Current strategies for monitoring men with localised prostate cancer lack a strong evidence base: observational longitudinal study

Background:The UK National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence (NICE) guidance recommends conservative management of men with ‘low-risk’ localised prostate cancer, monitoring the disease using prostate-specific antigen (PSA) kinetics and re-biopsy. However, there is little evidence of the changes in PSA level that should alert to the need for clinical re-assessment.Methods:This study compares the alerts resulting from PSA kinetics and a novel longitudinal reference range approach, which incorporates age-related changes, during the monitoring of 408 men with localised prostate cancer. Men were monitored by regular PSA tests over a mean of 2.9 years, recording when a man's PSA doubling time fell below 2 years, PSA velocity exceeded 2 ng ml–1 per year, or when his upper 10% reference range was exceeded.Results:Prostate-specific antigen doubling time and PSA velocity alerted a high proportion of men initially but became unresponsive to changes with successive tests. Calculating doubling time using recent PSA measurements reduced the decline in response. The reference range method maintained responsiveness to changes in PSA level throughout the monitoring.Conclusion:The increasing unresponsiveness of PSA kinetics is a consequence of the underlying regression model. Novel methods are needed for evaluation in cohorts currently being managed by monitoring. Meanwhile, the NICE guidance should be cautious.

[1]  L. Carlson,et al.  Psychosocial barriers to active surveillance for the management of early prostate cancer and a strategy for increased acceptance , 2007, BJU international.

[2]  P. Walsh,et al.  Radical prostatectomy versus watchful waiting in early prostate cancer. , 2005, The Journal of urology.

[3]  P. Carroll,et al.  The relationship between anxiety and time to treatment for patients with prostate cancer on surveillance. , 2007, The Journal of urology.

[4]  C. Bangma,et al.  Watchful waiting in prostate cancer: review and policy proposals , 2003, BJU international.

[5]  Hans Garmo,et al.  Development of a new method for monitoring prostate-specific antigen changes in men with localised prostate cancer: a comparison of observational cohorts. , 2010, European urology.

[6]  Joannie T. Yeh,et al.  Comparison of methods for calculating prostate specific antigen velocity. , 2006, The Journal of urology.

[7]  C. Parker Active surveillance: towards a new paradigm in the management of early prostate cancer. , 2004, The Lancet. Oncology.

[8]  A. Stephenson,et al.  Variations in PSA doubling time in patients with prostate cancer on "watchful waiting": value of short-term PSADT determinations. , 2004, Urology.

[9]  F. Hamdy,et al.  Continuing controversy over monitoring men with localized prostate cancer: a systematic review of programs in the prostate specific antigen era. , 2006, The Journal of urology.

[10]  R. Eeles,et al.  Early outcomes of active surveillance for localized prostate cancer , 2005, BJU international.

[11]  L. Klotz Active surveillance for favorable risk prostate cancer: rationale, risks, and results. , 2007, Urologic oncology.

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

[13]  J. Donovan,et al.  Establishing normal reference ranges for PSA change with age in a population‐based study: The Krimpen study , 2006, The Prostate.

[14]  Jenny Donovan,et al.  Screening for prostate cancer , 1993, JAMA.

[15]  J. Sterne,et al.  Multilevel growth curve models with covariate effects: application to recovery after stroke , 2001, Statistics in medicine.

[16]  J. Bosch,et al.  Prostate specific antigen in a community‐based sample of men without prostate cancer: Correlations with prostate volume, age, body mass index, and symptoms of prostatism , 1995, The Prostate.

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

[18]  R. V. D. van den Bergh,et al.  Prospective validation of active surveillance in prostate cancer: the PRIAS study. , 2007, European urology.

[19]  R. V. D. van den Bergh,et al.  Prostate-specific antigen kinetics in clinical decision-making during active surveillance for early prostate cancer--a review. , 2008, European urology.

[20]  F. Hamdy,et al.  Screening for Prostate Cancer , 2006 .

[21]  D. Dearnaley,et al.  A model of the natural history of screen-detected prostate cancer, and the effect of radical treatment on overall survival , 2006, British Journal of Cancer.