Precision Medicine in Active Surveillance for Prostate Cancer: Development of the Canary-Early Detection Research Network Active Surveillance Biopsy Risk Calculator.

BACKGROUND Men on active surveillance (AS) face repeated biopsies. Most biopsy specimens will not show disease progression or change management. Such biopsies do not contribute to patient management and are potentially morbid and costly. OBJECTIVE To use a contemporary AS prospective trial to develop a tool to predict AS biopsy outcomes. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS Biopsy samples (median: 2; range: 2-9 per patient) from 859 men participating in the Canary Prostate Active Surveillance Study and with Gleason 6 prostate cancer (median follow-up: 35.8 mo; range: 3.0-148.7 mo) were analyzed. OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS AND STATISTICAL ANALYSIS Logistic regression was used to predict progression, defined as an increase in Gleason score from ≤6 to ≥7 or increase in percentage of cores positive for cancer from <34% to ≥34%. Fivefold internal cross-validation was performed to evaluate the area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC). RESULTS AND LIMITATIONS Statistically significant risk factors for progression on biopsy were prostate-specific antigen (odds ratio [OR]: 1.045; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.028-1.063), percentage of cores positive for cancer on most recent biopsy (OR: 1.401; 95% CI, 1.301-1.508), and history of at least one prior negative biopsy (OR: 0.524; 95% CI, 0.417-0.659). A multivariable predictive model incorporating these factors plus age and number of months since last biopsy achieved an AUC of 72.4%. CONCLUSIONS A combination of readily available clinical measures can stratify patients considering AS prostate biopsy. Risk of progression or upgrade can be estimated and incorporated into clinical practice. PATIENT SUMMARY The Canary-Early Detection Research Network Active Surveillance Biopsy Risk Calculator, an online tool, can be used to guide patient decision making regarding follow-up prostate biopsy.

[1]  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.

[2]  L. Marks,et al.  Improving risk stratification in patients with prostate cancer managed by active surveillance: nomogram predicting the risk of biopsy progression , 2014, BJU international.

[3]  A. D'Amico,et al.  NCCN clinical practice guidelines in oncology: prostate cancer. , 2010, Journal of the National Comprehensive Cancer Network : JNCCN.

[4]  S. Eggener,et al.  Development and multi‐institutional validation of an upgrading risk tool for Gleason 6 prostate cancer , 2013, Cancer.

[5]  Lori J Sokoll,et al.  Prostate Cancer Prevention Trial risk calculator 2.0 for the prediction of low- vs high-grade prostate cancer. , 2014, Urology.

[6]  J. Gohagan,et al.  Prostate cancer screening in the randomized Prostate, Lung, Colorectal, and Ovarian Cancer Screening Trial: mortality results after 13 years of follow-up. , 2012, Journal of the National Cancer Institute.

[7]  Yuanyuan Liang,et al.  Updating risk prediction tools: A case study in prostate cancer , 2012, Biometrical journal. Biometrische Zeitschrift.

[8]  A. Partin,et al.  Expectant management of localized prostate cancer. , 2003, Urology.

[9]  Dante diTommaso,et al.  Quantifying the role of PSA screening in the US prostate cancer mortality decline , 2008, Cancer Causes & Control.

[10]  Anthony D'Amico,et al.  Prostate cancer. Clinical practice guidelines in oncology. , 2007, Journal of the National Comprehensive Cancer Network : JNCCN.

[11]  Alexandre Mamedov,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.

[12]  I. Thompson,et al.  Expectant management of localized prostatic cancer , 1991, Cancer.

[13]  M. Cooperberg,et al.  The changing face of low-risk prostate cancer: trends in clinical presentation and primary management. , 2004, Journal of clinical oncology : official journal of the American Society of Clinical Oncology.

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

[15]  P. Carroll,et al.  20-year outcomes following conservative management of clinically localized prostate cancer , 2005 .

[16]  Anna Kettermann,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.

[17]  Bruce J 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.

[18]  John T. Wei,et al.  Urinary TMPRSS2:ERG and PCA3 in an Active Surveillance Cohort: Results from a Baseline Analysis in the Canary Prostate Active Surveillance Study , 2013, Clinical Cancer Research.

[19]  V. Moyer,et al.  Screening for Prostate Cancer: U.S. Preventive Services Task Force Recommendation Statement , 2012, Annals of Internal Medicine.

[20]  M. Soloway,et al.  Improving risk stratification in patients with prostate cancer managed by active surveillance: a nomogram predicting the risk of biopsy progression , 2013, BJU international.

[21]  J. Moul,et al.  Prostate cancer: the new landscape , 2009, Current opinion in urology.

[22]  I. Thompson,et al.  The Next Generation of Clinical Decision Making Tools: Development of a Real-Time Prediction Tool for Outcome of Prostate Biopsy in Response to a Continuously Evolving Prostate Cancer Landscape. , 2015, The Journal of urology.

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

[24]  M. Roobol,et al.  Infectious complications and hospital admissions after prostate biopsy in a European randomized trial. , 2012, European urology.

[25]  Matthew R Cooperberg,et al.  Time trends and local variation in primary treatment of localized prostate cancer. , 2010, Journal of clinical oncology : official journal of the American Society of Clinical Oncology.

[26]  T. Peters,et al.  Active monitoring, radical prostatectomy, or radiotherapy for localised prostate cancer: study design and diagnostic and baseline results of the ProtecT randomised phase 3 trial. , 2014, The Lancet. Oncology.

[27]  E. Klein,et al.  Prostate biopsy clinical and pathological variables that predict significant grading changes in patients with intermediate and high grade prostate cancer , 2009, BJU international.