Dataset Information

Diagnostic Accuracy of Contemporary Selection Criteria in Prostate Cancer Patients Eligible for Active Surveillance: A Bayesian Network Meta-Analysis.

ABSTRACT:

Background

Several active surveillance (AS) criteria have been established to screen insignificant prostate cancer (insigPCa, defined as organ confined, low grade and small volume tumors confirmed by postoperative pathology). However, their comparative diagnostic performance varies. The aim of this study was to compare the diagnostic accuracy of contemporary AS criteria and validate the absolute diagnostic odds ratio (DOR) of optimal AS criteria.

Methods

First, we searched Pubmed and performed a Bayesian network meta-analysis (NMA) to compare the diagnostic accuracy of contemporary AS criteria and obtained a relative ranking. Then, we searched Pubmed again to perform another meta-analysis to validate the absolute DOR of the top-ranked AS criteria derived from the NMA with two endpoints: insigPCa and favorable disease (defined as organ confined, low grade tumors). Subgroup and meta-regression analyses were conducted to identify any potential heterogeneity in the results. Publication bias was evaluated.

Results

Seven eligible retrospective studies with 3,336 participants were identified for the NMA. The diagnostic accuracy of AS criteria ranked from best to worst, was as follows: Epstein Criteria (EC), Yonsei criteria, Prostate Cancer Research International: Active Surveillance (PRIAS), University of Miami (UM), University of California-San Francisco (UCSF), Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center (MSKCC), and University of Toronto (UT). I² = 50.5%, and sensitivity analysis with different insigPCa definitions supported the robustness of the results. In the subsequent meta-analysis of DOR of EC, insigPCa and favorable disease were identified as endpoints in ten and twenty-two studies, respectively. The pooled DOR for insigPCa and favorable disease were 0.44 (95%CI, 0.31-0.58) and 0.66 (95%CI, 0.61-0.71), respectively. According to a subgroup analysis, the DOR for favorable disease was significantly higher in US institutions than that in other regions. No significant heterogeneity or evidence of publication bias was identified.

Conclusions

Among the seven AS criteria evaluated in this study, EC was optimal for positively identifying insigPCa patients. The pooled diagnostic accuracy of EC was 0.44 for insigPCa and 0.66 when a more liberal endpoint, favorable disease, was used.

Systematic review registration

[https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/], PROSPERO [CRD42020157048].

SUBMITTER: Fan Y

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8785217 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:BACKGROUND: The controversies concerning possible overtreatment of prostate cancer, highlighted by debate over PSA screening, have highlighted active surveillance (AS) as an alternative management option for appropriate men. Regional differences in the underlying prevalence of PSA testing may alter the pre-test probability for high-risk disease, which can potentially interfere with the performance of selection criteria for AS. In a multicentre study from three different countries, we examine men who were initially suitable for AS according to the Toronto and Prostate Cancer Research International: Active Surveillance (PRIAS) criteria, that underwent radical prostatectomy (RP) in regards to:1.the proportion of pathological reclassification(Gleason score ≥7, ≥pT3 disease),2.predictors of high-risk disease,3.create a predictive model to assist with selection of men suitable for AS. METHODS: From three centres in the United Kingdom, Canada and Australia, data on men who underwent RP were retrospectively reviewed (n=2329). Multivariable logistic regression was performed to identify predictors of high-risk disease. A nomogram was generated by logistic regression analysis, and performance characterised by receiver operating characteristic curves. RESULTS: For men suitable for AS according to the Toronto (n=800) and PRIAS (410) criteria, the rates for upgrading were 50.6, 42.7%, and upstaging 17.6, 12.4%, respectively. Significant predictors of high-risk disease were:•Toronto criteria: increasing age, cT2 disease, centre of diagnosis and number of positive cores.•PRIAS criteria: increasing PSA and cT2 disease.Cambridge had a high pT3a rate (26 vs 12%). To assist selection of men in the United Kingdom for AS, from the Cambridge data, we generated a nomogram predicting high-risk features in patients who meet the Toronto criteria (AUC of 0.72). CONCLUSION: The proportion of pathological reclassification in our cohort was higher than previously reported. Care must be used when applying the AS criteria generated from one population to another. With more stringent selection criteria, there is less reclassification but also fewer men who may benefit from AS.

Project description:Background and objectivesThe general rule that every active malignancy is an absolute contraindication for kidney transplantation is challenged by kidney failure patients diagnosed with active surveillance-eligible prostate cancer during pretransplantation workup. Interdisciplinary treatment teams therefore often face the challenge of balancing the benefits of early kidney transplantation and the risk of metastatic progression. Hence, we compared the quality-adjusted life expectancy of different management strategies in kidney failure patients diagnosed with active surveillance-eligible prostate cancer during pretransplantation workup.Design, setting, participants, & measurementsA discrete event simulation model was developed on the basis of a systematic literature search, clinical guidelines, and expert opinion. After model validation and calibration, we simulated four management strategies in a hypothetical cohort of 100,000 patients: Definitive treatment (surgery or radiation therapy) and listing after a waiting period of 2 years, definitive treatment and immediate listing, active surveillance and listing after a waiting period of 2 years, and active surveillance and immediate listing. Individual patient results (quality-adjusted life years; QALYs) were aggregated into strategy-specific means (± SEs).ResultsActive surveillance and immediate listing yielded the highest amount of quality-adjusted life expectancy (6.97 ± 0.01 QALYs) followed by definitive treatment and immediate listing (6.75 ± 0.01 QALYs). These two strategies involving immediate listing not only outperformed those incorporating a waiting period of 2 years (definitive treatment: 6.32 ± 0.01 QALYs; active surveillance: 6.59 ± 0.01 QALYs) but also yielded a higher proportion of successfully performed transplantations (72% and 74% versus 56% and 59%), with less time on hemodialysis on average (4.02 and 3.81 years versus 4.80 and 4.65 years).ConclusionsAmong kidney failure patients diagnosed with active surveillance-eligible prostate cancer during pretransplantation workup, the active surveillance and immediate listing strategy outperformed the alternative management strategies from a quality of life expectancy perspective, followed by definitive treatment and immediate listing.

Project description:Many men diagnosed with localized prostate cancer can postpone definitive treatment without raising their risk of metastasis or death from disease. Active surveillance (AS) is a method of monitoring select men, with the option of switching to active treatment upon signs of progression, thereby avoiding the well-known side-effects of surgery and radiotherapy. This review analyzes the data from long-running AS cohorts to determine the safety and efficacy of AS. We conducted a narrative review of recently published data, including 14 articles from 13 AS cohorts. The cohorts used varying inclusion criteria, with reported differences in clinical T stage and Gleason Score (Grade Group), among other features. Some studies (n=5) limited their cohorts to low-risk patients, while others (n=8) also included intermediate-risk patients. The heterogeneity of the cohorts produced mixed results, with the risk of prostate cancer metastasis ranging from 0.1-1.0% at 10 years and the risk of prostate cancer mortality ranging from 0-1.9% at 10 years. However, the majority of studies reported risks of less than 0.5% at 10 years for both metastasis and death. For most cohorts, half of men remained untreated for 5-10 years, with estimates ranging from 37% receiving active treatment in the Toronto cohort to 73% in the Prostate Cancer Research International AS (PRIAS) study. Current data do not support the use of negative magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) to avoid scheduled biopsy. Taken together, the data collected from these AS cohorts suggests that AS is a safe approach for men with low-grade prostate cancer and some men with intermediate risk disease. AS should be more broadly implemented for eligible patients to avoid the decreases in quality of life from undergoing active treatment. Studies expanding the inclusion criteria and further defining a subset of men with favorable intermediate-risk prostate cancer who might safely benefit from AS are needed to assess the long-term outcomes of using AS in intermediate-risk groups.