Role of Surveillance Biopsy with No Cancer as a Prognostic Marker for Reclassification

Results from the Canary Prostate Active Surveillance Study[Formula presented]

James T. Kearns, Anna V. Faino, Lisa F. Newcomb, James D. Brooks, Peter R. Carroll, Atreya Dash, William J. Ellis, Michael Fabrizio, Martin E. Gleave, Todd M. Morgan, Peter S. Nelson, Ian M. Thompson, Andrew A. Wagner, Yingye Zheng, Daniel W. Lin

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

6 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

Background: Many patients who are on active surveillance (AS) for prostate cancer will have surveillance prostate needle biopsies (PNBs) without any cancer evident. Objective: To define the association between negative surveillance PNBs and risk of reclassification on AS. Design, setting, and participants: All men were enrolled in the Canary Prostate Active Surveillance Study (PASS) between 2008 and 2016. Men were included if they had Gleason ≤3 + 4 prostate cancer and <34% core involvement ratio at diagnosis. Men were prescribed surveillance PNBs at 12 and 24 mo after diagnosis and then every 24 mo. Outcome measurements and statistical analysis: Reclassification was defined as an increase in Gleason grade and/or an increase in the ratio of biopsy cores to cancer to ≥34%. PNB outcomes were defined as follows: (1) no cancer on biopsy, (2) cancer without reclassification, or (3) reclassification. Kaplan–Meier and Cox proportional hazard models were performed to assess the risk of reclassification. Results and limitations: A total of 657 men met inclusion criteria. On first surveillance PNB, 214 (32%) had no cancer, 282 (43%) had cancer but no reclassification, and 161 (25%) reclassified. Among those who did not reclassify, 313 had a second PNB. On second PNB, 120 (38%) had no cancer, 139 (44%) had cancer but no reclassification, and 54 (17%) reclassified. In a multivariable analysis, significant predictors of decreased future reclassification after the first PNB were no cancer on PNB (hazard ratio [HR] = 0.50, p = 0.008), lower serum prostate-specific antigen, larger prostate size, and lower body mass index. A finding of no cancer on the second PNB was also associated with significantly decreased future reclassification in a multivariable analysis (HR = 0.15, p = 0.003), regardless of the first PNB result. The major limitation of this study is a relatively small number of patients with long-term follow-up. Conclusions: Men who have a surveillance PNB with no evidence of cancer are significantly less likely to reclassify on AS in the PASS cohort. These findings have implications for tailoring AS protocols. Patient summary: Men on active surveillance for prostate cancer who have a biopsy showing no cancer are at a decreased risk of having worse disease in the future. This may have an impact on how frequently biopsies are required to be performed in the future. Men who have a surveillance prostate needle biopsy with no evidence of cancer are significantly less likely to reclassify on active surveillance in the Canary Prostate Active Surveillance Study cohort. These findings have implications for tailoring active surveillance protocols.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)706-712
Number of pages7
JournalEuropean Urology
Volume73
Issue number5
DOIs
StatePublished - May 1 2018

Fingerprint

Canaries
Needle Biopsy
Prostate
Biopsy
Neoplasms
Prostatic Neoplasms
Cohort Studies
Second Primary Neoplasms

Keywords

  • Active surveillance
  • Prostate biopsy
  • Prostate cancer

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Urology

Cite this

Role of Surveillance Biopsy with No Cancer as a Prognostic Marker for Reclassification : Results from the Canary Prostate Active Surveillance Study[Formula presented]. / Kearns, James T.; Faino, Anna V.; Newcomb, Lisa F.; Brooks, James D.; Carroll, Peter R.; Dash, Atreya; Ellis, William J.; Fabrizio, Michael; Gleave, Martin E.; Morgan, Todd M.; Nelson, Peter S.; Thompson, Ian M.; Wagner, Andrew A.; Zheng, Yingye; Lin, Daniel W.

In: European Urology, Vol. 73, No. 5, 01.05.2018, p. 706-712.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Kearns, JT, Faino, AV, Newcomb, LF, Brooks, JD, Carroll, PR, Dash, A, Ellis, WJ, Fabrizio, M, Gleave, ME, Morgan, TM, Nelson, PS, Thompson, IM, Wagner, AA, Zheng, Y & Lin, DW 2018, 'Role of Surveillance Biopsy with No Cancer as a Prognostic Marker for Reclassification: Results from the Canary Prostate Active Surveillance Study[Formula presented]', European Urology, vol. 73, no. 5, pp. 706-712. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eururo.2018.01.016
Kearns, James T. ; Faino, Anna V. ; Newcomb, Lisa F. ; Brooks, James D. ; Carroll, Peter R. ; Dash, Atreya ; Ellis, William J. ; Fabrizio, Michael ; Gleave, Martin E. ; Morgan, Todd M. ; Nelson, Peter S. ; Thompson, Ian M. ; Wagner, Andrew A. ; Zheng, Yingye ; Lin, Daniel W. / Role of Surveillance Biopsy with No Cancer as a Prognostic Marker for Reclassification : Results from the Canary Prostate Active Surveillance Study[Formula presented]. In: European Urology. 2018 ; Vol. 73, No. 5. pp. 706-712.
@article{d5b9f40e257444b98d634624cc19f247,
title = "Role of Surveillance Biopsy with No Cancer as a Prognostic Marker for Reclassification: Results from the Canary Prostate Active Surveillance Study[Formula presented]",
abstract = "Background: Many patients who are on active surveillance (AS) for prostate cancer will have surveillance prostate needle biopsies (PNBs) without any cancer evident. Objective: To define the association between negative surveillance PNBs and risk of reclassification on AS. Design, setting, and participants: All men were enrolled in the Canary Prostate Active Surveillance Study (PASS) between 2008 and 2016. Men were included if they had Gleason ≤3 + 4 prostate cancer and <34{\%} core involvement ratio at diagnosis. Men were prescribed surveillance PNBs at 12 and 24 mo after diagnosis and then every 24 mo. Outcome measurements and statistical analysis: Reclassification was defined as an increase in Gleason grade and/or an increase in the ratio of biopsy cores to cancer to ≥34{\%}. PNB outcomes were defined as follows: (1) no cancer on biopsy, (2) cancer without reclassification, or (3) reclassification. Kaplan–Meier and Cox proportional hazard models were performed to assess the risk of reclassification. Results and limitations: A total of 657 men met inclusion criteria. On first surveillance PNB, 214 (32{\%}) had no cancer, 282 (43{\%}) had cancer but no reclassification, and 161 (25{\%}) reclassified. Among those who did not reclassify, 313 had a second PNB. On second PNB, 120 (38{\%}) had no cancer, 139 (44{\%}) had cancer but no reclassification, and 54 (17{\%}) reclassified. In a multivariable analysis, significant predictors of decreased future reclassification after the first PNB were no cancer on PNB (hazard ratio [HR] = 0.50, p = 0.008), lower serum prostate-specific antigen, larger prostate size, and lower body mass index. A finding of no cancer on the second PNB was also associated with significantly decreased future reclassification in a multivariable analysis (HR = 0.15, p = 0.003), regardless of the first PNB result. The major limitation of this study is a relatively small number of patients with long-term follow-up. Conclusions: Men who have a surveillance PNB with no evidence of cancer are significantly less likely to reclassify on AS in the PASS cohort. These findings have implications for tailoring AS protocols. Patient summary: Men on active surveillance for prostate cancer who have a biopsy showing no cancer are at a decreased risk of having worse disease in the future. This may have an impact on how frequently biopsies are required to be performed in the future. Men who have a surveillance prostate needle biopsy with no evidence of cancer are significantly less likely to reclassify on active surveillance in the Canary Prostate Active Surveillance Study cohort. These findings have implications for tailoring active surveillance protocols.",
keywords = "Active surveillance, Prostate biopsy, Prostate cancer",
author = "Kearns, {James T.} and Faino, {Anna V.} and Newcomb, {Lisa F.} and Brooks, {James D.} and Carroll, {Peter R.} and Atreya Dash and Ellis, {William J.} and Michael Fabrizio and Gleave, {Martin E.} and Morgan, {Todd M.} and Nelson, {Peter S.} and Thompson, {Ian M.} and Wagner, {Andrew A.} and Yingye Zheng and Lin, {Daniel W.}",
year = "2018",
month = "5",
day = "1",
doi = "10.1016/j.eururo.2018.01.016",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "73",
pages = "706--712",
journal = "European Urology",
issn = "0302-2838",
publisher = "Elsevier",
number = "5",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Role of Surveillance Biopsy with No Cancer as a Prognostic Marker for Reclassification

T2 - Results from the Canary Prostate Active Surveillance Study[Formula presented]

AU - Kearns, James T.

AU - Faino, Anna V.

AU - Newcomb, Lisa F.

AU - Brooks, James D.

AU - Carroll, Peter R.

AU - Dash, Atreya

AU - Ellis, William J.

AU - Fabrizio, Michael

AU - Gleave, Martin E.

AU - Morgan, Todd M.

AU - Nelson, Peter S.

AU - Thompson, Ian M.

AU - Wagner, Andrew A.

AU - Zheng, Yingye

AU - Lin, Daniel W.

PY - 2018/5/1

Y1 - 2018/5/1

N2 - Background: Many patients who are on active surveillance (AS) for prostate cancer will have surveillance prostate needle biopsies (PNBs) without any cancer evident. Objective: To define the association between negative surveillance PNBs and risk of reclassification on AS. Design, setting, and participants: All men were enrolled in the Canary Prostate Active Surveillance Study (PASS) between 2008 and 2016. Men were included if they had Gleason ≤3 + 4 prostate cancer and <34% core involvement ratio at diagnosis. Men were prescribed surveillance PNBs at 12 and 24 mo after diagnosis and then every 24 mo. Outcome measurements and statistical analysis: Reclassification was defined as an increase in Gleason grade and/or an increase in the ratio of biopsy cores to cancer to ≥34%. PNB outcomes were defined as follows: (1) no cancer on biopsy, (2) cancer without reclassification, or (3) reclassification. Kaplan–Meier and Cox proportional hazard models were performed to assess the risk of reclassification. Results and limitations: A total of 657 men met inclusion criteria. On first surveillance PNB, 214 (32%) had no cancer, 282 (43%) had cancer but no reclassification, and 161 (25%) reclassified. Among those who did not reclassify, 313 had a second PNB. On second PNB, 120 (38%) had no cancer, 139 (44%) had cancer but no reclassification, and 54 (17%) reclassified. In a multivariable analysis, significant predictors of decreased future reclassification after the first PNB were no cancer on PNB (hazard ratio [HR] = 0.50, p = 0.008), lower serum prostate-specific antigen, larger prostate size, and lower body mass index. A finding of no cancer on the second PNB was also associated with significantly decreased future reclassification in a multivariable analysis (HR = 0.15, p = 0.003), regardless of the first PNB result. The major limitation of this study is a relatively small number of patients with long-term follow-up. Conclusions: Men who have a surveillance PNB with no evidence of cancer are significantly less likely to reclassify on AS in the PASS cohort. These findings have implications for tailoring AS protocols. Patient summary: Men on active surveillance for prostate cancer who have a biopsy showing no cancer are at a decreased risk of having worse disease in the future. This may have an impact on how frequently biopsies are required to be performed in the future. Men who have a surveillance prostate needle biopsy with no evidence of cancer are significantly less likely to reclassify on active surveillance in the Canary Prostate Active Surveillance Study cohort. These findings have implications for tailoring active surveillance protocols.

AB - Background: Many patients who are on active surveillance (AS) for prostate cancer will have surveillance prostate needle biopsies (PNBs) without any cancer evident. Objective: To define the association between negative surveillance PNBs and risk of reclassification on AS. Design, setting, and participants: All men were enrolled in the Canary Prostate Active Surveillance Study (PASS) between 2008 and 2016. Men were included if they had Gleason ≤3 + 4 prostate cancer and <34% core involvement ratio at diagnosis. Men were prescribed surveillance PNBs at 12 and 24 mo after diagnosis and then every 24 mo. Outcome measurements and statistical analysis: Reclassification was defined as an increase in Gleason grade and/or an increase in the ratio of biopsy cores to cancer to ≥34%. PNB outcomes were defined as follows: (1) no cancer on biopsy, (2) cancer without reclassification, or (3) reclassification. Kaplan–Meier and Cox proportional hazard models were performed to assess the risk of reclassification. Results and limitations: A total of 657 men met inclusion criteria. On first surveillance PNB, 214 (32%) had no cancer, 282 (43%) had cancer but no reclassification, and 161 (25%) reclassified. Among those who did not reclassify, 313 had a second PNB. On second PNB, 120 (38%) had no cancer, 139 (44%) had cancer but no reclassification, and 54 (17%) reclassified. In a multivariable analysis, significant predictors of decreased future reclassification after the first PNB were no cancer on PNB (hazard ratio [HR] = 0.50, p = 0.008), lower serum prostate-specific antigen, larger prostate size, and lower body mass index. A finding of no cancer on the second PNB was also associated with significantly decreased future reclassification in a multivariable analysis (HR = 0.15, p = 0.003), regardless of the first PNB result. The major limitation of this study is a relatively small number of patients with long-term follow-up. Conclusions: Men who have a surveillance PNB with no evidence of cancer are significantly less likely to reclassify on AS in the PASS cohort. These findings have implications for tailoring AS protocols. Patient summary: Men on active surveillance for prostate cancer who have a biopsy showing no cancer are at a decreased risk of having worse disease in the future. This may have an impact on how frequently biopsies are required to be performed in the future. Men who have a surveillance prostate needle biopsy with no evidence of cancer are significantly less likely to reclassify on active surveillance in the Canary Prostate Active Surveillance Study cohort. These findings have implications for tailoring active surveillance protocols.

KW - Active surveillance

KW - Prostate biopsy

KW - Prostate cancer

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85044543524&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=85044543524&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1016/j.eururo.2018.01.016

DO - 10.1016/j.eururo.2018.01.016

M3 - Article

VL - 73

SP - 706

EP - 712

JO - European Urology

JF - European Urology

SN - 0302-2838

IS - 5

ER -