Personalized Biopsy Schedules Using an Interval-censored Cause-specific Joint Model

Active surveillance (AS), where biopsies are conducted to detect cancer progression, has been acknowledged as an efficient way to reduce the overtreatment of prostate cancer. Most AS cohorts use fixed biopsy schedules for all patients. However, the ideal test frequency remains unknown, and the routine use of such invasive tests burdens the patients. An emerging idea is to generate personalized biopsy schedules based on each patient's progression-specific risk. To achieve that, we propose the interval-censored cause-specific joint model (ICJM), which models the impact of longitudinal biomarkers on cancer progression while considering the competing event of early treatment initiation. The underlying likelihood function incorporates the interval-censoring of cancer progression, the competing risk of treatment, and the uncertainty about whether cancer progression occurred since the last biopsy in patients that are right-censored or experience the competing event. The model can produce patient-specific risk profiles until a horizon time. If the risk exceeds a certain threshold, a biopsy is conducted. The optimal threshold can be chosen by balancing two indicators of the biopsy schedules: the expected number of biopsies and expected delay in detection of cancer progression. A simulation study showed that our personalized schedules could considerably reduce the number of biopsies per patient by 34%-54% compared to the fixed schedules, though at the cost of a slightly longer detection delay.

[1]  M. van der Schaar,et al.  Developing machine learning algorithms for dynamic estimation of progression during active surveillance for prostate cancer , 2022, npj Digital Medicine.

[2]  A. Semjonow,et al.  Artificial Intelligence-Based Prognostic Model for Urologic Cancers: A SEER-Based Study , 2022, Cancers.

[3]  D. Nieboer,et al.  Shared decision making of burdensome surveillance tests using personalized schedules and their burden and benefit , 2022, Statistics in medicine.

[4]  D. Stoppa-Lyonnet,et al.  Feasibility of personalized screening and prevention recommendations in the general population through breast cancer risk assessment: results from a dedicated risk clinic , 2022, Breast Cancer Research and Treatment.

[5]  K. Salari,et al.  A machine learning approach to predict progression on active surveillance for prostate cancer. , 2021, Urologic oncology.

[6]  James D. Murphy,et al.  Association of Prostate-Specific Antigen Velocity With Clinical Progression Among African American and Non-Hispanic White Men Treated for Low-Risk Prostate Cancer With Active Surveillance , 2021, JAMA network open.

[7]  A. Jemal,et al.  Global Cancer Statistics 2020: GLOBOCAN Estimates of Incidence and Mortality Worldwide for 36 Cancers in 185 Countries , 2021, CA: a cancer journal for clinicians.

[8]  M. Guindy,et al.  Personalized Screening for Breast Cancer: Rationale, Present Practices, and Future Directions , 2021, Annals of Surgical Oncology.

[9]  M. Cooperberg,et al.  Tailoring Intensity of Active Surveillance for Low-Risk Prostate Cancer Based on Individualized Prediction of Risk Stability. , 2020, JAMA oncology.

[10]  Jun Ma,et al.  An optimal posttreatment surveillance strategy for cancer survivors based on an individualized risk-based approach , 2020, Nature Communications.

[11]  J. Twisk,et al.  Ignoring competing events in the analysis of survival data may lead to biased results: a non-mathematical illustration of competing risk analysis. , 2020, Journal of clinical epidemiology.

[12]  Giorgos Bakoyannis,et al.  Semiparametric competing risks regression under interval censoring using the R package intccr , 2019, Comput. Methods Programs Biomed..

[13]  P. Troncoso,et al.  Active surveillance for prostate and thyroid cancers: evolution in clinical paradigms and lessons learned , 2018, Nature Reviews Clinical Oncology.

[14]  D. Nieboer,et al.  Personalized schedules for surveillance of low‐risk prostate cancer patients , 2017, Biometrics.

[15]  K. Pienta,et al.  Risk prediction tool for grade re‐classification in men with favourable‐risk prostate cancer on active surveillance , 2017, BJU international.

[16]  Matthew R. Cooperberg,et al.  Epidemiology of prostate cancer , 2017, World Journal of Urology.

[17]  E. Heijnsdijk,et al.  Estimating the risks and benefits of active surveillance protocols for prostate cancer: a microsimulation study , 2017, BJU international.

[18]  Chenxi Li,et al.  Cause-specific hazard regression for competing risks data under interval censoring and left truncation , 2016, Comput. Stat. Data Anal..

[19]  Eleni-Rosalina Andrinopoulou,et al.  Bayesian shrinkage approach for a joint model of longitudinal and survival outcomes assuming different association structures , 2016, Statistics in medicine.

[20]  J. Hugosson,et al.  Long-term Results of Active Surveillance in the Göteborg Randomized, Population-based Prostate Cancer Screening Trial. , 2016, European urology.

[21]  Ronald C. Chen,et al.  Active Surveillance for the Management of Localized Prostate Cancer (Cancer Care Ontario Guideline): American Society of Clinical Oncology Clinical Practice Guideline Endorsement. , 2016, Journal of clinical oncology : official journal of the American Society of Clinical Oncology.

[22]  D. Kuban,et al.  Disease reclassification risk with stringent criteria and frequent monitoring in men with favourable‐risk prostate cancer undergoing active surveillance , 2016, BJU international.

[23]  John T. Wei,et al.  Outcomes of Active Surveillance for Clinically Localized Prostate Cancer in the Prospective, Multi-Institutional Canary PASS Cohort. , 2016, The Journal of urology.

[24]  Kirsten L. Greene,et al.  Extended followup and risk factors for disease reclassification in a large active surveillance cohort for localized prostate cancer. , 2015, The Journal of urology.

[25]  P. Stattin,et al.  Five-year nationwide follow-up study of active surveillance for prostate cancer. , 2015, European urology.

[26]  Danny Vesprini,et al.  Long-term follow-up of a large active surveillance cohort of patients with prostate cancer. , 2015, Journal of clinical oncology : official journal of the American Society of Clinical Oncology.

[27]  T. Lancet Active surveillance for early-stage prostate cancer , 2014, The Lancet.

[28]  D. Dearnaley,et al.  Medium-term outcomes of active surveillance for localised prostate cancer. , 2013, European urology.

[29]  K Clint Cary,et al.  Biomarkers in prostate cancer surveillance and screening: past, present, and future , 2013, Therapeutic advances in urology.

[30]  M. Roobol,et al.  Active surveillance for low-risk prostate cancer worldwide: the PRIAS study. , 2013, European urology.

[31]  Turgay Ayer,et al.  OR Forum - A POMDP Approach to Personalize Mammography Screening Decisions , 2012, Oper. Res..

[32]  Dimitris Rizopoulos,et al.  Dynamic Predictions and Prospective Accuracy in Joint Models for Longitudinal and Time‐to‐Event Data , 2011, Biometrics.

[33]  Laurent Brisson,et al.  Breast cancer risk score: a data mining approach to improve readability , 2011, IEEE ICDM 2011.

[34]  Alan W Partin,et al.  Active Surveillance Program for Prostate Cancer: An Update of the Johns Hopkins Experience , 2011 .

[35]  David S. Yee,et al.  Role of prostate specific antigen and immediate confirmatory biopsy in predicting progression during active surveillance for low risk prostate cancer. , 2011, The Journal of urology.

[36]  M. Soloway,et al.  Careful selection and close monitoring of low-risk prostate cancer patients on active surveillance minimizes the need for treatment. , 2010, European urology.

[37]  P. H. Garthwaite,et al.  Adaptive optimal scaling of Metropolis–Hastings algorithms using the Robbins–Monro process , 2010, 1006.3690.

[38]  Hemant Ishwaran,et al.  Random Survival Forests , 2008, Wiley StatsRef: Statistics Reference Online.

[39]  S. Fukuhara,et al.  Prospective evaluation of selection criteria for active surveillance in Japanese patients with stage T1cN0M0 prostate cancer. , 2008, Japanese journal of clinical oncology.

[40]  James A Hanley,et al.  20-year outcomes following conservative management of clinically localized prostate cancer. , 2005, JAMA.

[41]  A. Whittemore,et al.  Family history and prostate cancer risk in black, white, and Asian men in the United States and Canada. , 1995, American journal of epidemiology.

[42]  H. Carter,et al.  Mixed-effects regression models for studying the natural history of prostate disease. , 1994, Statistics in medicine.

[43]  M. Gail,et al.  Projecting individualized probabilities of developing breast cancer for white females who are being examined annually. , 1989, Journal of the National Cancer Institute.

[44]  M. Roobol,et al.  How Often is Biopsy Necessary in Patients with Prostate Cancer on Active Surveillance? , 2016, The Journal of urology.

[45]  Ming-Hui Chen,et al.  Cost implications and complications of overtreatment of low-risk prostate cancer in the United States. , 2015, Journal of the National Comprehensive Cancer Network : JNCCN.

[46]  R Core Team,et al.  R: A language and environment for statistical computing. , 2014 .

[47]  T. Tammela,et al.  Screening and prostate cancer mortality: results of the European Randomised Study of Screening for Prostate Cancer (ERSPC) at 13 years of follow-up , 2014, The Lancet.

[48]  B. Tombal,et al.  Epidemiology and Prevention of Prostate Cancer , 2013 .

[49]  Martyn Plummer,et al.  JAGS: A program for analysis of Bayesian graphical models using Gibbs sampling , 2003 .