| 1. |
- Van Hemelrijck, Mieke, et al.
(författare)
-
Reasons for Discontinuing Active Surveillance : Assessment of 21 Centres in 12 Countries in the Movember GAP3 Consortium
- 2019
-
Ingår i: European Urology. - : Elsevier BV. - 0302-2838. ; 75:3, s. 523-531
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- Background: Careful assessment of the reasons for discontinuation of active surveillance (AS) is required for men with prostate cancer (PCa). Objective: Using Movember's Global Action Plan Prostate Cancer Active Surveillance initiative (GAP3) database, we report on reasons for AS discontinuation. Design, setting, and participants: We compared data from 10 296 men on AS from 21 centres across 12 countries. Outcome measurements and statistical analysis: Cumulative incidence methods were used to estimate the cumulative incidence rates of AS discontinuation. Results and limitations: During 5-yr follow-up, 27.5% (95% confidence interval [CI]: 26.4–28.6%) men showed signs of disease progression, 12.8% (95% CI: 12.0–13.6%) converted to active treatment without evidence of progression, 1.7% (95% CI: 1.5–2.0%) continued to watchful waiting, and 1.7% (95% CI: 1.4–2.1%) died from other causes. Of the 7049 men who remained on AS, 2339 had follow-up for >5 yr, 4561 had follow-up for <5 yr, and 149 were lost to follow-up. Cumulative incidence of progression was 27.5% (95% CI: 26.4–28.6%) at 5 yr and 38.2% (95% CI: 36.7–39.9%) at 10 yr. A limitation is that not all centres were included due to limited information on the reason for discontinuation and limited follow-up. Conclusions: Our descriptive analyses of current AS practices worldwide showed that 43.6% of men drop out of AS during 5-yr follow-up, mainly due to signs of disease progression. Improvements in selection tools for AS are thus needed to correctly allocate men with PCa to AS, which will also reduce discontinuation due to conversion to active treatment without evidence of disease progression. Patient summary: Our assessment of a worldwide database of men with prostate cancer (PCa) on active surveillance (AS) shows that 43.6% drop out of AS within 5 yr, mainly due to signs of disease progression. Better tools are needed to select and monitor men with PCa as part of AS.
|
|
| 2. |
- Adams, Charleen, et al.
(författare)
-
Circulating Metabolic Biomarkers of Screen-Detected Prostate Cancer in the ProtecT Study
- 2019
-
Ingår i: Cancer Epidemiology, Biomarkers and Prevention. - : American Association for Cancer Research (AACR). - 1055-9965 .- 1538-7755. ; 28:1, s. 208-216
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- BACKGROUND: Whether associations between circulating metabolites and prostate cancer are causal is unknown. We report on the largest study of metabolites and prostate cancer (2,291 cases and 2,661 controls) and appraise causality for a subset of the prostate cancer-metabolite associations using two-sample Mendelian randomization (MR).MATERIALS AND METHODS: The case-control portion of the study was conducted in nine UK centres with men aged 50-69 years who underwent prostate-specific antigen (PSA) screening for prostate cancer within the Prostate testing for cancer and Treatment (ProtecT) trial. Two data sources were used to appraise causality: a genome-wide association study (GWAS) of metabolites in 24,925 participants and a GWAS of prostate cancer in 44,825 cases and 27,904 controls within the Association Group to Investigate Cancer Associated Alterations in the Genome (PRACTICAL) consortium.RESULTS: Thirty-five metabolites were strongly associated with prostate cancer (p <0.0014, multiple-testing threshold). These fell into four classes: i) lipids and lipoprotein subclass characteristics (total cholesterol and ratios, cholesterol esters and ratios, free cholesterol and ratios, phospholipids and ratios, and triglyceride ratios); ii) fatty acids and ratios; iii) amino acids; iv) and fluid balance. Fourteen top metabolites were proxied by genetic variables, but MR indicated these were not causal.CONCLUSIONS: We identified 35 circulating metabolites associated with prostate cancer presence, but found no evidence of causality for those 14 testable with MR. Thus, the 14 MR-tested metabolites are unlikely to be mechanistically important in prostate cancer risk.IMPACT: The metabolome provides a promising set of biomarkers that may aid prostate cancer classification.
|
|
| 3. |
|
|
| 4. |
|
|
| 5. |
- Bruinsma, Sophie M, et al.
(författare)
-
Expert consensus document : Semantics in active surveillance for men with localized prostate cancer - results of a modified Delphi consensus procedure
- 2017
-
Ingår i: Nature Reviews Urology. - : Springer Science and Business Media LLC. - 1759-4820 .- 1759-4812. ; 14:5, s. 312-322
-
Forskningsöversikt (refereegranskat)abstract
- Active surveillance (AS) is broadly described as a management option for men with low-risk prostate cancer, but semantic heterogeneity exists in both the literature and in guidelines. To address this issue, a panel of leading prostate cancer specialists in the field of AS participated in a consensus-forming project using a modified Delphi method to reach international consensus on definitions of terms related to this management option. An iterative three-round sequence of online questionnaires designed to address 61 individual items was completed by each panel member. Consensus was considered to be reached if ≥70% of the experts agreed on a definition. To facilitate a common understanding among all experts involved and resolve potential ambiguities, a face-to-face consensus meeting was held between Delphi survey rounds two and three. Convenience sampling was used to construct the panel of experts. In total, 12 experts from Australia, France, Finland, Italy, the Netherlands, Japan, the UK, Canada and the USA participated. By the end of the Delphi process, formal consensus was achieved for 100% (n = 61) of the terms and a glossary was then developed. Agreement between international experts has been reached on relevant terms and subsequent definitions regarding AS for patients with localized prostate cancer. This standard terminology could support multidisciplinary communication, reduce the extent of variations in clinical practice and optimize clinical decision making.
|
|
| 6. |
- Bruinsma, Sophie M, et al.
(författare)
-
The Movember Foundation's GAP3 cohort : a profile of the largest global prostate cancer active surveillance database to date
- 2018
-
Ingår i: BJU International. - : Wiley. - 1464-4096. ; 121:5, s. 737-744
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- OBJECTIVES: The Movember Foundation launched the Global Action Plan Prostate Cancer Active Surveillance (GAP3) initiative to create a global consensus on the selection and monitoring of men with low-risk prostate cancer (PCa) on active surveillance (AS). The aim of this study is to present data on inclusion and follow-up for AS in this unique global AS database.PATIENTS AND METHODS: Between 2014 and 2016, the database was created by combining patient data from 25 established AS cohorts worldwide (USA, Canada, Australasia, UK and Europe). Data on a total of 15 101 patients were included. Descriptive statistics were used to report patients' clinical and demographic characteristics at the time of PCa diagnosis, clinical follow-up, discontinuation of AS and subsequent treatment. Cumulative incidence curves were used to report discontinuation rates over time.RESULTS: At diagnosis, the median (interquartile range [IQR]) patient age was 65 (60-70) years and the median prostate-specific antigen level was 5.4 (4.0-7.3) ng/mL. Most patients had clinical stage T1 disease (71.8%), a biopsy Gleason score of 6 (88.8%) and one tumour-positive biopsy core (60.3%). Patients on AS had a median follow-up time of 2.2 (1.0-5.0) years. After 5, 10 and 15 years of follow-up, respectively, 58%, 39% and 23% of patients were still on AS. The current version of GAP3 has limited data on magnetic resonance imaging (MRI), quality of life and genomic testing.CONCLUSIONS: GAP3 is the largest worldwide collaboration integrating patient data from men with PCa on AS. The results will allow individual patients and clinicians to have greater confidence in the personalized decision to either delay or proceed with active treatment. Longer follow-up and the evaluation of MRI, new genomic markers and patient-related outcomes will result in even more valuable data and eventually in better patient outcomes.
|
|
| 7. |
|
|
| 8. |
- Carlsson, Sigrid, 1982, et al.
(författare)
-
Could Differences in Treatment Between Trial Arms Explain the Reduction in Prostate Cancer Mortality in the European Randomized Study of Screening for Prostate Cancer?
- 2019
-
Ingår i: European urology. - : Elsevier BV. - 1873-7560 .- 0302-2838. ; 75:6, s. 1015-1022
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- Differential treatment between trial arms has been suggested to bias prostate cancer (PC) mortality in the European Randomized Study of Screening for Prostate Cancer (ERSPC).To quantify the contribution of treatment differences to the observed PC mortality reduction between the screening arm (SA) and the control arm (CA).A total of 14 136 men with PC (SA: 7310; CA: 6826) in the core age group (55-69yr) at 16yr of follow-up.The outcomes measurements were observed and estimated numbers of PC deaths by treatment allocation in the SA and CA, respectively. Primary treatment allocation was modeled using multinomial logistic regression adjusting for center, age, year, prostate-specific antigen, grade group, and tumor-node-metastasis stage. For each treatment, logistic regression models were fitted for risk of PC death, separately for the SA and CA, and using the same covariates as for the treatment allocation model. Treatment probabilities were multiplied by estimated PC death risks for each treatment based on one arm, and then summed and compared with the observed number of deaths.The difference between the observed and estimated treatment distributions (hormonal therapy, radical prostatectomy, radiotherapy, and active surveillance/watchful waiting) in the two arms ranged from -3.3% to 3.3%. These figures, which represent the part of the treatment differences between arms that cannot be explained by clinicopathological differences, are small compared with the observed differences between arms that ranged between 7.2% and 10.1%. The difference between the observed and estimated numbers of PC deaths among men with PC was 0.05% (95% confidence interval [CI] -0.1%, 0.2%) when applying the CA model to the SA, had the two groups received identical primary treatment, given their clinical characteristics. When instead applying the SA model to the CA, the difference was, as expected, very similar-0.01% (95% CI -0.3%, 0.2%). Consistency of the results of the models demonstrates the robustness of the modeling approach. As the observed difference between trial arms was 4.2%, our findings suggest that differential treatment explains only a trivial proportion of the main findings of ERSPC. A limitation of the study is that only data on primary treatment were available.Use of prostate-specific antigen remains the predominant explanation for the reduction in PC mortality seen in the ERSPC trial and is not attributable to differential treatment between trial arms.This study shows that prostate cancer deaths in the European screening trial (European Randomized Study of Screening for Prostate Cancer) were prevented because men were diagnosed and treated earlier through prostate-specific antigen screening, and not because of different, or better, treatment in the screening arm compared with the control arm.
|
|
| 9. |
- Carlsson, Sigrid, 1982, et al.
(författare)
-
Improving the evaluation and diagnosis of clinically significant prostate cancer in 2017.
- 2017
-
Ingår i: Current opinion in urology. - 1473-6586. ; 27:3, s. 198-204
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- To provide an overview of the current state of the evidence and highlight recent advances in the evaluation and diagnosis of clinically significant prostate cancer, focusing on biomarkers, risk calculators and multiparametric MRI (mpMRI).In 2017 there are numerous options to improve early detection as compared to a purely prostate-specific antigen (PSA)-based approach. All have strengths and drawbacks. In addition to repeating the PSA and performing clinical work-up (digital rectal examination and estimation of prostate volume), additional tests investigated in the initial biopsy setting are: %free PSA, Prostate Health Index, 4-kallikrein score, SelectMDx, and Michigan Prostate Score and in the repeat setting: %free PSA, Prostate Health Index, 4-kallikrein score, Prostate Cancer Antigen 3, and ConfirmMDx. Risk calculators are available for both biopsy settings and incorporate clinical data with, or without, biomarkers. mpMRI is an important diagnostic adjunct.There are numerous tests available that can help increase the specificity of PSA, in the initial and repeat biopsy setting. All coincide with a small decrease in sensitivity of detecting high-grade cancer. Cost effectiveness is crucial. The way forward is a multivariable risk assessment on the basis of readily available clinical data, potentially with the addition of PSA subforms, preferably at low cost. MRI in the prediagnostic setting is promising, but is not ready for 'prime time'.
|
|
| 10. |
- Carlsson, Sigrid V., et al.
(författare)
-
Estimating the harms and benefits of prostate cancer screening as used in common practice versus recommended good practice : A microsimulation screening analysis
- 2016
-
Ingår i: Cancer. - : Wiley. - 0008-543X .- 1097-0142. ; 122:21, s. 3386-3393
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- BACKGROUND: Prostate-specific antigen (PSA) screening and concomitant treatment can be implemented in several ways. The authors investigated how the net benefit of PSA screening varies between common practice versus “good practice.”. METHODS: Microsimulation screening analysis (MISCAN) was used to evaluate the effect on quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) if 4 recommendations were followed: limited screening in older men, selective biopsy in men with elevated PSA, active surveillance for low-risk tumors, and treatment preferentially delivered at high-volume centers. Outcomes were compared with a base model in which annual screening started at ages 55 to 69 years and were simulated using data from the European Randomized Study of Screening for Prostate Cancer. RESULTS: In terms of QALYs gained compared with no screening, for 1000 screened men who were followed over their lifetime, recommended good practice led to 73 life-years (LYs) and 74 QALYs gained compared with 73 LYs and 56 QALYs for the base model. In contrast, common practice led to 78 LYs gained but only 19 QALYs gained, for a greater than 75% relative reduction in QALYs gained from unadjusted LYs gained. The poor outcomes for common practice were influenced predominantly by the use of aggressive treatment for men with low-risk disease, and PSA testing in older men also strongly reduced potential QALY gains. CONCLUSIONS: Commonly used PSA screening and treatment practices are associated with little net benefit. Following a few straightforward clinical recommendations, particularly greater use of active surveillance for low-risk disease and reducing screening in older men, would lead to an almost 4-fold increase in the net benefit of prostate cancer screening. Cancer 2016;122:3386–3393.
|
|
