Pathologic prostate cancer characteristics in patients eligible for active surveillance

A head-to-head comparison of contemporary protocols

Viacheslav Iremashvili, Lisét Pelaez, Murugesan Manoharan, Merce Jorda, Daniel L. Rosenberg, Mark S. Soloway

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

97 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

Background: Although the rationale for active surveillance (AS) in patients with low-risk prostate cancer is well established, eligibility criteria vary significantly across different programs. Objective: To compare the ability of contemporary AS criteria to identify patients with certain pathologic tumor features based on the results of an extended transrectal prostate biopsy. Design, settings, and participants: The study cohort included 391 radical prostatectomy patients who had prostate cancer with Gleason scores ≤6 on transrectal biopsy with ≥10 cores. Intervention: Radical prostatectomy without neoadjuvant treatment. Outcome measurements and statistical analysis: We identified patients who fulfilled the inclusion criteria of five AS protocols including those of Epstein, Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center, Prostate Cancer Research International: Active Surveillance (PRIAS), University of California, San Francisco, and University of Miami (UM). We evaluated the ability of these criteria to predict three pathologic end points: insignificant disease defined using a classical and updated formulation, and organ-confined Gleason ≤6 prostate cancer. Measures of diagnostic accuracy and areas under the receiver operating curve were calculated for each protocol and compared. Results and limitations: A total of 75% of the patients met the inclusion criteria of at least one protocol; 23% were eligible for AS by all studied criteria. The PRIAS and UM criteria had the best balance between sensitivity and specificity for both definitions of insignificant prostate cancer and a higher discriminative ability for the end points than any criteria including patients with two or more positive cores. The Epstein criteria demonstrated high specificity but low sensitivity for all pathologic end points, and therefore the discriminative ability was not superior to those of other protocols. Conclusions: Significant variations exist in the ability of contemporary AS criteria to predict pathologically insignificant prostate cancer at radical prostatectomy. These differences should be taken into account when making treatment choices in patients with low-risk prostate cancer.

Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)462-468
Number of pages7
JournalEuropean Urology
Volume62
Issue number3
DOIs
StatePublished - Sep 1 2012

Fingerprint

Prostatic Neoplasms
Prostatectomy
Biopsy
Sensitivity and Specificity
Neoadjuvant Therapy
San Francisco
Neoplasm Grading
Research
Prostate
Cohort Studies
Neoplasms

Keywords

  • Active surveillance
  • Prostate biopsy
  • Prostate cancer
  • Radical prostatectomy

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Urology

Cite this

Pathologic prostate cancer characteristics in patients eligible for active surveillance : A head-to-head comparison of contemporary protocols. / Iremashvili, Viacheslav; Pelaez, Lisét; Manoharan, Murugesan; Jorda, Merce; Rosenberg, Daniel L.; Soloway, Mark S.

In: European Urology, Vol. 62, No. 3, 01.09.2012, p. 462-468.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Iremashvili, Viacheslav ; Pelaez, Lisét ; Manoharan, Murugesan ; Jorda, Merce ; Rosenberg, Daniel L. ; Soloway, Mark S. / Pathologic prostate cancer characteristics in patients eligible for active surveillance : A head-to-head comparison of contemporary protocols. In: European Urology. 2012 ; Vol. 62, No. 3. pp. 462-468.
@article{5d31499ed0ef4c46b8de7624f7730e05,
title = "Pathologic prostate cancer characteristics in patients eligible for active surveillance: A head-to-head comparison of contemporary protocols",
abstract = "Background: Although the rationale for active surveillance (AS) in patients with low-risk prostate cancer is well established, eligibility criteria vary significantly across different programs. Objective: To compare the ability of contemporary AS criteria to identify patients with certain pathologic tumor features based on the results of an extended transrectal prostate biopsy. Design, settings, and participants: The study cohort included 391 radical prostatectomy patients who had prostate cancer with Gleason scores ≤6 on transrectal biopsy with ≥10 cores. Intervention: Radical prostatectomy without neoadjuvant treatment. Outcome measurements and statistical analysis: We identified patients who fulfilled the inclusion criteria of five AS protocols including those of Epstein, Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center, Prostate Cancer Research International: Active Surveillance (PRIAS), University of California, San Francisco, and University of Miami (UM). We evaluated the ability of these criteria to predict three pathologic end points: insignificant disease defined using a classical and updated formulation, and organ-confined Gleason ≤6 prostate cancer. Measures of diagnostic accuracy and areas under the receiver operating curve were calculated for each protocol and compared. Results and limitations: A total of 75{\%} of the patients met the inclusion criteria of at least one protocol; 23{\%} were eligible for AS by all studied criteria. The PRIAS and UM criteria had the best balance between sensitivity and specificity for both definitions of insignificant prostate cancer and a higher discriminative ability for the end points than any criteria including patients with two or more positive cores. The Epstein criteria demonstrated high specificity but low sensitivity for all pathologic end points, and therefore the discriminative ability was not superior to those of other protocols. Conclusions: Significant variations exist in the ability of contemporary AS criteria to predict pathologically insignificant prostate cancer at radical prostatectomy. These differences should be taken into account when making treatment choices in patients with low-risk prostate cancer.",
keywords = "Active surveillance, Prostate biopsy, Prostate cancer, Radical prostatectomy",
author = "Viacheslav Iremashvili and Lis{\'e}t Pelaez and Murugesan Manoharan and Merce Jorda and Rosenberg, {Daniel L.} and Soloway, {Mark S.}",
year = "2012",
month = "9",
day = "1",
doi = "10.1016/j.eururo.2012.03.011",
language = "English",
volume = "62",
pages = "462--468",
journal = "European Urology",
issn = "0302-2838",
publisher = "Elsevier",
number = "3",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Pathologic prostate cancer characteristics in patients eligible for active surveillance

T2 - A head-to-head comparison of contemporary protocols

AU - Iremashvili, Viacheslav

AU - Pelaez, Lisét

AU - Manoharan, Murugesan

AU - Jorda, Merce

AU - Rosenberg, Daniel L.

AU - Soloway, Mark S.

PY - 2012/9/1

Y1 - 2012/9/1

N2 - Background: Although the rationale for active surveillance (AS) in patients with low-risk prostate cancer is well established, eligibility criteria vary significantly across different programs. Objective: To compare the ability of contemporary AS criteria to identify patients with certain pathologic tumor features based on the results of an extended transrectal prostate biopsy. Design, settings, and participants: The study cohort included 391 radical prostatectomy patients who had prostate cancer with Gleason scores ≤6 on transrectal biopsy with ≥10 cores. Intervention: Radical prostatectomy without neoadjuvant treatment. Outcome measurements and statistical analysis: We identified patients who fulfilled the inclusion criteria of five AS protocols including those of Epstein, Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center, Prostate Cancer Research International: Active Surveillance (PRIAS), University of California, San Francisco, and University of Miami (UM). We evaluated the ability of these criteria to predict three pathologic end points: insignificant disease defined using a classical and updated formulation, and organ-confined Gleason ≤6 prostate cancer. Measures of diagnostic accuracy and areas under the receiver operating curve were calculated for each protocol and compared. Results and limitations: A total of 75% of the patients met the inclusion criteria of at least one protocol; 23% were eligible for AS by all studied criteria. The PRIAS and UM criteria had the best balance between sensitivity and specificity for both definitions of insignificant prostate cancer and a higher discriminative ability for the end points than any criteria including patients with two or more positive cores. The Epstein criteria demonstrated high specificity but low sensitivity for all pathologic end points, and therefore the discriminative ability was not superior to those of other protocols. Conclusions: Significant variations exist in the ability of contemporary AS criteria to predict pathologically insignificant prostate cancer at radical prostatectomy. These differences should be taken into account when making treatment choices in patients with low-risk prostate cancer.

AB - Background: Although the rationale for active surveillance (AS) in patients with low-risk prostate cancer is well established, eligibility criteria vary significantly across different programs. Objective: To compare the ability of contemporary AS criteria to identify patients with certain pathologic tumor features based on the results of an extended transrectal prostate biopsy. Design, settings, and participants: The study cohort included 391 radical prostatectomy patients who had prostate cancer with Gleason scores ≤6 on transrectal biopsy with ≥10 cores. Intervention: Radical prostatectomy without neoadjuvant treatment. Outcome measurements and statistical analysis: We identified patients who fulfilled the inclusion criteria of five AS protocols including those of Epstein, Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center, Prostate Cancer Research International: Active Surveillance (PRIAS), University of California, San Francisco, and University of Miami (UM). We evaluated the ability of these criteria to predict three pathologic end points: insignificant disease defined using a classical and updated formulation, and organ-confined Gleason ≤6 prostate cancer. Measures of diagnostic accuracy and areas under the receiver operating curve were calculated for each protocol and compared. Results and limitations: A total of 75% of the patients met the inclusion criteria of at least one protocol; 23% were eligible for AS by all studied criteria. The PRIAS and UM criteria had the best balance between sensitivity and specificity for both definitions of insignificant prostate cancer and a higher discriminative ability for the end points than any criteria including patients with two or more positive cores. The Epstein criteria demonstrated high specificity but low sensitivity for all pathologic end points, and therefore the discriminative ability was not superior to those of other protocols. Conclusions: Significant variations exist in the ability of contemporary AS criteria to predict pathologically insignificant prostate cancer at radical prostatectomy. These differences should be taken into account when making treatment choices in patients with low-risk prostate cancer.

KW - Active surveillance

KW - Prostate biopsy

KW - Prostate cancer

KW - Radical prostatectomy

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=84864495657&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=84864495657&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1016/j.eururo.2012.03.011

DO - 10.1016/j.eururo.2012.03.011

M3 - Article

VL - 62

SP - 462

EP - 468

JO - European Urology

JF - European Urology

SN - 0302-2838

IS - 3

ER -