Association between previous negative biopsies and lower rates of progression during active surveillance for prostate cancer.

Biopsy Humans Male Prostatic Intraepithelial Neoplasia Prostatic Neoplasms / diagnosis Retrospective Studies Watchful Waiting
Active surveillance Any-cause discontinuation Biopsy naïve Previous negative biopsies Upgrading

Journal

World journal of urology
ISSN: 1433-8726
Titre abrégé: World J Urol
Pays: Germany
ID NLM: 8307716

Informations de publication

Date de publication:
Jun 2022
Historique:
received: 23 01 2022
accepted: 27 02 2022
pubmed: 30 3 2022
medline: 9 6 2022
entrez: 29 3 2022
Statut: ppublish

Résumé

To test any-cause discontinuation and ISUP GG upgrading rates during Active Surveillance (AS) in patients that underwent previous negative biopsies (PNBs) before prostate cancer (PCa) diagnosis vs. biopsy naive patients. Retrospective analysis of 961 AS patients (2008-2020). Three definitions of PNBs were used: (1) PNBs status (biopsy naïve vs. PNBs); (2) number of PNBs (0 vs. 1 vs. ≥ 2); (3) histology at last PNB (no vs. negative vs. HGPIN/ASAP). Kaplan-Meier plots and multivariable Cox models tested any-cause and ISUP GG upgrading discontinuation rates. Overall, 760 (79.1%) vs. 201 (20.9%) patients were biopsy naïve vs. PNBs. Specifically, 760 (79.1%) vs. 138 (14.4%) vs. 63 (6.5%) patients had 0 vs. 1 vs. ≥ 2 PNBs. Last, 760 (79.1%) vs. 134 (13.9%) vs. 67 (7%) patients had no vs. negative PNB vs. HGPIN/ASAP. PNBs were not associated with any-cause discontinuation rates. Conversely, PNBs were associated with lower rates of ISUP GG upgrading: (1) PNBs vs. biopsy naïve (HR:0.6, p = 0.04); (2) 1 vs. 0 PNBs (HR:0.6, p = 0.1) and 2 vs. 0 PNBs, (HR:0.5, p = 0.1); (3) negative PNB vs. biopsy naïve (HR:0.7, p = 0.3) and HGPIN/ASAP vs. biopsy naïve (HR:0.4, p = 0.04). However, last PNB ≤ 18 months (HR:0.4, p = 0.02), but not last PNB > 18 months (HR:0.8, p = 0.5) were associated with lower rates of ISUP GG upgrading. PNBs status is associated with lower rates of ISUP GG upgrading during AS for PCa. The number of PNBs and time from last PNB to PCa diagnosis (≤ 18 months) appear also to be critical for patient selection.

Identifiants

DOI: 10.1007/s00345-022-03983-8 PMID: 35347414 PMC: PMC9166841
pubmed: 35347414
doi: 10.1007/s00345-022-03983-8
pii: 10.1007/s00345-022-03983-8
pmc: PMC9166841
doi:

Types de publication

Journal Article

Langues

eng

Sous-ensembles de citation

IM

Pagination

1447-1454

Informations de copyright

© 2022. The Author(s).

Références

Mottet N, Bastian P, Bellmunt J et al (2020) Eau-Eanm-Estro-Esur-Siog: guidelines on prostate cancer. In: European Association of Urology. Eur Assoc Urol Guidelines Office, Arnhem, The Netherlands, pp 1–182
Bokhorst LP, Valdagni R, Rannikko A et al (2016) A decade of active surveillance in the prias study: an update and evaluation of the criteria used to recommend a switch to active treatment. Eur Urol 70:954–960. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eururo.2016.06.007
doi: 10.1016/j.eururo.2016.06.007 pubmed: 27329565
Klotz L, Vesprini D, Sethukavalan P et al (2015) Long-term follow-up of a large active surveillance cohort of patients with prostate cancer. J Clin Oncol 33:272–277. https://doi.org/10.1200/JCO.2014.55.1192
doi: 10.1200/JCO.2014.55.1192 pubmed: 25512465
Moschini M, Carroll PR, Eggener SE et al (2017) Low-risk prostate cancer: identification, management, and outcomes. Eur Urol 72:238–249. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eururo.2017.03.009
doi: 10.1016/j.eururo.2017.03.009 pubmed: 28318726
Tosoian JJ, Trock BJ, Landis P et al (2011) Active surveillance program for prostate cancer: an update of the Johns Hopkins experience. J Clin Oncol 29:2185–2190. https://doi.org/10.1200/JCO.2010.32.8112
doi: 10.1200/JCO.2010.32.8112 pubmed: 21464416
Lee MC, Dong F, Stephenson AJ et al (2010) The epstein criteria predict for organ-confined but not insignificant disease and a high likelihood of cure at radical prostatectomy. Eur Urol 58:90–95. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eururo.2009.10.025
doi: 10.1016/j.eururo.2009.10.025 pubmed: 19875227
Adamy A, Yee DS, Matsushita K et al (2011) Role of prostate specific antigen and immediate confirmatory biopsy in predicting progression during active surveillance for low risk prostate cancer. J Urol 185:477–482. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.juro.2010.09.095
doi: 10.1016/j.juro.2010.09.095 pubmed: 21167529
Kearns JT, Faino AV, Newcomb LF et al (2018) Role of surveillance biopsy with no cancer as a prognostic marker for reclassification: results from the canary prostate active surveillance study[formula presented]. Eur Urol 73:706–712. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eururo.2018.01.016
doi: 10.1016/j.eururo.2018.01.016 pubmed: 29433973 pmcid: 6064187
Cary KC, Cowan JE, Sanford M et al (2014) Predictors of pathologic progression on biopsy among men on active surveillance for localized prostate cancer: the value of the pattern of surveillance biopsies. Eur Urol 66:337–342. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eururo.2013.08.060
doi: 10.1016/j.eururo.2013.08.060 pubmed: 24035632
Wong LM, Alibhai SMH, Trottier G et al (2014) A negative confirmatory biopsy among men on active surveillance for prostate cancer does not protect them from histologic grade progression. Eur Urol 66:406–413. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eururo.2013.04.038
doi: 10.1016/j.eururo.2013.04.038 pubmed: 23664820
Al Otaibi M, Ross P, Fahmy N et al (2008) Role of repeated biopsy of the prostate in predicting disease progression in patients with prostate cancer on active surveillance. Cancer 113:286–292. https://doi.org/10.1002/cncr.23575
doi: 10.1002/cncr.23575 pubmed: 18484590
Bryant RJ, Yang B, Philippou Y et al (2018) Does the introduction of prostate multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging into the active surveillance protocol for localized prostate cancer improve patient re-classification? BJU Int 122:794–800. https://doi.org/10.1111/bju.14248
doi: 10.1111/bju.14248 pubmed: 29645347
Luzzago S, de Cobelli O, Mistretta FA et al (2020) MRI-targeted or systematic random biopsies for prostate cancer diagnosis in biopsy naïve patients: follow-up of a PRECISION trial-like retrospective cohort. Prostate Cancer Prostatic Dis. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41391-020-00290-4
doi: 10.1038/s41391-020-00290-4 pubmed: 32989259
Bloom JB, Hale GR, Gold SA et al (2019) Predicting gleason group progression for men on prostate cancer active surveillance: role of a negative confirmatory magnetic resonance imaging-ultrasound fusion biopsy. J Urol 201:84–90. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.juro.2018.07.051
doi: 10.1016/j.juro.2018.07.051 pubmed: 30577395 pmcid: 8274955
Djavan B, Fong YK, Ravery V et al (2005) Are repeat biopsies required in men with PSA levels ≤4 ng/ml? a multiinstitutional prospective European study. Eur Urol 47:38–44. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eururo.2004.07.024
doi: 10.1016/j.eururo.2004.07.024 pubmed: 15582247
Rosenbaum CM, Mandel P, Tennstedt P et al (2017) The impact of repeat prostate biopsies on oncologic, pathological and perioperative outcomes after radical prostatectomy. J Urol 197:103–108. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.juro.2016.08.003
doi: 10.1016/j.juro.2016.08.003 pubmed: 27506693
Djavan B, Ravery V, Zlotta A et al (2001) Prospective evaluation of prostate cancer detected on biopsies 1, 2, 3 and 4: when should we stop? J Urol 166:1679–1683. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0022-5347(05)65652-2
doi: 10.1016/s0022-5347(05)65652-2 pubmed: 11586201
Elshafei A, Nyame Y, Kara O et al (2016) More favorable pathological outcomes in men with low risk prostate cancer diagnosed on repeat versus initial transrectal ultrasound guided prostate biopsy. J Urol 195:1767–1772. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.juro.2015.12.079
doi: 10.1016/j.juro.2015.12.079 pubmed: 26724397
Kopp RP, Stroup SP, Schroeck FR et al (2012) Are repeat prostate biopsies safe? A cohort analysis from the SEARCH database. J Urol 187:2056–2060. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.juro.2012.01.083
doi: 10.1016/j.juro.2012.01.083 pubmed: 22498218 pmcid: 3409579
Luzzago S, Musi G, Catellani M et al (2018) Multiparametric magnetic-resonance to confirm eligibility to an active surveillance program for low-risk prostate cancer: intermediate time results of a third referral high volume centre active surveillance protocol. Urol Int 101:56–64. https://doi.org/10.1159/000488772
doi: 10.1159/000488772 pubmed: 29734177
Luzzago S, Catellani M, Di Trapani E et al (2020) Confirmatory multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging at recruitment confers prolonged stay in active surveillance and decreases the rate of upgrading at follow-up. Prostate Cancer Prostatic Dis 23:94–101. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41391-019-0160-3
doi: 10.1038/s41391-019-0160-3 pubmed: 31249386
Barentsz JO, Richenberg J, Clements R et al (2012) ESUR prostate MR guidelines 2012. Eur Radiol 22:746–757. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00330-011-2377-y
doi: 10.1007/s00330-011-2377-y pubmed: 22322308 pmcid: 3297750
Turkbey B, Rosenkrantz AB, Haider MA et al (2019) Prostate imaging reporting and data system version 2.1: 2019 update of prostate imaging reporting and data system version 2. Eur Urol 76:340–351. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eururo.2019.02.033
doi: 10.1016/j.eururo.2019.02.033 pubmed: 30898406
Weinreb JC, Barentsz JO, Choyke PL et al (2016) PI-RADS Prostate imaging–reporting and data system: 2015, version 2. Eur Urol 69:16–40. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eururo.2015.08.052
doi: 10.1016/j.eururo.2015.08.052 pubmed: 26427566
Nicolosi P, Ledet E, Yang S et al (2019) Prevalence of germline variants in prostate cancer and implications for current genetic testing guidelines. JAMA Oncol 5:523–528. https://doi.org/10.1001/jamaoncol.2018.6760
doi: 10.1001/jamaoncol.2018.6760 pubmed: 30730552 pmcid: 6459112
Giri VN, Knudsen KE, Kelly WK et al (2020) Implementation of germline testing for prostate cancer: philadelphia prostate cancer consensus conference 2019. J Clin Oncol 38:2798–2811. https://doi.org/10.1200/JCO.20.00046
doi: 10.1200/JCO.20.00046 pubmed: 32516092 pmcid: 7430215
Carter HB, Helfand B, Mamawala M et al (2019) Germline mutations in atm and brca1/2 are associated with grade reclassification in men on active surveillance for prostate cancer(figure presented.). Eur Urol 75:743–749. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eururo.2018.09.021
doi: 10.1016/j.eururo.2018.09.021 pubmed: 30309687
Lamy PJ, Allory Y, Gauchez AS et al (2018) Prognostic biomarkers used for localised prostate cancer management: a systematic review. Eur Urol Focus 4:790–803. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.euf.2017.02.017
doi: 10.1016/j.euf.2017.02.017 pubmed: 28753865
Nakanishi H, Groskopf J, Fritsche HA et al (2008) PCA3 molecular urine assay correlates with prostate cancer tumor volume: implication in selecting candidates for active surveillance. J Urol 179:1804–1810. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.juro.2008.01.013
doi: 10.1016/j.juro.2008.01.013 pubmed: 18353398

Auteurs

Mattia Luca Piccinelli (ML)

Department of Urology, IEO European Institute of Oncology, IRCCS, Via Giuseppe Ripamonti 435, Milan, Italy. mattiapiccinelli@gmail.com.
Università degli Studi di Milano, Milan, Italy. mattiapiccinelli@gmail.com.
ORCID: 0000-0003-0337-3331

Stefano Luzzago (S)

Department of Urology, IEO European Institute of Oncology, IRCCS, Via Giuseppe Ripamonti 435, Milan, Italy.
Department of Oncology and Haemato-Oncology, Università Degli Studi Di Milano, 20122, Milan, Italy.

Giulia Marvaso (G)

Department of Radiotherapy, IEO European Institute of Oncology, IRCCS, Via Ripamonti 435, Milan, Italy.
Department of Oncology and Haemato-Oncology, Università Degli Studi Di Milano, 20122, Milan, Italy.

Ekaterina Laukhtina (E)

Institute for Urology and Reproductive Health, Sechenov University, Moscow, Russia.
Department of Urology, Medical University of Vienna, Vienna, Austria.

Noriyoshi Miura (N)

Department of Urology, Medical University of Vienna, Vienna, Austria.
Department of Urology, Ehime University Graduate School of Medicine, Ehime, Japan.

Victor M Schuettfort (VM)

Department of Urology, Medical University of Vienna, Vienna, Austria.
Department of Urology, University Medical Center Hamburg Eppendorf, Hamburg, Germany.

Keiichiro Mori (K)

Department of Urology, Medical University of Vienna, Vienna, Austria.
Department of Urology, The Jikei University School of Medicine, Tokyo, Japan.

Alberto Colombo (A)

Division of Radiology, IEO European Institute of Oncology, IRCCS, Via Ripamonti 435, Milan, Italy.

Matteo Ferro (M)

Department of Urology, IEO European Institute of Oncology, IRCCS, Via Giuseppe Ripamonti 435, Milan, Italy.

Francesco A Mistretta (FA)

Department of Urology, IEO European Institute of Oncology, IRCCS, Via Giuseppe Ripamonti 435, Milan, Italy.
Department of Oncology and Haemato-Oncology, Università Degli Studi Di Milano, 20122, Milan, Italy.

Nicola Fusco (N)

Department of Pathology, IEO European Institute of Oncology, IRCCS, Via Ripamonti 435, Milan, Italy.
Department of Oncology and Haemato-Oncology, Università Degli Studi Di Milano, 20122, Milan, Italy.

Giuseppe Petralia (G)

Precision Imaging and Research Unit, Department of Medical Imaging and Radiation Sciences, IEO European Institute of Oncology IRCCS, 20141, Milan, Italy.
Department of Oncology and Haemato-Oncology, Università Degli Studi Di Milano, 20122, Milan, Italy.

Barbara A Jereczek-Fossa (BA)

Department of Radiotherapy, IEO European Institute of Oncology, IRCCS, Via Ripamonti 435, Milan, Italy.
Department of Oncology and Haemato-Oncology, Università Degli Studi Di Milano, 20122, Milan, Italy.

Shahrokh F Shariat (SF)

Institute for Urology and Reproductive Health, Sechenov University, Moscow, Russia.
Department of Urology, Medical University of Vienna, Vienna, Austria.
Research Division of Urology, Department of Special Surgery, The University of Jordan, Amman, Jordan.
Department of Urology, University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center, Dallas, TX, USA.
Department of Urology, Second Faculty of Medicine, Charles University, Prague, Czech Republic.
Department of Urology, Weill Cornell Medical College, New York, NY, USA.
Karl Landsteiner Institute of Urology and Andrology, Vienna, Austria.
European Association of Urology Research Foundation, Arnhem, Netherlands.

Pierre I Karakiewicz (PI)

Cancer Prognostics and Health Outcomes Unit, Division of Urology, University of Montréal Health Center, Montréal, QC, Canada.

Ottavio de Cobelli (O)

Department of Urology, IEO European Institute of Oncology, IRCCS, Via Giuseppe Ripamonti 435, Milan, Italy.
Department of Oncology and Haemato-Oncology, Università Degli Studi Di Milano, 20122, Milan, Italy.

Gennaro Musi (G)

Department of Urology, IEO European Institute of Oncology, IRCCS, Via Giuseppe Ripamonti 435, Milan, Italy.
Department of Oncology and Haemato-Oncology, Università Degli Studi Di Milano, 20122, Milan, Italy.

Articles similaires

[Redispensing of expensive oral anticancer medicines: a practical application].

Lisanne N van Merendonk, Kübra Akgöl, Bastiaan Nuijen
1.00
Humans Antineoplastic Agents Administration, Oral Drug Costs Counterfeit Drugs

Smoking Cessation and Incident Cardiovascular Disease.

Jun Hwan Cho, Seung Yong Shin, Hoseob Kim et al.
1.00
Humans Male Smoking Cessation Cardiovascular Diseases Female

Evaluation of Low-Value Services Across Major Medicare Advantage Insurers and Traditional Medicare.

Ciara Duggan, Adam L Beckman, Ishani Ganguli et al.
1.00
Humans United States Aged Cross-Sectional Studies Medicare Part C

Effectiveness of Virtual Yoga for Chronic Low Back Pain: A Randomized Clinical Trial.

Hallie Tankha, Devyn Gaskins, Amanda Shallcross et al.
1.00
Humans Yoga Low Back Pain Female Male

Classifications MeSH

questionsmedicales.fr › Techniques d'investigation › Techniques cytologiques › Cytodiagnostic › Biopsie › Association between previous negative biopsies...
questionsmedicales.fr › Eucaryotes › Animaux › Chordés › Vertébrés › Mammifères › Eutheria › Primates › Haplorhini › Catarrhini › Hominidae › Humains › Association between previous negative biopsies...
questionsmedicales.fr › Tumeurs › Tumeurs par type histologique › Tumeurs épithéliales épidermoïdes et glandulaires › Carcinomes › Épithélioma in situ › Tumeur intraépithéliale prostate › Association between previous negative biopsies...
questionsmedicales.fr › Maladies urogénitales › Tumeurs de l'appareil urogénital › Tumeurs de l'appareil génital mâle › Tumeurs de la prostate › Association between previous negative biopsies...
questionsmedicales.fr › Environnement et santé publique › Santé publique › Méthodes épidémiologiques › Caractéristiques des études épidémiologiques › Études épidémiologiques › Études de cohortes › Études rétrospectives › Association between previous negative biopsies...
questionsmedicales.fr › Administration des services de santé › Observation (surveillance clinique) › Association between previous negative biopsies...