-
Journal of Clinical Oncology : Official... Jan 2009Pretreatment prostate-specific antigen (PSA) dynamics (PSA velocity and PSA doubling time) are widely advocated as useful prognostic markers in prostate cancer. We aimed... (Review)
Review
PURPOSE
Pretreatment prostate-specific antigen (PSA) dynamics (PSA velocity and PSA doubling time) are widely advocated as useful prognostic markers in prostate cancer. We aimed to assess the published evidence for the clinical utility of PSA dynamics in this population.
METHODS
We conducted a systematic review of studies published before March 2007 in which a PSA dynamic (velocity or doubling time) was calculated in patients before definitive treatment, a subsequent event (such as biopsy or recurrence) was ascertained, and the association between the two was analyzed. Our principal end point was the type of analysis reported, particularly whether the predictive accuracy of a statistical model that included both absolute PSA level and a PSA dynamic was compared with that of a model that included only PSA.
RESULTS
Eighty-seven articles were eligible for analysis. The most common end points were biopsy (42 articles), and either recurrence (14 articles) or metastases or death (14 articles) after definitive therapy. Although PSA dynamics were generally found to be associated with outcome, only one article compared predictive accuracy of models with and without a PSA dynamic: this reported that PSA velocity improved prediction slightly (from 0.81 to 0.83), but was subject to verification bias. No article used decision analytic methods to examine the clinical impact of PSA dynamics.
CONCLUSION
There is little evidence that calculation of PSA velocity or doubling time in untreated patients provides predictive information beyond that provided by absolute PSA level alone. We see no justification for the use of PSA dynamics in clinical decision making before treatment in early-stage prostate cancer.
Topics: Biomarkers, Tumor; Biopsy; Humans; Male; Models, Statistical; Prognosis; Prostate-Specific Antigen; Prostatic Neoplasms
PubMed: 19064972
DOI: 10.1200/JCO.2008.18.1685 -
Health Technology Assessment... Jan 2009To provide an evidence-based perspective on the prognostic value of novel markers in localised prostate cancer and to identify the best prognostic model including the... (Review)
Review
OBJECTIVES
To provide an evidence-based perspective on the prognostic value of novel markers in localised prostate cancer and to identify the best prognostic model including the three classical markers and investigate whether models incorporating novel markers are better.
DATA SOURCES
Eight electronic bibliographic databases were searched during March-April 2007. The reference lists of relevant articles were checked and various health services research-related resources consulted via the internet. The search was restricted to publications from 1970 onwards in the English language.
METHODS
Selected studies were assessed, data extracted using a standard template, and quality assessed using an adaptation of published criteria. Because of the heterogeneity regarding populations, outcomes and study type, meta-analyses were not undertaken and the results are presented in tabulated format with a narrative synthesis of the results.
RESULTS
In total 30 papers met the inclusion criteria, of which 28 reported on prognostic novel markers and five on prognostic models. A total of 21 novel markers were identified from the 28 novel marker studies. There was considerable variability in the results reported, the quality of the studies was generally poor and there was a shortage of studies in some categories. The marker with the strongest evidence for its prognostic significance was prostate-specific antigen (PSA) velocity (or doubling time). There was a particularly strong association between PSA velocity and prostate cancer death in both clinical and pathological models. In the clinical model the hazard ratio for death from prostate cancer was 9.8 (95% CI 2.8-34.3, p < 0.001) in men with an annual PSA velocity of more than 2 ng/ml versus an annual PSA velocity of 2 ng/ml or less; similarly, the hazard ratio was 12.8 (95% CI 3.7-43.7, p < 0.001) in the pathological model. The quality of the prognostic model studies was adequate and overall better than the quality of the prognostic marker studies. Two issues were poorly dealt with in most or all of the prognostic model studies: inclusion of established markers and consideration of the possible biases from study attrition. Given the heterogeneity of the models, they cannot be considered comparable. Only two models did not include a novel marker, and one of these included several demographic and co-morbidity variables to predict all-cause mortality. Only two models reported a measure of model performance, the C-statistic, and for neither was it calculated in an external data set. It was not possible to assess whether the models that included novel markers performed better than those without.
CONCLUSIONS
This review highlighted the poor quality and heterogeneity of studies, which render much of the results inconclusive. It also pinpointed the small proportion of models reported in the literature that are based on patient cohorts with a mean or median follow-up of at least 5 years, thus making long-term predictions unreliable. PSA velocity, however, stood out in terms of the strength of the evidence supporting its prognostic value and the relatively high hazard ratios. There is great interest in PSA velocity as a monitoring tool for active surveillance but there is as yet no consensus on how it should be used and, in particular, what threshold should indicate the need for radical treatment.
Topics: Biomarkers, Tumor; Humans; Male; Outcome and Process Assessment, Health Care; Predictive Value of Tests; Prognosis; Proportional Hazards Models; Prostate-Specific Antigen; Prostatic Neoplasms; Risk Factors; Survival Analysis; Technology Assessment, Biomedical
PubMed: 19128541
DOI: 10.3310/hta13050 -
Cancer Oct 2007Among men who experience prostate-specific antigen (PSA) failure after external beam radiation or brachytherapy (RT), many will harbor occult micrometastases; however, a... (Review)
Review
Patient selection, cancer control, and complications after salvage local therapy for postradiation prostate-specific antigen failure: a systematic review of the literature.
Among men who experience prostate-specific antigen (PSA) failure after external beam radiation or brachytherapy (RT), many will harbor occult micrometastases; however, a significant minority will have a true local-only failure and, thus, potentially may benefit from a salvage local therapy. Those most likely to have a local-only failure initially have low-risk disease (PSA < 10 ng/mL, Gleason score < or =6, clinical T1c or T2a tumor status), pretreatment PSA velocity < 2.0 ng/mL per year at the time of initial presentation, interval to PSA failure > 3 years, PSA doubling time > 12 months, negative bone scan and pelvic imaging, and positive rebiopsy. In addition, men with presalvage PSA levels > 10 ng/mL, presalvage T3/T4 disease, or presalvage Gleason scores > or =7 on a rebiopsy sample without significant RT effects are unlikely to be cured by salvage local therapy. Based on a review of all series of post-RT salvage prostatectomy, cryosurgery, and brachytherapy published in English since 1990, morbidity can be substantial. Although urinary incontinence appeared to be greater after salvage prostatectomy (41%) or cryosurgery (36%) than after brachytherapy (6%), patients who received salvage brachytherapy faced a 17% risk of grade 3 or 4 genitourinary complications and a fistula risk that averaged 3.4% across all series. From this review, the authors concluded that prospective randomized studies are needed to determine the relative efficacy of the 3 major local salvage modalities and that additional research is needed to identify factors associated with an increased risk of significant complications to improve patient selection and to augment the benefit/risk ratio associated with attempts to cure local-only recurrences after radiation therapy.
Topics: Androgen Antagonists; Antineoplastic Agents, Hormonal; Brachytherapy; Cryosurgery; Humans; Male; Neoadjuvant Therapy; Neoplasm Recurrence, Local; Patient Selection; Prostate-Specific Antigen; Prostatectomy; Prostatic Neoplasms; Salvage Therapy; Urinary Fistula; Urinary Incontinence
PubMed: 17694553
DOI: 10.1002/cncr.22941