PASS cohort. J Urol 195 (2016), 313–320.
5. Pan, W., Akaike's information criterion in generalized estimating equations. Biometrics 57 (2001), 120–125.
6. Vickers, A.J., Elkin, E.B., Decision curve analysis: a novel method for evaluating prediction models. Med Decis Making 26 (2006), 565–574.
7. US Food and Drug Administration. Innovation or stagnation: challenge and opportunity on the critical path to new medical products. 2004, US Department of Health and Human Services, Washington, DC.
8. McShane, L.M., Altman, D.G., Sauerbrei, W., et al. Reporting recommendations for tumor marker prognostic studies (REMARK). J Natl Cancer Inst 97 (2005), 1180–1184.
9. Hayes, D.F., Bast, R.C., Desch, C.E., et al. Tumor marker utility grading system: a framework to evaluate clinical utility of tumor markers. J Natl Cancer Inst 88 (1996), 1456–1466.
10. Ross, H.M., Kryvenko, O.N., Cowan, J.E., Simko, J.P., Wheeler, T.M., Epstein, J.I., Do adenocarcinomas of the prostate with Gleason score (GS) ≤6 have the potential to metastasize to lymph nodes?. Am J Surg Pathol 36 (2012), 1346–1352.
11. Eggener, S.E., Badani, K., Barocas, D.A., et al. Gleason 6 prostate cancer: translating biology into population health. J Urol 194 (2015), 626–634.
12. Carter, H.B., Partin, A.W., Walsh, P.C., et al. Gleason score 6 adenocarcinoma: should it be labeled as cancer?. J Clin Oncol 30 (2012), 4294–4296.
13. Wilt, T.J., Brawer, M.K., Jones, K.M., et al. Radical prostatectomy versus observation for localized prostate cancer. N Engl J Med 367 (2012), 203–213.
14. Mohler, J.L., Kantoff, P.W., Armstrong, A.J., et al. Prostate cancer, version 1.2014. J Natl Compr Canc Netw 11 (2013), 1471–1479.
15. Stattin, P., Vickers, A.J., Sjoberg, D.D., et al. Improving the specificity of screening for lethal prostate cancer using prostate-specific antigen and a panel of kallikrein markers: a nested case-control study. Eur Urol 68 (2015), 207–213.
16. Rodriguez, E. Jr., Skarecky, D., Narula, N., Ahlering, T.E., Prostate volume estimation using the ellipsoid formula consistently underestimates actual gland size. J Urol 179 (2008), 501–503.
17. Roobol, M.J., van Vugt, H.A., Loeb, S., et al. Prediction of prostate cancer risk: the role of prostate volume and digital rectal examination in the ERSPC risk calculators. Eur Urol 61 (2012), 577–583.