Combining CAPRA-S with tumor IDC/C features improves the prognostication of biochemical recurrence in prostate cancer patients

Author(s):  
Renu Jeyapala ◽  
Shivani Kamdar ◽  
Ekaterina Olkhov-Mitsel ◽  
Alexandre Zlotta ◽  
Neil Fleshner ◽  
...  
Oncotarget ◽  
2016 ◽  
Vol 8 (4) ◽  
pp. 5774-5788 ◽  
Author(s):  
Siri H. Strand ◽  
Michal Switnicki ◽  
Mia Moller ◽  
Christa Haldrup ◽  
Tine M. Storebjerg ◽  
...  

2021 ◽  
Vol Publish Ahead of Print ◽  
Author(s):  
Berna Okudan ◽  
Nazim Coşkun ◽  
Bedri Seven ◽  
Merve Ağcioğlu Atalay ◽  
Aslihan Yildirim ◽  
...  

2014 ◽  
Vol 47 (2) ◽  
pp. 89-93 ◽  
Author(s):  
Carlos Antônio da Silva Franca ◽  
Sérgio Lannes Vieira ◽  
Antonio Carlos Pires Carvalho ◽  
Antonio Jose Serrano Bernabe ◽  
Antonio Belmiro Rodrigues Campbell Penna

Objective To evaluate the relationship between two year PSA nadir (PSAn) after brachytherapy and biochemical recurrence rates in prostate cancer patients. Materials and Methods In the period from January 1998 to August 2007, 120 patients were treated with iodine-125 brachytherapy alone. The results analysis was based on the definition of biochemical recurrence according to the Phoenix Consensus. Results Biochemical control was observed in 86 patients (71.7%), and biochemical recurrence, in 34 (28.3%). Mean PSAn was 0.53 ng/ml. The mean follow-up was 98 months. The patients were divided into two groups: group 1, with two year PSAn < 0.5 ng/ml after brachytherapy (74 patients; 61.7%), and group 2, with two year PSAn ≥ 0.5 ng/ml after brachytherapy (46 patients; 38.3%). Group 1 presented biochemical recurrence in 15 patients (20.3%), and group 2, in 19 patients (43.2%) (p < 0.02). The analysis of biochemical disease-free survival at seven years, stratified by the two groups, showed values of 80% and 64% (p < 0.02), respectively. Conclusion Levels of two year PSAn ≥ 0.5 ng/ml after brachytherapy are strongly correlated with a poor prognosis. This fact may help to identify patients at risk for disease recurrence.


Cancers ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 13 (19) ◽  
pp. 4982
Author(s):  
Carlos Artigas ◽  
Romain Diamand ◽  
Qaid Ahmed Shagera ◽  
Nicolas Plouznikoff ◽  
Fabrice Fokoue ◽  
...  

Metastasis-directed therapy (MDT) in oligometastatic prostate cancer has the potential of delaying the start of androgen deprivation therapy (ADT) and disease progression. We aimed to analyze the efficacy of PSMA-PET/CT in detecting oligometastatic disease (OMD), to look for predictive factors of OMD, and to evaluate the impact of PSMA-PET/CT findings on clinical management. We retrospectively analyzed a homogeneous population of 196 hormone-sensitive prostate cancer patients (HSPC), considered potential candidates for MDT, with a PSMA-PET/CT performed at biochemical recurrence (BCR) after radical prostatectomy (RP). Multivariable logistic regression analysis was performed based on several clinico-pathological factors. Changes in clinical management before and after PSMA-PET/CT were analyzed. The OMD detection rate was 44% for a total positivity rate of 60%. PSMA-PET/CT positivity was independently related to PSA (OR (95%CI), p) (1.7 (1.3–2.3), p < 0.0001) and PSAdt (0.4 (0.2–0.8), p = 0.013), and OMD detection was independently related to PSA (1.6 (1.2–2.2), p = 0.001) and no previous salvage therapy (0.3 (0.1–0.9), p = 0.038). A treatment change was observed in 58% of patients, mostly to perform MDT after OMD detection (60% of changes). This study showed that PSMA-PET/CT is an excellent imaging technique to detect OMD early in HSPC patients with BCR after RP, changing therapeutic management mostly into MDT.


2021 ◽  
Vol 39 (15_suppl) ◽  
pp. e18750-e18750
Author(s):  
Rose Snyder ◽  
Trishala Meghal ◽  
Andrew Wood ◽  
Ariel Schulman ◽  
Kevin Douglas Becker ◽  
...  

e18750 Background: The surge of the SARS coronavirus-2 (COVID-19) pandemic posed great challenges in the oncology community for optimal management of cancer patients. We sought to analyze the treatment changes experienced by the prostate cancer patients in March, April and May 2020 and to compare these treatment decisions to the published guidelines. Methods: We focused on patients currently receiving androgen deprivation therapy (ADT) with leuprolide acetate, and/or oral anti-androgen agents (Androgen receptor axis targeted agent, ARAT), or chemotherapy. Electronic medical records were reviewed, and the oncologists and nurse practitioners were interviewed to understand the decision-making process. Results: Seventy-five patients were included, median age 72 years old (range 47-95). All were taking ADT, and 21 were also taking ARAT, and 3 were also receiving chemotherapy. The incidence and indications for their ADT treatments and schedule changes are shown in the table below. Twenty-seven patients (36%) experienced delays in their ADT treatment, and the percentage of treatment change was similar in categories of metastatic hormone sensitive prostate cancer (mHSPC), metastatic castration resistant cancer (mCRPC), biochemical recurrence as well as stage IVA post surgery. Four patients were receiving neoadjuvant ADT planned prior to definitive radiation, and none had schedule change. One patient with mHSPC and 2 patients with mCRPC continued chemotherapy as planned. One patient declined recommended chemotherapy for mCRPC. Two patients were given q 3 months dose of ADT instead of q 1m, while all the rest were already receiving q3 months dosing. Among the 27 patients who had schedule change, 12 (44.4%) patients had a discussion with their providers first, and 15 patients (55.6%) did not keep their treatment appointment. Conclusions: About one third of patients changed ADT injection schedule with a similar percentage in patients with mHSPC, or mCRPC or Biochemical recurrence, or IVA after surgery. Every 3 months dosing of ADT recommended by NCCN significantly decreases exposure to COVID -19, delaying or skipping treatment was still encountered due to health concern or travel limitations. On the other hand, all patients receiving neoadjuvant ADT, or chemotherapy stayed on schedule. Although NCCN guideline recommended delaying myelosuppressive therapy, palliative chemotherapy for symptomatic, refractory patients may still be a priority.[Table: see text]


2020 ◽  
Vol 108 (3) ◽  
pp. S144-S145
Author(s):  
N.R. Parikh ◽  
D. Johnson ◽  
A. Raldow ◽  
M.L. Steinberg ◽  
J. Czernin ◽  
...  

2019 ◽  
Vol 153 (2) ◽  
pp. 56-62
Author(s):  
Eva María Triviño-Ibáñez ◽  
Ignacio Puche-Sanz ◽  
Manuel Gómez-Río ◽  
José Manuel Cózar Olmo ◽  
José Manuel Llamas-Elvira ◽  
...  

BMJ Open ◽  
2020 ◽  
Vol 10 (3) ◽  
pp. e034612
Author(s):  
Athul John ◽  
Michael O'Callaghan ◽  
Rick Catterwell ◽  
Luke A Selth

IntroductionPositive surgical margins (PSM) in cancer patients are commonly associated with worse prognosis and a higher risk of secondary treatment. However, the relevance of this parameter in prostate cancer patients undergoing radical prostatectomy (RP) remains controversial, given the inconsistencies in its ability to predict biochemical recurrence (BCR) and oncological outcomes. Hence, further assessment of the utility of surgical margins for prostate cancer prognosis is required to predict these outcomes more accurately. Over the last decade, studies have used the Gleason score (GS) of positive margins to predict outcomes. Herein, the authors aim to conduct a systematic review investigating the role of GS of PSM after radical prostatectomy in predicting BCR and oncological outcomes.Methods and analysisWe will perform a search using MEDLINE, EMBASE, SCOPUS and COCHRANE databases. The review will be reported according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines. We will screen titles and abstracts to select articles appropriate for full-text review. Studies discussing GS of PSM after RP will be included. Given the change in reporting of GS, only articles from 2005 to 2019 will be included. The quality of the studies chosen will be assessed using the Newcastle Ottawa tool for non-randomised and Cochrane risk of bias for randomised control studies. We will adopt the grading of recommendations, assessment, development and evaluation framework to comment on quality of cumulative evidence. The primary outcome measure will be time to BCR. Secondary outcome measures include secondary treatment, disease-specific survival, disease progression-free and overall mortality at follow-up period. We aim to perform a meta-analysis if the level of heterogeneity is acceptable (I2<50%).Ethics and disseminationThe review does not require ethics approval as it is a review of published literature. The findings of the review will be submitted for peer-reviewed publications and presented at scientific meetings.PROSPERO registration numberCRD42019131800.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document