65 research outputs found
Long-term and pathological outcomes of low- and intermediate-risk prostate cancer after radical prostatectomy: implications for active surveillance
Purpose!#!The safety of active surveillance (AS) in favorable intermediate-risk (FIR) prostate cancer (PCa) remains uncertain. To provide guidance on clinical decision-making, we examined long-term and pathological outcomes of low-risk and intermediate-risk PCa patients after radical prostatectomy (RP).!##!Methods!#!The study involved 5693 patients diagnosed between 1994 and 2019 with low-risk, FIR, and unfavorable intermediate-risk (UIR) PCa (stratification according to the AUA guidelines) who underwent RP. Pathological outcomes were compared, and Kaplan-Meier analysis determined biochemical recurrence-free survival (BRFS) and cancer-specific survival (CSS) at 5, 10, 15, and 20 years. Multiple Cox regression was used to simultaneously control for relevant confounders.!##!Results!#!Those at FIR had higher rates of upgrading and upstaging (12.8% vs. 7.2%, p < 0.001; 19.8% vs. 12.0%, p < 0.001) as well as pathological tumor and node stage (≥ pT3a: 18.8% vs. 11.6%, p < 0.001; pN1: 2.7% vs. 0.8%, p > 0.001) compared to patients at low risk. The 20-year BRFS was 69%, 65%, and 44% and the 20-year CSS was 98%, 95%, and 89% in low-risk, FIR, and UIR patients. On multiple Cox regression, FIR was not associated with a worse BRFS (HR 1.07, CI 0.87-1.32), UIR was associated with a worse BRFS (HR 1.49, CI 1.20-1.85).!##!Conclusion!#!Patients at FIR had only slightly worse pathological and long-term outcomes compared to patients at low risk, whereas the difference compared to patients at UIR was large. This emphasizes AS in these patients as a possible treatment strategy in well-counseled patients
No detrimental effect of a positive family history on postoperative upgrading and upstaging in men with low risk and favourable intermediate-risk prostate cancer: implications for active surveillance
Purpose!#!To assess whether a first-degree family history or a fatal family history of prostate cancer (PCa) are associated with postoperative upgrading and upstaging among men with low risk and favourable intermediate-risk (FIR) PCa and to provide guidance on clinical decision making for active surveillance (AS) in this patient population.!##!Methods!#!Participants in the German Familial Prostate Cancer database diagnosed from 1994 to 2019 with (1) low risk (clinical T1c-T2a, biopsy Gleason Grade Group (GGG) 1, PSA < 10 ng/ml), (2) Gleason 6 FIR (clinical T1c-T2a, GGG 1, PSA 10-20 ng/ml), and (3) Gleason 3 + 4 FIR (clinical T1c-T2a, GGG 2, PSA < 10 ng/ml) PCa who were subsequently treated with radical prostatectomy (RP) were analysed for upgrading, defined as postoperative GGG 3 tumour or upstaging, defined as pT3-pT4 or pN1 disease at RP. Logistic regression analysis was used to assess whether PCa family history was associated with postoperative upgrading or upstaging.!##!Results!#!Among 4091 men who underwent RP, mean age at surgery was 64.4 (SD 6.7) years, 24.7% reported a family history, and 3.4% a fatal family history. Neither family history nor fatal family history were associated with upgrading or upstaging at low risk, Gleason 6 FIR, and Gleason 3 + 4 FIR PCa patients.!##!Conclusion!#!Results from the current study indicated no detrimental effect of family history on postoperative upgrading or upstaging. Therefore, a positive family history or fatal family history of PCa in FIR PCa patients should not be a reason to refrain from AS in men otherwise suitable
Fear of cancer recurrence and disease progression in long‐term prostate cancer survivors after radical prostatectomy: a longitudinal study
Diversity of cancer-related identities in long-term prostate cancer survivors after radical prostatectomy
BACKGROUND: Individuals affected by cancer need to integrate this experience into their personal biography as their life continues after primary therapy, leading to substantial changes in self-perception. This study identified factors uniquely associated with 5 different cancer-related identities in order to improve the understanding of how self-perception in men affected by prostate cancer is associated with certain clinical and psychosocial characteristics. METHODS: In this cross-sectional study, long-term prostate cancer survivors after radical prostatectomy were asked to choose one of 5 cancer-related identities that described them best. Associations with sociodemographic, clinical, and psychological variables were investigated using multivariable logistic regression. RESULTS: Three thousand three hundred forty-seven men (mean age 78.1 years) surveyed on average 15.6 years after prostatectomy were included. Most men favored the terms “someone who has had cancer” (43.9%) which was associated with a mild disease course, and “patient” (26.3%) which was associated with ongoing therapy and biochemical disease recurrence. The self-descriptions “cancer survivor” (16.8%), “cancer conqueror” (10.9%) and “victim” (2.1%) were less common. “Cancer survivor” was associated with high perceived disease severity (OR: 1.86 [1.44–2.40]). “Cancer survivor” and “cancer conqueror” were related to high benefit finding (OR: 1.89 [1.48–2.40], OR: 1.46 [1.12–1.89] respectively), and only “cancer conqueror” was associated with high well-being (OR: 1.84 [1.35–2.50]). Identification as “victim” was associated with a positive depression screening and low well-being (OR: 2.22 [1.15–4.31], OR: 0.38 [0.20–0.72] respectively) (all p < 0.05). CONCLUSIONS: Although long-term survival is common among men affected by PCa, they display a large diversity in cancer-related identities, which are associated with unique clinical and psychological characteristics. These cancer-related identities and their distinctive properties are associated with psychological well-being even after a long follow-up
External Validation and Comparison of Prostate Cancer Risk Calculators Incorporating Multiparametric Magnetic Resonance Imaging for Prediction of Clinically Significant Prostate Cancer
PURPOSE: To externally validate recently published prostate cancer risk calculators (PCa-RCs) incorporating multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging (mpMRI) for the prediction of clinically significant prostate cancer (csPCa) and compare their performance to mpMRI-naïve PCa-RCs.
MATERIAL AND METHODS: Men without previous PCa diagnosis undergoing transperineal template saturation prostate biopsy with fusion-guided targeted biopsy between 11/2014 and 03/2018 in our academic tertiary referral center were identified. Any Gleason pattern ≥4 was defined to be csPCa. Predictors (age, PSA, DRE, prostate volume, family history, previous prostate biopsy and highest region of interest according to PIRADS) were retrospectively collected. Four mpMRI-PCa-RCs and two mpMRI-naïve PCa-RCs were evaluated for their discrimination, calibration and clinical net benefit using a ROC analysis, calibration plots and a decision curve analysis, respectively.
RESULTS: Out of 468 men, 193 (41%) were diagnosed with csPCa. Three mpMRI-PCa-RCs showed similar discrimination with area-underneath-the-receiver-operating-characteristic-curves (AUC) from 0.83 to 0.85, which was significantly higher than the other PCa-RCs (AUCs: 0.69-0.74). Calibration-in-the-large showed minimal deviation from the true amount of csPCa by 2% for two mpMRI-PCa-RCs, while the other PCa-RCs showed worse calibration (11-27%). A clinical net benefit could only be observed for three mpMRI-PCa-RCs at biopsy thresholds ≥15%, while none of the six investigated PCa-RCs demonstrated clinical utility against a biopsy all strategy at thresholds <15%.
CONCLUSIONS: Performance of the mpMRI-PCa-RCs varies, but they generally outperform mpMRI-naïve PCa-RCs in regard to discrimination, calibration and clinical usefulness. External validation in other biopsy settings is highly encouraged
Impact of cryopreservation on tetramer, cytokine flow cytometry, and ELISPOT
BACKGROUND: Cryopreservation of PBMC and/or overnight shipping of samples are required for many clinical trials, despite their potentially adverse effects upon immune monitoring assays such as MHC-peptide tetramer staining, cytokine flow cytometry (CFC), and ELISPOT. In this study, we compared the performance of these assays on leukapheresed PBMC shipped overnight in medium versus cryopreserved PBMC from matched donors. RESULTS: Using CMV pp65 peptide pool stimulation or pp65 HLA-A2 tetramer staining, there was significant correlation between shipped and cryopreserved samples for each assay (p ≤ 0.001). The differences in response magnitude between cryopreserved and shipped PBMC specimens were not significant for most antigens and assays. There was significant correlation between CFC and ELISPOT assay using pp65 peptide pool stimulation, in both shipped and cryopreserved samples (p ≤ 0.001). Strong correlation was observed between CFC (using HLA-A2-restricted pp65 peptide stimulation) and tetramer staining (p < 0.001). Roughly similar sensitivity and specificity were observed between the three assays and between shipped and cryopreserved samples for each assay. CONCLUSION: We conclude that all three assays show concordant results on shipped versus cryopreserved specimens, when using a peptide-based readout. The assays are also concordant with each other in pair wise comparisons using equivalent antigen systems
Accommodating heterogeneous missing data patterns for prostate cancer risk prediction
Objective: We compared six commonly used logistic regression methods for
accommodating missing risk factor data from multiple heterogeneous cohorts, in
which some cohorts do not collect some risk factors at all, and developed an
online risk prediction tool that accommodates missing risk factors from the
end-user. Study Design and Setting: Ten North American and European cohorts
from the Prostate Biopsy Collaborative Group (PBCG) were used for fitting a
risk prediction tool for clinically significant prostate cancer, defined as
Gleason grade group greater or equal 2 on standard TRUS prostate biopsy. One
large European PBCG cohort was withheld for external validation, where
calibration-in-the-large (CIL), calibration curves, and
area-underneath-the-receiver-operating characteristic curve (AUC) were
evaluated. Ten-fold leave-one-cohort-internal validation further validated the
optimal missing data approach. Results: Among 12,703 biopsies from 10 training
cohorts, 3,597 (28%) had clinically significant prostate cancer, compared to
1,757 of 5,540 (32%) in the external validation cohort. In external validation,
the available cases method that pooled individual patient data containing all
risk factors input by an end-user had best CIL, under-predicting risks as
percentages by 2.9% on average, and obtained an AUC of 75.7%. Imputation had
the worst CIL (-13.3%). The available cases method was further validated as
optimal in internal cross-validation and thus used for development of an online
risk tool. For end-users of the risk tool, two risk factors were mandatory:
serum prostate-specific antigen (PSA) and age, and ten were optional: digital
rectal exam, prostate volume, prior negative biopsy,
5-alpha-reductase-inhibitor use, prior PSA screen, African ancestry, Hispanic
ethnicity, first-degree prostate-, breast-, and second-degree prostate-cancer
family history
Prediction of overall survival for patients with metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer : development of a prognostic model through a crowdsourced challenge with open clinical trial data
Background Improvements to prognostic models in metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer have the potential to augment clinical trial design and guide treatment strategies. In partnership with Project Data Sphere, a not-for-profit initiative allowing data from cancer clinical trials to be shared broadly with researchers, we designed an open-data, crowdsourced, DREAM (Dialogue for Reverse Engineering Assessments and Methods) challenge to not only identify a better prognostic model for prediction of survival in patients with metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer but also engage a community of international data scientists to study this disease. Methods Data from the comparator arms of four phase 3 clinical trials in first-line metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer were obtained from Project Data Sphere, comprising 476 patients treated with docetaxel and prednisone from the ASCENT2 trial, 526 patients treated with docetaxel, prednisone, and placebo in the MAINSAIL trial, 598 patients treated with docetaxel, prednisone or prednisolone, and placebo in the VENICE trial, and 470 patients treated with docetaxel and placebo in the ENTHUSE 33 trial. Datasets consisting of more than 150 clinical variables were curated centrally, including demographics, laboratory values, medical history, lesion sites, and previous treatments. Data from ASCENT2, MAINSAIL, and VENICE were released publicly to be used as training data to predict the outcome of interest-namely, overall survival. Clinical data were also released for ENTHUSE 33, but data for outcome variables (overall survival and event status) were hidden from the challenge participants so that ENTHUSE 33 could be used for independent validation. Methods were evaluated using the integrated time-dependent area under the curve (iAUC). The reference model, based on eight clinical variables and a penalised Cox proportional-hazards model, was used to compare method performance. Further validation was done using data from a fifth trial-ENTHUSE M1-in which 266 patients with metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer were treated with placebo alone. Findings 50 independent methods were developed to predict overall survival and were evaluated through the DREAM challenge. The top performer was based on an ensemble of penalised Cox regression models (ePCR), which uniquely identified predictive interaction effects with immune biomarkers and markers of hepatic and renal function. Overall, ePCR outperformed all other methods (iAUC 0.791; Bayes factor >5) and surpassed the reference model (iAUC 0.743; Bayes factor >20). Both the ePCR model and reference models stratified patients in the ENTHUSE 33 trial into high-risk and low-risk groups with significantly different overall survival (ePCR: hazard ratio 3.32, 95% CI 2.39-4.62, p Interpretation Novel prognostic factors were delineated, and the assessment of 50 methods developed by independent international teams establishes a benchmark for development of methods in the future. The results of this effort show that data-sharing, when combined with a crowdsourced challenge, is a robust and powerful framework to develop new prognostic models in advanced prostate cancer.Peer reviewe
Precision Medicine in Active Surveillance for Prostate Cancer: Development of the Canary-Early Detection Research Network Active Surveillance Biopsy Risk Calculator.
- …