Dataset Information

Development of a new method for monitoring prostate-specific antigen changes in men with localised prostate cancer: a comparison of observational cohorts.

ABSTRACT:

Background

Prostate-specific antigen (PSA) measurements are increasingly used to monitor men with localised prostate cancer (PCa), but there is little consensus about the method to use.

Objective

To apply age-specific predictions of PSA level (developed in men without cancer) to one cohort of men with clinically identified PCa and one cohort of men with PSA-detected PCa. We hypothesise that among men with clinically identified cancer, the annual increase in PSA level would be steeper than in men with PSA-detected cancer.

Design, setting, and participants

The Scandinavian Prostate Cancer Group 4 (SPCG-4) cohort consisted of 321 men assigned to the watchful waiting arm of the SPCG-4 trial. The UK cohort consisted of 320 men with PSA-detected PCa in the Prostate testing for cancer and Treatment (ProtecT) study who opted for monitoring. Multilevel models describing changes in PSA level were fitted to the two cohorts, and average PSA level at age 50, change in PSA level with age, and predicted PSA values were derived.

Measurements

PSA level.

Results and limitations

In the SPCG-4 cohort, mean PSA at age 50 was similar to the cancer-free cohort but with a steeper yearly increase in PSA level (16.4% vs 4.0%). In the UK cohort, mean PSA level was higher than that in the cancer-free cohort (due to a PSA biopsy threshold of 3.0 ng/ml) but with a similar yearly increase in PSA level (4.1%). Predictions were less accurate for the SPCG-4 cohort (median difference between observed and predicted PSA level: -2.0 ng/ml; interquartile range [IQR]: -7.6-0.7 ng/ml) than for the UK cohort (median difference between observed and predicted PSA level: -0.8 ng/ml; IQR: -2.1-0.1 ng/ml).

Conclusions

In PSA-detected men, yearly change in PSA was similar to that in cancer-free men, whereas in men with symptomatic PCa, the yearly change in PSA level was considerably higher. Our method needs further evaluation but has promise for refining active monitoring protocols.

SUBMITTER: Tilling K

PROVIDER: S-EPMC2910432 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundCardiac output (CO) monitoring is the basis of goal-directed treatment for major abdominal surgery. A capnodynamic method estimating cardiac output (COEPBF) by continuously calculating nonshunted pulmonary blood flow has previously shown good agreement and trending ability when evaluated in mechanically ventilated pigs.ObjectivesTo compare the performance of the capnodynamic method of CO monitoring with transpulmonary thermodilution (COTPTD) in patients undergoing major abdominal surgery.DesignProspective, observational, method comparison study. Simultaneous measurements of COEPBF and COTPTD were performed before incision at baseline and before and after increased (+10 cmH2O) positive end-expiratory pressure (PEEP), activation of epidural anaesthesia and intra-operative events of hypovolemia and low CO. The first 25 patients were ventilated with PEEP 5 cmH2O (PEEP5), while in the last 10 patients, lung recruitment followed by individual PEEP adjustment (PEEPadj) was performed before protocol start.SettingKarolinska University Hospital, Stockholm, Sweden.PatientsIn total, 35 patients (>18 years) scheduled for major abdominal surgery with advanced hemodynamic monitoring were included in the study.Main outcome measures and analysisAgreement and trending ability between COEPBF and COTPTD at different clinical moments were analysed with Bland--Altman and four quadrant plots.ResultsIn total, 322 paired values, 227 in PEEP5 and 95 in PEEPadj were analysed. Respectively, the mean COEPBF and COTPTD were 4.5 ± 1.0 and 4.8 ± 1.1 in the PEEP5 group and 4.9 ± 1.2 and 5.0 ± 1.0 l min-1 in the PEEPadj group. Mean bias (levels of agreement) and percentage error (PE) were -0.2 (-2.2 to 1.7) l min-1 and 41% for the PEEP5 group and -0.1 (-1.7 to 1.5) l min-1 and 31% in the PEEPadj group. Concordance rates during changes in COEPBF and COTPTD were 92% in the PEEP5 group and 90% in the PEEPadj group.ConclusionCOEPBF provides continuous noninvasive CO estimation with acceptable performance, which improved after lung recruitment and PEEP adjustment, although not interchangeable with COTPTD. This method may become a tool for continuous intra-operative CO monitoring during general anaesthesia in the future.Trial registrationClinicaltrials.gov identifier: NCT03444545.

Project description:ObjectiveTo assess treatment related changes in quality of life up to 15 years after diagnosis of localised prostate cancer.DesignPopulation based, prospective cohort study with follow-up over 15 years.SettingNew South Wales, Australia.Participants1642 men with localised prostate cancer, aged less than 70, and 786 controls randomly recruited from the New South Wales electoral roll into the New South Wales Prostate Cancer Care and Outcomes Study (PCOS).Main outcome measuresGeneral health and disease specific quality of life were self-reported at seven time points over a 15 year period, using the 12-item Short Form Health Survey scale, University of California, Los Angeles prostate cancer index, and expanded prostate cancer index composite short form (EPIC-26). Adjusted mean differences were calculated with controls as the comparison group. Clinical significance of adjusted mean differences was assessed by the minimally important difference, defined as one third of the standard deviation (SD) from the baseline score.ResultsAt 15 years, all treatment groups reported high levels of erectile dysfunction, depending on treatment (62.3% (active surveillance/watchful waiting, n=33/53) to 83.0% (non-nerve sparing radical prostatectomy, n=117/141)) compared with controls (42.7% (n=44/103)). Men who had external beam radiation therapy or high dose rate brachytherapy or androgen deprivation therapy as primary treatment reported more bowel problems. Self-reported urinary incontinence was particularly prevalent and persistent for men who underwent surgery, and an increase in urinary bother was reported in the group receiving androgen deprivation therapy from 10 to 15 years (year 10: adjusted mean difference -5.3, 95% confidence interval -10.8 to 0.2; year 15: -15.9; -25.1 to -6.7).ConclusionsPatients receiving initial active treatment for localised prostate cancer had generally worse long term self-reported quality of life than men without a diagnosis of prostate cancer. Men treated with radical prostatectomy faired especially badly, particularly in relation to long term sexual outcomes. Clinicians and patients should consider these long term quality of life outcomes when making treatment decisions.

Project description:BACKGROUND:Optimal management strategies for clinically localised prostate cancer are debated. Using median 10-year data from the largest randomised controlled trial to date (ProtecT), the lifetime cost-effectiveness of three major treatments (radical radiotherapy, radical prostatectomy and active monitoring) was explored according to age and risk subgroups. METHODS:A decision-analytic (Markov) model was developed and informed by clinical input. The economic evaluation adopted a UK NHS perspective and the outcome was cost per Quality-Adjusted Life Year (QALY) gained (reported in UK£), estimated using EQ-5D-3L. RESULTS:Costs and QALYs extrapolated over the lifetime were mostly similar between the three randomised strategies and their subgroups, but with some important differences. Across all analyses, active monitoring was associated with higher costs, probably associated with higher rates of metastatic disease and changes to radical treatments. When comparing the value of the strategies (QALY gains and costs) in monetary terms, for both low-risk prostate cancer subgroups, radiotherapy generated the greatest net monetary benefit (£293,446 [95% CI £282,811 to £299,451] by D'Amico and £292,736 [95% CI £284,074 to £297,719] by Grade group 1). However, the sensitivity analysis highlighted uncertainty in the finding when stratified by Grade group, as radiotherapy had 53% probability of cost-effectiveness and prostatectomy had 43%. In intermediate/high risk groups, using D'Amico and Grade group >?=?2, prostatectomy generated the greatest net monetary benefit (£275,977 [95% CI £258,630 to £285,474] by D'Amico and £271,933 [95% CI £237,864 to £287,784] by Grade group). This finding was supported by the sensitivity analysis. Prostatectomy had the greatest net benefit (£290,487 [95% CI £280,781 to £296,281]) for men younger than 65 and radical radiotherapy (£201,311 [95% CI £195,161 to £205,049]) for men older than 65, but sensitivity analysis showed considerable uncertainty in both findings. CONCLUSION:Over the lifetime, extrapolating from the ProtecT trial, radical radiotherapy and prostatectomy appeared to be cost-effective for low risk prostate cancer, and radical prostatectomy for intermediate/high risk prostate cancer, but there was uncertainty in some estimates. Longer ProtecT trial follow-up is required to reduce uncertainty in the model. TRIAL REGISTRATION:Current Controlled Trials number, ISRCTN20141297: http://isrctn.org (14/10/2002); ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT02044172: http://www.clinicaltrials.gov (23/01/2014).