H. Ballentine Carter

The use of prostate specific antigen, clinical stage and Gleason score to predict pathological stage in men with localized prostate cancer.

Clinical stage, Gleason score and serum prostate specific antigen (PSA) levels are used separately to predict pathological stage in patients with localized prostate cancer. Because the degree of tumor differentiation has a profound influence on the expression of serum PSA, serum PSA levels alone do not reflect tumor burden accurately. To overcome this obstacle we tested these 3 variables alone and in combinations as predictors of final pathological stage in 703 men with clinically localized prostate cancer at our institution. All patients were assigned a clinical stage by 1 urologist. The Gleason score was determined from preoperative needle biopsy and serum PSA levels were measured on an ambulatory basis. Final pathological stage was determined to be either organ confined, established capsular penetration, seminal vesicle involvement or lymph node involvement. Logistic regression analysis with the likelihood ratio chi-square test determined that serum PSA, Gleason score and clinical stage all predicted final pathological stage well. The results were improved with combinations of the 3 variables (serum PSA, Gleason score and clinical stage) and the combination provided the best separation. From these analyses probability plots and nomograms have been constructed to assist urologists in the preoperative prediction of final pathological stage for patients with clinically localized prostate cancer.

Early Detection of Prostate Cancer: AUA Guideline

PURPOSE The guideline purpose is to provide the urologist with a framework for the early detection of prostate cancer in asymptomatic average risk men. MATERIALS AND METHODS A systematic review was conducted and summarized evidence derived from over 300 studies that addressed the predefined outcomes of interest (prostate cancer incidence/mortality, quality of life, diagnostic accuracy and harms of testing). In addition to the quality of evidence, the panel considered values and preferences expressed in a clinical setting (patient-physician dyad) rather than having a public health perspective. Guideline statements were organized by age group in years (age <40; 40 to 54; 55 to 69; ≥ 70). RESULTS Except prostate specific antigen-based prostate cancer screening, there was minimal evidence to assess the outcomes of interest for other tests. The quality of evidence for the benefits of screening was moderate, and evidence for harm was high for men age 55 to 69 years. For men outside this age range, evidence was lacking for benefit, but the harms of screening, including over diagnosis and overtreatment, remained. Modeled data suggested that a screening interval of two years or more may be preferred to reduce the harms of screening. CONCLUSIONS The Panel recommended shared decision-making for men age 55 to 69 years considering PSA-based screening, a target age group for whom benefits may outweigh harms. Outside this age range, PSA-based screening as a routine could not be recommended based on the available evidence.

Prostate specific antigen in the staging of localized prostate cancer: influence of tumor differentiation, tumor volume and benign hyperplasia.

To evaluate the usefulness of serum prostate specific antigen in the preoperative staging of prostate cancer we examined tumor volume and differentiation, as well as benign prostatic hyperplasia volume to determine their influence on serum antigen levels. Serum prostate specific antigen was measured in 350 men with clinically localized prostate cancer and preoperatively in 72 men with documented benign prostatic hyperplasia. Although the mean antigen levels increased with advancing pathological stage, the usefulness of prostate specific antigen to predict pathological stage for an individual patient was limited: 1 of 102 men (0.9%) with prostate specific antigen levels of less than 2.8 ng./ml. had positive lymph nodes and 5 of 5 men with levels of greater than 100 ng./ml. had either seminal vesicle or lymph node involvement. However, for the majority of men (greater than 70%) with prostate specific antigen values between these 2 extremes the antigen levels did not accurately predict pathological stage. Because serum prostate specific antigen levels correlated with morphometrically determined tumor volume (r equals 0.535, p less than 0.01) they should, in fact, be predictive of pathological stage. However, most men with prostate cancer also have varying degrees of benign prostatic hyperplasia tissue in the gland producing prostate specific antigen. We have found that serum prostate specific antigen does not correlate with the volume of benign hyperplasia within the gland (r equals 0.21, p greater than 0.05). In addition, immunohistochemical studies have suggested that the lack of correlation between pathological stage and serum prostate specific antigen might be explained by a decrease in the production of antigen with increasing histological grade. Our findings of a negative correlation (r equals -0.37, p less than 0.01) between serum prostate specific antigen levels and Gleason score adjusted for tumor volume confirmed this suggestion. Consequently, serum prostate specific antigen levels do not reflect tumor burden and pathological stage accurately in individual patients for 2 reasons: 1) the unpredictable contribution from the benign prostatic hyperplasia component of the gland and 2) the decreasing production of prostate specific antigen by higher grade lesions as tumor volume increases.

Active surveillance program for prostate cancer: An update of the Johns Hopkins experience

PURPOSE We assessed outcomes of men with prostate cancer enrolled in active surveillance. PATIENTS AND METHODS Since 1995, a total of 769 men diagnosed with prostate cancer have been followed prospectively (median follow-up, 2.7 years; range, 0.01 to 15.0 years) on active surveillance. Enrollment criteria were for very-low-risk cancers, defined by clinical stage (T1c), prostate-specific antigen density < 0.15 ng/mL, and prostate biopsy findings (Gleason score ≤ 6, two or fewer cores with cancer, and ≤ 50% cancer involvement of any core). Curative intervention was recommended on disease reclassification on the basis of biopsy criteria. The primary outcome was survival free of intervention, and secondary outcomes were rates of disease reclassification and exit from the program. Outcomes were compared between men who did and did not meet very-low-risk criteria. RESULTS The median survival free of intervention was 6.5 years (range, 0.0 to 15.0 years) after diagnosis, and the proportions of men remaining free of intervention after 2, 5, and 10 years of follow-up were 81%, 59%, and 41%, respectively. Overall, 255 men (33.2%) underwent intervention at a median of 2.2 years (range, 0.6 to 10.2 years) after diagnosis; 188 men (73.7%) underwent intervention on the basis of disease reclassification on biopsy. The proportions of men who underwent curative intervention (P = .026) or had biopsy reclassification (P < .001) were significantly lower in men who met enrollment criteria than in those who did not. There were no prostate cancer deaths. CONCLUSION For carefully selected men, active surveillance with curative intent appears to be a safe alternative to immediate intervention. Limiting surveillance to very-low-risk patients may reduce the frequency of adverse outcomes.

Prostate Specific Antigen Best Practice Statement: 2009 Update

PURPOSE We provide current information on the use of PSA testing for the evaluation of men at risk for prostate cancer, and the risks and benefits of early detection. MATERIALS AND METHODS The report is a summary of the American Urological Association PSA Best Practice Policy 2009. The summary statement is based on a review of the current professional literature, clinical experience and the expert opinions of a multispecialty panel. It is intended to serve as a resource for physicians, other health care professionals, and patients. It does not establish a fixed set of guidelines, define the legal standard of care or pre-empt physician judgment in individual cases. RESULTS There are two notable differences in the current policy. First, the age for obtaining a baseline PSA has been lowered to 40 years. Secondly, the current policy no longer recommends a single, threshold value of PSA, which should prompt prostate biopsy. Rather, the decision to proceed to prostate biopsy should be based primarily on PSA and DRE results, but should take into account multiple factors including free and total PSA, patient age, PSA velocity, PSA density, family history, ethnicity, prior biopsy history and comorbidities. CONCLUSIONS Although recently published trials show different results regarding the impact of prostate cancer screening on mortality, both suggest that prostate cancer screening leads to overdetection and overtreatment of some patients. Therefore, men should be informed of the risks and benefits of prostate cancer screening before biopsy and the option of active surveillance in lieu of immediate treatment for certain men diagnosed with prostate cancer.

Complications After Prostate Biopsy: Data From SEER-Medicare

PURPOSE More than 1 million prostate biopsies are performed annually among Medicare beneficiaries. We determined the risk of serious complications requiring hospitalization. We hypothesized that with emerging multidrug resistant organisms there may be an increasing risk of infectious complications. MATERIALS AND METHODS In a 5% random sample of Medicare participants in SEER (Surveillance, Epidemiology and End Results) regions from 1991 to 2007 we compared 30-day hospitalization rates and ICD-9 primary diagnosis codes for admissions between 17,472 men who underwent prostate biopsy and a random sample of 134,977 controls. Multivariate logistic and Poisson regression were used to examine the risk and predictors of serious infectious and noninfectious complications with time. RESULTS The 30-day hospitalization rate was 6.9% within 30 days of prostate biopsy, which was substantially higher than the 2.7% in the control population. After adjusting for age, race, SEER region, year and comorbidities prostate biopsy was associated with a 2.65-fold (95% CI 2.47-2.84) increased risk of hospitalization within 30 days compared to the control population (p <0.0001). The risk of infectious complications requiring hospitalization after biopsy was significantly greater in more recent years (p(trend) = 0.001). Among men undergoing biopsy, later year, nonwhite race and higher comorbidity scores were significantly associated with an increased risk of infectious complications. CONCLUSIONS The risk of hospitalization within 30 days of prostate biopsy was significantly higher than in a control population. Infectious complications after prostate biopsy have increased in recent years while the rate of serious noninfectious complications is relatively stable. Careful patient selection for prostate biopsy is essential to minimize the potential harms.

Active Surveillance for Prostate Cancer: A Systematic Review of the Literature

CONTEXT Prostate cancer (PCa) remains an increasingly common malignancy worldwide. The optimal management of clinically localized, early-stage disease remains unknown, and profound quality of life issues surround PCa interventions. OBJECTIVE To systematically summarize the current literature on the management of low-risk PCa with active surveillance (AS), with a focus on patient selection, outcomes, and future research needs. EVIDENCE ACQUISITION A comprehensive search of the PubMed and Embase databases from 1980 to 2011 was performed to identify studies pertaining to AS for PCa. The search terms used included prostate cancer and active surveillance or conservative management or watchful waiting or expectant management. Selected studies for outcomes analysis had to provide a comprehensive description of entry characteristics, criteria for surveillance, and indicators for further intervention. EVIDENCE SYNTHESIS Data from seven large AS series were reviewed. Inclusion criteria for surveillance vary among studies, and eligibility therefore varies considerably (4-82%). PCa-specific mortality remains low (0-1%), with the longest published median follow-up being 6.8 yr. Up to one-third of patients receive secondary therapy after a median of about 2.5 yr of surveillance. Surveillance protocols and triggers for intervention vary among institutions. Most patients are treated for histologic reclassification (27-100%) or prostate-specific antigen doubling time <3 yr (13-48%), while 7-13% are treated with no evidence of progression. Repeat prostate biopsy with a minimum of 12 cores appears to be important for monitoring patients for changes in tumor histology over time. CONCLUSIONS AS for PCa offers an opportunity to limit intervention to patients who will likely benefit the most from radical treatment. This approach confers a low risk of disease-specific mortality in the short to intermediate term. An early, confirmatory biopsy is essential for limiting the risk of underestimating tumor grade and amount.

Evaluation of serum prostate-specific antigen velocity after radical prostatectomy to distinguish local recurrence from distant metastases☆

OBJECTIVE Serum prostate-specific antigen (PSA) values are most useful for prediction of disease recurrence after surgery. It is unknown whether a detectable PSA level after surgery indicates a local recurrence potentially benefiting from pelvic irradiation or distant metastases requiring hormonal treatment. METHODS We analyzed postoperative rate of change of serum PSA levels as a predictor of local versus distant disease recurrence after radical prostatectomy. Between 1982 and 1991, 1,058 men underwent radical prostatectomy for localized prostate cancer and follow-up consisted of determining serum PSA levels and digital rectal examinations. Clinical follow-up of 542 men for four or more years and 78 men for eight or more years yielded ten-year actuarial disease recurrence rates of 4 percent for local recurrence, 8 percent for distant metastases, and 23 percent for an isolated elevation of serum PSA level only. Fifty-one patients with isolated elevations of PSA levels only were followed expectantly until they were diagnosed with either local or distant metastases. RESULTS A linear mixed effects regression analysis was used to model these data. Using these models, the time to a serum PSA level of 0.5 ng/mL, the PSA level one year following surgery, pathologic stage, Gleason sum, and the rate of change of PSA (PSA velocity [PSAV]) were tested as predictors of local versus distant metastases. A combination of PSAV, pathologic stage, and Gleason grade best distinguished local from distant metastases. CONCLUSIONS These data suggest that PSAV in men with an isolated elevation of PSA levels following radical prostatectomy might aid in clinical decision making.

Nonpalpable stage t1c prostate cancer : Prediction of insignificant disease using free/total prostate specific antigen levels and needle biopsy findings

PURPOSE Approximately 25% of radical prostatectomies performed for stage T1c disease show potentially insignificant prostate cancer. We previously reported the use of serum prostate specific antigen (PSA) density and needle biopsy findings to predict potentially insignificant cancer. We now evaluate whether using free/total serum PSA levels along with needle biopsy findings can better predict tumor significance. MATERIALS AND METHODS We studied 163 radical prostatectomy specimens of stage T1c prostate cancer in which free/total serum PSA levels were determined. Free/total serum PSA levels were measured with Tandem-MP PSA assays. Insignificant prostate cancers were organ confined with tumor volumes less than 0.5 cc and Gleason score less than 7. Advanced tumors were either Gleason score 7 or greater, established extraprostatic extension with positive margins, or positive seminal vesicles or lymph nodes. Other cases were considered as moderate tumor. Moderate and advanced tumors were considered significant. RESULTS Of the tumors 30.7% were insignificant, 49.7% moderate and 19.6% advanced. The best model to predict preoperatively insignificant tumor was a free/total PSA of 0.15 or greater and favorable needle biopsy findings (less than 3 cores involved, none of the cores with greater than 50% tumor involvement and Gleason score less than 7). Using this model of the 18 tumors predicted to be insignificant 17 were insignificant for a positive predictive value of 94.4%. Of the 145 cases that were predicted to be significant 112 were correctly predicted for a negative predictive value of 77.2%. There was only 1 tumor predicted to be insignificant which was classified as moderate. No tumor predicted to be insignificant was advanced. CONCLUSIONS In conjunction with needle biopsy findings, free/total PSA levels accurately predict insignificant tumor in stage T1c disease.

Overdiagnosis and Overtreatment of Prostate Cancer

CONTEXT Although prostate cancer (PCa) screening reduces the incidence of advanced disease and mortality, trade-offs include overdiagnosis and resultant overtreatment. OBJECTIVE To review primary data on PCa overdiagnosis and overtreatment. EVIDENCE ACQUISITION Electronic searches were conducted in Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, PubMed, and Embase from inception to July 2013 for original articles on PCa overdiagnosis and overtreatment. Supplemental articles were identified through hand searches. EVIDENCE SYNTHESIS The lead-time and excess-incidence approaches are the main ways used to estimate overdiagnosis in epidemiological studies, with estimates varying widely. The estimated number of PCa cases needed to be diagnosed to save a life has ranged from 48 down to 5 with increasing follow-up. In clinical studies, generally lower rates of overdiagnosis have been reported based on the frequency of low-grade minimal tumors at radical prostatectomy (1.7-46.8%). Autopsy studies have reported PCa in 18.5-38.5%, although not all are low grade or low volume. Factors influencing overdiagnosis include the study population, screening protocol, and background incidence, limiting generalizability between settings. Reported rates of overtreatment vary widely in the literature, although contemporary international studies suggest increasing use of conservative management. CONCLUSIONS Epidemiological, clinical, and autopsy studies have been used to examine PCa overdiagnosis, with estimates ranging widely from 1.7% to 67%. Correspondingly, estimates of overtreatment vary widely based on patient features and may be declining internationally. Careful patient selection for screening and reducing overtreatment are important to preserve the benefits and reduce the downstream harms of prostate-specific antigen testing. Because all of these estimates are extremely population and context specific, this must be considered when using these data to inform policy. PATIENT SUMMARY Screening reduces spread and death from prostate cancer (PCa) but overdiagnoses some low-risk tumors that may not have caused harm. Because treatment has potential side effects, it is critical that not all patients with PCa receive aggressive treatment.