TY - JOUR
T1 - Projected outcomes of reduced-biopsy management of Grade Group 1 prostate cancer
T2 - implications for relabeling
AU - Zhao, Yibai
AU - Gulati, Roman
AU - Yang, Zhenwei
AU - Newcomb, Lisa
AU - Zheng, Yingye
AU - Zhu, Kehao
AU - Liu, Menghan
AU - Heijnsdijk, Eveline A.M.
AU - Haffner, Michael C.
AU - Cooperberg, Matthew
AU - Eggener, Scott E.
AU - De Marzo, Angelo M.
AU - Kibel, Adam S.
AU - Rizopoulos, Dimitris
AU - Hall, Ingrid J.
AU - Etzioni, Ruth
N1 - Publisher Copyright:
© The Author(s) 2024. Published by Oxford University Press. All rights reserved.
PY - 2025/4/1
Y1 - 2025/4/1
N2 - Background: Implications of relabeling Grade Group 1 prostate cancer as noncancer will depend on the recommended active surveillance strategy. Whether relabeling should prompt deintensifying, prostate-specific antigen (PSA)–based active monitoring approaches is unclear. We investigated outcomes of biopsy-based active surveillance strategies vs PSA-based active monitoring for Grade Group 1 diagnoses under different patient adherence rates. Methods: We analyzed longitudinal PSA levels and time to Grade Group 2 or higher reclassification among 850 patients with a diagnosis of Grade Group 1 disease from the Canary Prostate Active Surveillance Study (2008-2013). We then simulated 20 000 patients over 12 years, comparing Grade Group 2 or higher detection under biennial biopsy against 3 PSA-based strategies: (1) PSA (biopsy for PSA change ≥20% per year), (2) PSA plus magnetic resonance imaging (magnetic resonance imaging for PSA change ≥20% per year and biopsy for Prostate Imaging Reporting & Data System ≥3), and (3) predicted risk (biopsy for predicted upgrading risk ≥10%). Results: Under biennial biopsies and 20% dropout to active treatment, 17% of patients had a 2-year or longer delay in Grade Group 2 or higher detection. The PSA strategy reduced the number of biopsies by 39% but delayed detection in 32% of patients. The PSA plus magnetic resonance imaging strategy reduced the number of biopsies by 52%, with a 34% delay. The predicted risk strategy reduced the number of biopsies by 31%, with only an 8% delay. These findings are robust to biopsy sensitivity and confirmatory biopsy. Conclusions: Prostate-specific antigen–based active monitoring could substantially reduce biopsy frequency; however, a precision strategy based on an individual upgrading risk is most likely to minimize delays in detection of disease progression. This strategy may be preferred if active surveillance is deintensified under relabeling, provided patient adherence remains unaffected.
AB - Background: Implications of relabeling Grade Group 1 prostate cancer as noncancer will depend on the recommended active surveillance strategy. Whether relabeling should prompt deintensifying, prostate-specific antigen (PSA)–based active monitoring approaches is unclear. We investigated outcomes of biopsy-based active surveillance strategies vs PSA-based active monitoring for Grade Group 1 diagnoses under different patient adherence rates. Methods: We analyzed longitudinal PSA levels and time to Grade Group 2 or higher reclassification among 850 patients with a diagnosis of Grade Group 1 disease from the Canary Prostate Active Surveillance Study (2008-2013). We then simulated 20 000 patients over 12 years, comparing Grade Group 2 or higher detection under biennial biopsy against 3 PSA-based strategies: (1) PSA (biopsy for PSA change ≥20% per year), (2) PSA plus magnetic resonance imaging (magnetic resonance imaging for PSA change ≥20% per year and biopsy for Prostate Imaging Reporting & Data System ≥3), and (3) predicted risk (biopsy for predicted upgrading risk ≥10%). Results: Under biennial biopsies and 20% dropout to active treatment, 17% of patients had a 2-year or longer delay in Grade Group 2 or higher detection. The PSA strategy reduced the number of biopsies by 39% but delayed detection in 32% of patients. The PSA plus magnetic resonance imaging strategy reduced the number of biopsies by 52%, with a 34% delay. The predicted risk strategy reduced the number of biopsies by 31%, with only an 8% delay. These findings are robust to biopsy sensitivity and confirmatory biopsy. Conclusions: Prostate-specific antigen–based active monitoring could substantially reduce biopsy frequency; however, a precision strategy based on an individual upgrading risk is most likely to minimize delays in detection of disease progression. This strategy may be preferred if active surveillance is deintensified under relabeling, provided patient adherence remains unaffected.
UR - https://www.scopus.com/pages/publications/105002115647
U2 - 10.1093/jnci/djae296
DO - 10.1093/jnci/djae296
M3 - Article
C2 - 39565901
AN - SCOPUS:105002115647
SN - 0027-8874
VL - 117
SP - 685
EP - 691
JO - Journal of the National Cancer Institute
JF - Journal of the National Cancer Institute
IS - 4
ER -
