Modeling grade progression in an active surveillance study

Prostate cancer grade, assessed with the Gleason score, describes how abnormal the tumor tissue and cells appear, and it is an important prognostic indicator of disease progression. Whether prostate tumors change grade is a question that has implications for screening and treatment. Empirical data on tumor grade over time have become available from men biopsied regularly as part of active surveillance (AS). However, biopsy (BX) grade is subject to misclassification. In this article, we develop a model that allows for estimation of the time of grade change while accounting for the misclassification error from BX grade. We use misclassification rates from studies of prostate cancer BXs followed by radical prostatectomy. Estimation of the transition times from true low‐grade to high‐grade disease is conducted within a Bayesian framework. We apply our model to serial observations on BX grade among 627 cases enrolled in a cohort of AS patients at Johns Hopkins University who were biopsied annually and referred to treatment if there was any evidence of disease progression on BX. We consider different prior distributions for the time to true grade progression. The estimated likelihood of grade progression within 10 years of study entry ranges from 12% to 24% depending on the prior. We conclude that knowledge of rates of grade misclassification allows for determination of true grade progression rates among men with serial BXs on AS. Although our results are sensitive to prior specifications, they indicate that in a nontrivial fraction of the patient population, tumor grade can progress. Copyright © 2013 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

[1]  B. Trock,et al.  Upgrading and downgrading of prostate cancer from biopsy to radical prostatectomy: incidence and predictive factors using the modified Gleason grading system and factoring in tertiary grades. , 2012, European urology.

[2]  Matthew R Cooperberg,et al.  Changes in prostate cancer grade on serial biopsy in men undergoing active surveillance. , 2011, Journal of clinical oncology : official journal of the American Society of Clinical Oncology.

[3]  F. Hamdy,et al.  PSA‐detected prostate cancer and the potential for dedifferentiation—estimating the proportion capable of progression , 2011, International journal of cancer.

[4]  A. Partin,et al.  Active surveillance program for prostate cancer: an update of the Johns Hopkins experience. , 2011, Journal of clinical oncology : official journal of the American Society of Clinical Oncology.

[5]  F. Hamdy,et al.  Latest results from the UK trials evaluating prostate cancer screening and treatment: the CAP and ProtecT studies. , 2010, European journal of cancer.

[6]  A. Partin,et al.  Prostate-specific antigen kinetics during follow-up are an unreliable trigger for intervention in a prostate cancer surveillance program. , 2010, Journal of clinical oncology : official journal of the American Society of Clinical Oncology.

[7]  P. Carroll,et al.  Canary Prostate Active Surveillance Study: design of a multi-institutional active surveillance cohort and biorepository. , 2010, Urology.

[8]  B. Trock,et al.  Risk stratification of men choosing surveillance for low risk prostate cancer. , 2009, The Journal of urology.

[9]  H. Parnes,et al.  Estimating Rates of True High-Grade Disease in the Prostate Cancer Prevention Trial , 2008, Cancer Prevention Research.

[10]  M. Cooperberg,et al.  Active surveillance for the management of prostate cancer in a contemporary cohort , 2008, Cancer.

[11]  Lyle D. Broemeling,et al.  Bayesian Biostatistics and Diagnostic Medicine , 2007 .

[12]  H. D. de Koning,et al.  Gleason score, age and screening: Modeling dedifferentiation in prostate cancer , 2006, International journal of cancer.

[13]  B. Trock,et al.  Delayed versus immediate surgical intervention and prostate cancer outcome. , 2006, Journal of the National Cancer Institute.

[14]  M. Zelen,et al.  Robust modeling in screening studies: estimation of sensitivity and preclinical sojourn time distribution. , 2005, Biostatistics.

[15]  P. Gustafson Measurement Error and Misclassification in Statistics and Epidemiology: Impacts and Bayesian Adjustments , 2003 .

[16]  D Gillatt,et al.  Prostate Testing for Cancer and Treatment (ProtecT) feasibility study. , 2003, Health technology assessment.

[17]  M. Pepe The Statistical Evaluation of Medical Tests for Classification and Prediction , 2003 .

[18]  M Zelen,et al.  Screening sensitivity and sojourn time from breast cancer early detection clinical trials: mammograms and physical examinations. , 2001, Journal of clinical oncology : official journal of the American Society of Clinical Oncology.

[19]  L. Joseph,et al.  Bayesian estimation of disease prevalence and the parameters of diagnostic tests in the absence of a gold standard. , 1995, American journal of epidemiology.

[20]  Marvin Zelen,et al.  On the theory of screening for chronic diseases , 1969 .

[21]  Liying Zhang,et al.  Clinical results of long-term follow-up of a large, active surveillance cohort with localized prostate cancer. , 2010, Journal of clinical oncology : official journal of the American Society of Clinical Oncology.