Prediction of biochemical recurrence after radical prostatectomy from primary tumour characteristics.
Gleason score
PET/CT
PSMA
Prostate‐specific membrane antigen
biochemical failure
radical prostatectomy
Journal
BJU international
ISSN: 1464-410X
Titre abrégé: BJU Int
Pays: England
ID NLM: 100886721
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
11 Sep 2024
11 Sep 2024
Historique:
medline:
12
9
2024
pubmed:
12
9
2024
entrez:
12
9
2024
Statut:
aheadofprint
Résumé
To construct and externally calibrate a predictive model for early biochemical recurrence (BCR) after radical prostatectomy (RP) incorporating clinical and modern imaging characteristics of the primary tumour. Patients who underwent RP following multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging, prostate biopsy and prostate-specific membrane antigen-positron emission tomography/computed tomography (PSMA-PET/CT), from two centres in Australia and the Netherlands. The primary outcome was biochemical recurrence-free survival (BRFS), where BCR was defined as a rising PSA level of ≥0.2 ng/mL or initiation of postoperative treatment per clinician discretion. Proportional hazards models to predict time to event were developed in the Australian sample using relevant pre- and post-surgical parameters and primary tumour maximum standardised uptake value (SUV Data from 846 patients were used to develop the models. Tumour SUV Tumour SUV
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Informations de copyright
© 2024 The Author(s). BJU International published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd on behalf of BJU International.
Références
Tilki D, van den Bergh RCN, Briers E, et al. (2024). EAU-EANM-ESTRO-ESUR-ISUP-SIOG Guidelines on Prostate Cancer. Part II—2024 Update: Treatment of Relapsing and Metastatic Prostate Cancer. European Urology. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eururo.2024.04.010
van Stam M‐A, Aaronson NK, Pos FJ, et al. The effect of salvage radiotherapy and its timing on the health‐related quality of life of prostate cancer patients. Eur Urol 2016; 70: 751–757
Adam M, Tennstedt P, Lanwehr D, et al. Functional outcomes and quality of life after radical prostatectomy only versus a combination of prostatectomy with radiation and hormonal therapy. Eur Urol 2017; 71: 330–336
Mazzone E, Gandaglia G, Ploussard G, et al. Risk stratification of patients candidate to radical prostatectomy based on clinical and multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging parameters: development and external validation of novel risk groups. Eur Urol 2021; 79: S1546–S1547
Remmers S, Verbeek JFM, Nieboer D, van der Kwast T, Roobol MJ. Predicting biochemical recurrence and prostate cancer‐specific mortality after radical prostatectomy: comparison of six prediction models in a cohort of patients with screening‐ and clinically detected prostate cancer. BJU Int 2019; 124: 635–642
Roberts MJ, Chatfield MD, Hruby G, et al. Event‐free survival after radical prostatectomy according to prostate‐specific membrane antigen‐positron emission tomography and European Association of Urology biochemical recurrence risk groups. BJU Int 2022; 130: 32–39
Emmett L, Tang R, Nandurkar R, et al. 3‐year freedom from progression after (68)Ga‐PSMA PET/CT‐triaged Management in men with biochemical recurrence after radical prostatectomy: results of a prospective multicenter trial. J Nucl Med 2020; 61: 866–872
Roberts MJ, Morton A, Papa N, et al. Primary tumour PSMA intensity is an independent prognostic biomarker for biochemical recurrence‐free survival following radical prostatectomy. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging 2022; 49: 3289–3294
Bodar YJL, Veerman H, Meijer D, et al. Standardised uptake values as determined on prostate‐specific membrane antigen positron emission tomography/computed tomography is associated with oncological outcomes in patients with prostate cancer. BJU Int 2022; 129: 768–776
Roberts MJ, Morton A, Donato P, et al. (68)Ga‐PSMA PET/CT tumour intensity pre‐operatively predicts adverse pathological outcomes and progression‐free survival in localised prostate cancer. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging 2021; 48: 477–482
Franklin A, Yaxley WJ, Raveenthiran S, et al. Histological comparison between predictive value of preoperative 3‐T multiparametric MRI and (68) Ga‐PSMA PET/CT scan for pathological outcomes at radical prostatectomy and pelvic lymph node dissection for prostate cancer. BJU Int 2021; 127: 71–79
de Bie KCC, Veerman H, Bodar YJL, et al. Higher preoperative maximum standardised uptake values (SUVmax) are associated with higher biochemical recurrence rates after robot‐assisted radical prostatectomy for [68Ga]Ga‐PSMA‐11 and [18F]DCFPyL positron emission tomography/computed tomography. Diagnostics 2023; 13: 2343
Epstein JI, Egevad L, Amin MB, Delahunt B, Srigley JR, Humphrey PA. The 2014 International Society of Urological Pathology (ISUP) consensus conference on Gleason grading of prostatic carcinoma: definition of grading patterns and proposal for a new grading system. Am J Surg Pathol 2016; 40: 244–252
Bolla M, van Poppel H, Tombal B, et al. Postoperative radiotherapy after radical prostatectomy for high‐risk prostate cancer: long‐term results of a randomised controlled trial (EORTC trial 22911). Lancet 2012; 380: 2018–2027
Gandaglia G, Ploussard G, Valerio M, et al. Prognostic implications of multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging and concomitant systematic biopsy in predicting biochemical recurrence after radical prostatectomy in prostate cancer patients diagnosed with magnetic resonance imaging–targeted biopsy. Eur Urol Oncol 2020; 3: 739–747
Tan N, Shen L, Khoshnoodi P, et al. Pathological and 3 tesla volumetric magnetic resonance imaging predictors of biochemical recurrence after robotic assisted radical prostatectomy: correlation with whole mount histopathology. J Urol 2018; 199: 1218–1223
Donato P, Morton A, Yaxley J, et al. Improved detection and reduced biopsies: the effect of a multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging‐based triage prostate cancer pathway in a public teaching hospital. World J Urol 2020; 38: 371–379
Sathianathen NJ, Konety BR, Soubra A, et al. Which scores need a core? An evaluation of MR‐targeted biopsy yield by PIRADS score across different biopsy indications. Prostate Cancer Prostatic Dis 2018; 21: 573–578
Royston P. Tools for checking calibration of a cox model in external validation: prediction of population‐averaged survival curves based on risk groups. Stata J 2015; 15: 275–291
Kattan MW, Gerds TA. The index of prediction accuracy: an intuitive measure useful for evaluating risk prediction models. Diagn Progn Res 2018; 2: 7
Cooperberg MR, Hilton JF, Carroll PR. The CAPRA‐S score: a straightforward tool for improved prediction of outcomes after radical prostatectomy. Cancer 2011; 117: 5039–5046
Albertsen PC, Hanley JA, Fine J. 20‐Year outcomes following conservative management of clinically localized prostate cancer. JAMA 2005; 293: 2095–2101
Roberts MJ, Maurer T, Perera M, et al. Using PSMA imaging for prognostication in localized and advanced prostate cancer. Nat Rev Urol 2023; 20: 23–47
Pound CR, Partin AW, Eisenberger MA, Chan DW, Pearson JD, Walsh PC. Natural history of progression after PSA elevation following radical prostatectomy. JAMA 1999; 281: 1591–1597
Wang H, Amiel T, Würnschimmel C, et al. PSMA‐ligand uptake can serve as a novel biomarker in primary prostate cancer to predict outcome after radical prostatectomy. EJNMMI Res 2021; 11: 76
Kaittanis C, Andreou C, Hieronymus H, et al. Prostate‐specific membrane antigen cleavage of vitamin B9 stimulates oncogenic signaling through metabotropic glutamate receptors. J Exp Med 2018; 215: 159–175
Paschalis A, Sheehan B, Riisnaes R, et al. Prostate‐specific membrane antigen heterogeneity and DNA repair defects in prostate cancer. Eur Urol 2019; 76: 469–478
Xu MJ, Kornberg Z, Gadzinski AJ, et al. Genomic risk predicts molecular imaging‐detected metastatic nodal disease in prostate cancer. Eur Urol Oncol 2019; 2: 685–690
Goel S, Shoag JE, Gross MD, et al. Concordance between biopsy and radical prostatectomy pathology in the era of targeted biopsy: a systematic review and meta‐analysis. Eur Urol Oncol 2020; 3: 10–20
Swindle P, Eastham JA, Ohori M, et al. Do margins matter? The prognostic significance of positive surgical margins in radical prostatectomy specimens. J Urol 2008; 179: S47–S51
Klein EA, Cooperberg MR, Magi‐Galluzzi C, et al. A 17‐gene assay to predict prostate cancer aggressiveness in the context of gleason grade heterogeneity, tumor multifocality, and biopsy undersampling. Eur Urol 2014; 66: 550–560
Adams MC, Turkington TG, Wilson JM, Wong TZ. A systematic review of the factors affecting accuracy of SUV measurements. Am J Roentgenol 2010; 195: 310–320
Pattison DA, Debowski M, Gulhane B, et al. Prospective intra‐individual blinded comparison of [(18)F]PSMA‐1007 and [(68) Ga]Ga‐PSMA‐11 PET/CT imaging in patients with confirmed prostate cancer. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging 2022; 49: 763–776
Vis AN, Meijer D, Roberts MJ, et al. Development and external validation of a novel nomogram to predict the probability of pelvic lymph‐node metastases in prostate cancer patients using magnetic resonance imaging and molecular imaging with prostate‐specific membrane antigen positron emission tomography. Eur Urol Oncol 2023; 85: S483–S484
Meijer D, van Leeuwen PJ, Roberts MJ, et al. External validation and addition of prostate‐specific membrane antigen positron emission tomography to the most frequently used nomograms for the prediction of pelvic lymph‐node metastases: an international multicenter study. Eur Urol 2021; 80: 234–242
Matsukawa A, Yanagisawa T, Bekku K, et al. Comparing the performance of digital rectal examination and prostate‐specific antigen as a screening test for prostate cancer: a systematic review and meta‐analysis. Eur Urol Oncol 2024; 7: 697–704