| 21. |
|
|
| 22. |
- Vickers, Andrew J., et al.
(författare)
-
A Four-Kallikrein Panel Predicts Prostate Cancer in Men with Recent Screening: Data from the European Randomized Study of Screening for Prostate Cancer, Rotterdam
- 2010
-
Ingår i: Clinical Cancer Research. - 1078-0432. ; 16:12, s. 3232-3239
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- Purpose: We have developed a statistical prediction model for prostate cancer based on four kallikrein markers in blood: total, free, and intact prostate-specific antigen ( PSA), and kallikrein-related peptidase 2 ( hK2). Although this model accurately predicts the result of biopsy in unscreened men, its properties for men with a history of PSA screening have not been fully characterized. Experimental Design: A total of 1,501 previously screened men with elevated PSA underwent initial biopsy during rounds 2 and 3 of the European Randomized Study of Screening for Prostate Cancer, Rotterdam, with 388 cancers diagnosed. Biomarker levels were measured in serum samples taken before biopsy. The prediction model developed on the unscreened cohort was then applied and predictions compared with biopsy outcome. Results: The previously developed four-kallikrein prediction model had much higher predictive accuracy than PSA and age alone ( area under the curve of 0.711 versus 0.585, and 0.713 versus 0.557 with and without digital rectal exam, respectively; both P < 0.001). Similar statistically significant enhancements were seen for high-grade cancer. Applying the model with a cutoff of 20% cancer risk as the criterion for biopsy would reduce the biopsy rate by 362 for every 1,000 men with elevated PSA. Although diagnosis would be delayed for 47 cancers, these would be predominately low-stage and low-grade ( 83% Gleason 6 T-1c). Conclusions: A panel of four kallikreins can help predict the result of initial biopsy in previously screened men with elevated PSA. Use of a statistical model based on the panel would substantially decrease rates of unnecessary biopsy. Clin Cancer Res; 16( 12); 3232-9. (C)2010 AACR.
|
|
| 23. |
- Vickers, Andrew J, et al.
(författare)
-
Prostate specific antigen velocity does not aid prostate cancer detection in men with prior negative biopsy.
- 2010
-
Ingår i: The Journal of urology. - : Ovid Technologies (Wolters Kluwer Health). - 1527-3792 .- 0022-5347. ; 184:3, s. 907-12
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- Prostate specific antigen velocity has been proposed as a marker to aid in prostate cancer detection. We determined whether prostate specific antigen velocity could predict repeat biopsy results in men with persistently increased prostate specific antigen after initial negative biopsy.
|
|
| 24. |
- Vickers, Andrew J., et al.
(författare)
-
Prostate-Specific Antigen Velocity for Early Detection of Prostate Cancer: Result from a Large, Representative, Population-based Cohort
- 2009
-
Ingår i: European Urology. - : Elsevier BV. - 1873-7560 .- 0302-2838. ; 56:5, s. 753-760
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- Background: It has been suggested that changes in prostate-specific antigen (PSA) over time (ie, PSA velocity [PSAV]) aid prostate cancer detection. Some guidelines do incorporate PSAV cut points as an indication for biopsy. Objective: To evaluate whether PSAV enhances prediction of biopsy outcome in a large, representative, population-based cohort. Design, setting, and participants: There were 2742 screening-arm participants with PSA < 3 ng/ml at initial screening in the European Randomized Study of Screening for Prostate Cancer in Rotterdam, Netherlands, or Goteborg, Sweden, and who were subsequently biopsied during rounds 2-6 due to elevated PSA. Measurements: Total, free, and intact PSA and human kallikrein 2 were measured for 16 screening rounds at intervals of 2 or 4 yr. We created logistic regression models to predict prostate cancer based on age and PSA, with or without free-to-total PSA ratio (%fPSA). PSAV was added to each model and any enhancement in predictive accuracy assessed by area under the curve (AUC). Results and limitations: PSAV led to small enhancements in predictive accuracy (AUC of 0.569 vs 0.531; 0.626 vs 0.609 if %fPSA was included), although not for high-grade disease. The enhancement depended on modeling a nonlinear relationship between PSAV and cancer. There was no benefit if we excluded men with higher velocities, which were associated with lower risk. These results apply to men in a screening program with elevated PSA; men with prior negative biopsy were not evaluated in this study. Conclusions: In men with PSA of about >= 3 ng/ml, we found little justification for formal calculation of PSAV or for use of PSAV cut points to determine biopsy. Informal assessment of PSAV will likely aid clinical judgment, such as a sudden rise in PSA suggesting prostatitis, which could be further evaluated before biopsy. (C) 2009 European Association of Urology. Published by Elsevier B. V. All rights reserved.
|
|
| 25. |
|
|
| 26. |
- Beyer, Katharina, et al.
(författare)
-
Diagnostic and prognostic factors in patients with prostate cancer : a systematic review
- 2022
-
Ingår i: BMJ Open. - : BMJ. - 2044-6055. ; 12:4
-
Forskningsöversikt (refereegranskat)abstract
- Objectives As part of the PIONEER Consortium objectives, we have explored which diagnostic and prognostic factors (DPFs) are available in relation to our previously defined clinician and patient-reported outcomes for prostate cancer (PCa). Design We performed a systematic review to identify validated and non-validated studies. Data sources MEDLINE, Embase and the Cochrane Library were searched on 21 January 2020. Eligibility criteria Only quantitative studies were included. Single studies with fewer than 50 participants, published before 2014 and looking at outcomes which are not prioritised in the PIONEER core outcome set were excluded. Data extraction and synthesis After initial screening, we extracted data following the Checklist for Critical Appraisal and Data Extraction for Systematic Reviews of prognostic factor studies (CHARMS-PF) criteria and discussed the identified factors with a multidisciplinary expert group. The quality of the included papers was scored for applicability and risk of bias using validated tools such as PROBAST, Quality in Prognostic Studies and Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies 2. Results The search identified 6604 studies, from which 489 DPFs were included. Sixty-four of those were internally or externally validated. However, only three studies on diagnostic and seven studies on prognostic factors had a low risk of bias and a low risk concerning applicability. Conclusion Most of the DPFs identified require additional evaluation and validation in properly designed studies before they can be recommended for use in clinical practice. The PIONEER online search tool for DPFs for PCa will enable researchers to understand the quality of the current research and help them design future studies. Ethics and dissemination There are no ethical implications.
|
|
| 27. |
- 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.
|
|
| 28. |
- 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.
|
|
| 29. |
- Carlsson, Sigrid, 1982, et al.
(författare)
-
No excess mortality after prostate biopsy: results from the European Randomized Study of Screening for Prostate Cancer.
- 2011
-
Ingår i: BJU international. - 1464-410X. ; 107:12, s. 1912-1917
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- Study Type - Harm (RCT)Level of Evidence1b OBJECTIVES: To assess possible excess mortality associated with prostate biopsy among screening participants of the European Randomized Study of Screening for Prostate Cancer (ERSPC). SUBJECTS AND METHODS: From three centres in the ERSPC (Finland, The Netherlands and Sweden) 50194 screened men aged 50.2-78.4 years were prospectively followed. A cohort of 12959 first-time screening-positive men (i.e. with biopsy indication) was compared with another cohort of 37235 first-time screening-negative men. Overall mortality rates (i.e. other cause than prostate cancer mortality) were calculated and the 120-day and 1-year cumulative mortality were calculated by the Kaplan-Meier method, with a log-rank test for statistical significance. Incidence rate ratios (RR) and statistical significance were evaluated using Poisson regression analyses, adjusting for age, total PSA level, screening centre and whether a biopsy indication was present, or whether a biopsy was actually performed or not. RESULTS: There was no statistically significant difference in cumulative 120-day other cause mortality between the two groups of men: 0.24% (95% CI, 0.17-0.34) for screening-positive men vs 0.24% (95% CI, 0.20-0.30) for screening-negative men (P= 0.96). This implied no excess mortality for screening-positive men. Screening-positive men who were not biopsied (n= 1238) had a more than fourfold risk of other cause mortality during the first 120 days compared to screening-negative men: RR, 4.52 (95% CI, 2.63-7.74) (P < 0.001), adjusted for age, whereas men who were actually biopsied (n= 11721) had half the risk: RR, 0.41 (95% CI, 0.23-0.73) (P= 0.002), adjusted for age. Only 14/31 (45%) of the screening-positive men who died within 120 days were biopsied and none died as an obvious complication to the biopsy. CONCLUSIONS: Prostate biopsy is not associated with excess mortality and fatal complications appear to be very rare.
|
|
| 30. |
- Carlsson, Sigrid V., et al.
(författare)
-
Can one blood draw replace transrectal ultrasonography-estimated prostate volume to predict prostate cancer risk?
- 2013
-
Ingår i: BJU International. - 1464-4096 .- 1464-410X. ; 112:5, s. 602-609
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- Objective To explore whether a panel of kallikrein markers in blood: total, free and intact prostate-specific antigen (PSA) and kallikrein-related peptidase 2, could be used as a non-invasive alternative for predicting prostate cancer on biopsy in a screening setting. Subjects and Methods The study cohort comprised previously unscreened men who underwent sextant biopsy owing to elevated PSA (3 ng/mL) in two different centres of the European Randomized Study of Screening for Prostate Cancer, Rotterdam (n = 2914) and Gteborg (n = 740). A statistical model, based on kallikrein markers, was compared with one based on established clinical factors for the prediction of biopsy outcome. Results The clinical tests were found to be no better than blood markers, with an area under the curve in favour of the blood measurements of 0.766 vs. 0.763 in Rotterdam and 0.809 vs. 0.774 in Gteborg. Adding digital rectal examination (DRE) or DRE plus transrectal ultrasonography (TRUS) volume to the markers improved discrimination, although the increases were small. Results were similar for predicting high-grade cancer. There was a strong correlation between the blood measurements and TRUS-estimated prostate volume (Spearman's correlation 0.60 in Rotterdam and 0.57 in Gteborg). Conclusions In previously unscreened men, each with indication for biopsy, a statistical model based on kallikrein levels was similar to a clinical model in predicting prostate cancer in a screening setting, outside the day-to-day clinical practice. Whether a clinical approach can be replaced by laboratory analyses or used in combination with decision models (nomograms) is a clinical judgment that may vary from clinician to clinician depending on how they weigh the different advantages and disadvantages (harms, costs, time, invasiveness) of both approaches.
|
|
