Search

Your search keyword '"Roobol, Monique J."' showing total 376 results
Start Over Author "Roobol, Monique J." Search Limiters Full Text
376 results on '"Roobol, Monique J."'

1. Active Surveillance for Men Younger than 60 Years or with Intermediate-risk Localized Prostate Cancer. Descriptive Analyses of Clinical Practice in the Movember GAP3 Initiative.

Author

Remmers, Sebastiaan, Helleman, Jozien, Nieboer, Daan, Trock, Bruce, Hyndman, Matthew E, Moore, Caroline M, Gnanapragasam, Vincent, Shiong Lee, Lui, Elhage, Oussama, Klotz, Laurence, Carroll, Peter, Pickles, Tom, Bjartell, Anders, Robert, Grégoire, Frydenberg, Mark, Sugimoto, Mikio, Ehdaie, Behfar, Morgan, Todd M, Rubio-Briones, Jose, Semjonow, Axel, Bangma, Chris H, Roobol, Monique J, and Movember Foundation's Global Action Plan Prostate Cancer Active Surveillance (GAP3) Consortium

Subjects
Movember Foundation's Global Action Plan Prostate Cancer Active Surveillance (GAP3) Consortium, Active surveillance, Disease progression, Prostatic neoplasms, Patient Safety, Aging, Prostate Cancer, Urologic Diseases, Cancer
Abstract

BackgroundActive surveillance (AS) is a management option for men diagnosed with low-risk prostate cancer. Opinions differ on whether it is safe to include young men (≤60 yr) or men with intermediate-risk disease.ObjectiveTo assess whether reasons for discontinuation, treatment choice after AS, and adverse pathology at radical prostatectomy (RP; N1, or ≥GG3, or ≥pT3) differ for men ≤60 yr or those with European Association of Urology (EAU) intermediate-risk disease from those for men >60 yr or those with EAU low-risk disease.Design setting and participantsWe analyzed data from 5411 men ≤60 yr and 14 959 men >60 yr, 14 064 men with low-risk cancer, and 2441 men with intermediate-risk cancer, originating from the GAP3 database (21 169 patients/27 cohorts worldwide).Outcome measurements and statistical analysisCumulative incidence curves were used to estimate the rates of AS discontinuation and treatment choice.Results and limitationsThe probability of discontinuation of AS due to disease progression at 5 yr was similar for men aged ≤60 yr (22%) and those >60 yr (25%), as well as those of any age with low-risk disease (24%) versus those with intermediate-risk disease (24%). Men with intermediate-risk disease are more prone to discontinue AS without evidence of progression than men with low-risk disease (at 1/5 yr: 5.9%/14.2% vs 2.0%/8.8%). Adverse pathology at RP was observed in 32% of men ≤60 yr compared with 36% of men >60 yr (p = 0.029), and in 34% with low-risk disease compared with 40% with intermediate-risk disease (p = 0.048).ConclusionsOur descriptive analysis of AS practices worldwide showed that the risk of progression during AS is similar across the age and risk groups studied. The proportion of adverse pathology was higher among men >60 yr than among men ≤60 yr. These results suggest that men ≤60 yr and those with EAU intermediate-risk disease should not be excluded from opting for AS as initial management.Patient summaryData from 27 international centers reflecting daily clinical practice suggest that younger men or men with intermediate-risk prostate cancer do not hold greater risk for disease progression during active surveillance.

Published
2022

2. Comparison of outcomes of different biopsy schedules among men on active surveillance for prostate cancer: An analysis of the G.A.P.3 global consortium database

Author

Beckmann, Kerri R, Bangma, Chris H, Helleman, Jozien, Bjartell, Anders, Carroll, Peter R, Morgan, Todd, Nieboer, Daan, Santaolalla, Aida, Trock, Bruce J, Valdagni, Riccardo, Roobol, Monique J, Trock, Bruce, Ehdaie, Behfar, Carroll, Peter, Filson, Christopher, Logothetis, Christopher, Klotz, Laurence, Pickles, Tom, Hyndman, Eric, Moore, Caroline, Gnanapragasam, Vincent, Van Hemelrijck, Mieke, Dasgupta, Prokar, Bangma, Chris, Roobol, Monique, Villers, Arnauld, Robert, Grégoire, Semjonow, Axel, Rannikko, Antti, Perry, Antoinette, Hugosson, Jonas, Rubio‐Briones, Jose, Hefermehl, Lukas, Shiong, Lee Lui, Frydenberg, Mark, Stricker, Phillip, Sugimoto, Mikio, Chung, Byung Ha, van der Kwast, Theo, van der Linden, Wim, Hulsen, Tim, Ruwe, Boris, van Hooft, Peter, Steyerberg, Ewout, Beckmann, Kerri, Denton, Brian, Hayen, Andrew, Boutros, Paul, Guo, Wei, Benfante, Nicole, Cowan, Janet, Patil, Dattatraya, Park, Lauren, Ferrante, Stephanie, Mamedov, Alexandre, LaPointe, Vincent, Crump, Trafford, Stavrinides, Vasilis, Kimberly‐Duffell, Jenna, Olivier, Jonathan, Rancati, Tiziana, Ahlgren, Helén, Mascarós, Juanma, Löfgren, Annica, Lehmann, Kurt, Lin, Catherine Han, Cusick, Thomas, Hirama, Hiromi, Lee, Kwang Suk, Jenster, Guido, Auvinen, Anssi, Haider, Masoom, van Bochove, Kees, Kouspou, Michelle, and Paich, Kellie

Subjects
Biomedical and Clinical Sciences, Clinical Sciences, Oncology and Carcinogenesis, Urologic Diseases, Aging, Prevention, Cancer, Prostate Cancer, Clinical Research, Biopsy, Disease Progression, Humans, Male, Neoplasm Grading, Prostate, Prostate-Specific Antigen, Prostatic Neoplasms, Watchful Waiting, active surveillance, biopsy schedule, prostate cancer, treatment, upgrading, Global Action Plan Active Surveillance Prostate Cancer [G.A.P.3] Consortium, Paediatrics and Reproductive Medicine, Oncology & Carcinogenesis, Clinical sciences, Oncology and carcinogenesis
Abstract

BackgroundThe optimal interval for repeat biopsy during active surveillance (AS) for prostate cancer is yet to be defined. This study examined whether risk of upgrading (to grade group ≥ 2) or risk of converting to treatment varied according to intensity of repeat biopsy using data from the GAP3 consortium's global AS database.Materials and methodsIntensity of surveillance biopsy schedules was categorized according to centers' protocols: (a) Prostate Cancer Research International Active Surveillance project (PRIAS) protocols with biopsies at years 1, 4, and 7 (10 centers; 7532 men); (b) biennial biopsies, that is, every other year (8 centers; 4365 men); and (c) annual biopsy schedules (4 centers; 1602 men). Multivariable Cox regression was used to compare outcomes according to biopsy intensity.ResultsOut of the 13,508 eligible participants, 56% were managed according to PRIAS protocols (biopsies at years 1, 4, and 7), 32% via biennial biopsy, and 12% via annual biopsy. After adjusting for baseline characteristics, risk of converting to treatment was greater for those on annual compared with PRIAS biopsy schedules (hazard ratio [HR] = 1.66; 95% confidence interval [CI] = 1.51-1.83; p

Published
2022

3. Predictive Models for Assessing Patients’ Response to Treatment in Metastatic Prostate Cancer: A Systematic Review

Author

Lawlor, Ailbhe, Lin, Carol, Gómez Rivas, Juan, Ibáñez, Laura, Abad López, Pablo, Willemse, Peter-Paul, Imran Omar, Muhammad, Remmers, Sebastiaan, Cornford, Philip, Rajwa, Pawel, Nicoletti, Rossella, Gandaglia, Giorgio, Yuen-Chun Teoh, Jeremy, Moreno Sierra, Jesús, Golozar, Asieh, Bjartell, Anders, Evans-Axelsson, Susan, N'Dow, James, Zong, Jihong, Ribal, Maria J., Roobol, Monique J., Van Hemelrijck, Mieke, and Beyer, Katharina

Published
2024
Full Text
View/download PDF

4. How Can We Improve Patient-Clinician Communication for Men Diagnosed with Prostate Cancer?

Author

Beyer, Katharina, Lawlor, Ailbhe, Remmers, Sebastiaan, Bezuidenhout, Carla, Gómez Rivas, Juan, Venderbos, Lionne D.F., Smith, Emma J., Gandaglia, Giorgio, MacLennan, Steven, MacLennan, Sara J., Bjartell, Anders, Briganti, Alberto, Cornford, Philip, Evans-Axelsson, Susan, Ribal, Maria J., N'Dow, James, Briers, Erik, Roobol, Monique J., and Van Hemelrijck, Mieke

Published
2024
Full Text
View/download PDF

5. Genetic factors associated with prostate cancer conversion from active surveillance to treatment

Author

Jiang, Yu, Meyers, Travis J, Emeka, Adaeze A, Cooley, Lauren Folgosa, Cooper, Phillip R, Lancki, Nicola, Helenowski, Irene, Kachuri, Linda, Lin, Daniel W, Stanford, Janet L, Newcomb, Lisa F, Kolb, Suzanne, Finelli, Antonio, Fleshner, Neil E, Komisarenko, Maria, Eastham, James A, Ehdaie, Behfar, Benfante, Nicole, Logothetis, Christopher J, Gregg, Justin R, Perez, Cherie A, Garza, Sergio, Kim, Jeri, Marks, Leonard S, Delfin, Merdie, Barsa, Danielle, Vesprini, Danny, Klotz, Laurence H, Loblaw, Andrew, Mamedov, Alexandre, Goldenberg, S Larry, Higano, Celestia S, Spillane, Maria, Wu, Eugenia, Carter, H Ballentine, Pavlovich, Christian P, Mamawala, Mufaddal, Landis, Tricia, Carroll, Peter R, Chan, June M, Cooperberg, Matthew R, Cowan, Janet E, Morgan, Todd M, Siddiqui, Javed, Martin, Rabia, Klein, Eric A, Brittain, Karen, Gotwald, Paige, Barocas, Daniel A, Dallmer, Jeremiah R, Gordetsky, Jennifer B, Steele, Pam, Kundu, Shilajit D, Stockdale, Jazmine, Roobol, Monique J, Venderbos, Lionne DF, Sanda, Martin G, Arnold, Rebecca, Patil, Dattatraya, Evans, Christopher P, Dall’Era, Marc A, Vij, Anjali, Costello, Anthony J, Chow, Ken, Corcoran, Niall M, Rais-Bahrami, Soroush, Phares, Courtney, Scherr, Douglas S, Flynn, Thomas, Karnes, R Jeffrey, Koch, Michael, Dhondt, Courtney Rose, Nelson, Joel B, McBride, Dawn, Cookson, Michael S, Stratton, Kelly L, Farriester, Stephen, Hemken, Erin, Stadler, Walter M, Pera, Tuula, Banionyte, Deimante, Bianco, Fernando J, Lopez, Isabel H, Loeb, Stacy, Taneja, Samir S, Byrne, Nataliya, Amling, Christopher L, Martinez, Ann, Boileau, Luc, Gaylis, Franklin D, Petkewicz, Jacqueline, Kirwen, Nicholas, Helfand, Brian T, Xu, Jianfeng, Scholtens, Denise M, Catalona, William J, and Witte, John S

Subjects
Biological Sciences, Genetics, Clinical Research, Prevention, Human Genome, Clinical Trials and Supportive Activities, Urologic Diseases, Aging, Cancer, Prostate Cancer, genetics, genome-wide association study, prostate, prostatic neoplasms
Abstract

Men diagnosed with low-risk prostate cancer (PC) are increasingly electing active surveillance (AS) as their initial management strategy. While this may reduce the side effects of treatment for prostate cancer, many men on AS eventually convert to active treatment. PC is one of the most heritable cancers, and genetic factors that predispose to aggressive tumors may help distinguish men who are more likely to discontinue AS. To investigate this, we undertook a multi-institutional genome-wide association study (GWAS) of 5,222 PC patients and 1,139 other patients from replication cohorts, all of whom initially elected AS and were followed over time for the potential outcome of conversion from AS to active treatment. In the GWAS we detected 18 variants associated with conversion, 15 of which were not previously associated with PC risk. With a transcriptome-wide association study (TWAS), we found two genes associated with conversion (MAST3, p = 6.9×10-7 and GAB2, p = 2.0×10-6). Moreover, increasing values of a previously validated 269-variant genetic risk score (GRS) for PC was positively associated with conversion (e.g., comparing the highest to the two middle deciles gave a hazard ratio [HR] = 1.13; 95% Confidence Interval [CI]= 0.94-1.36); whereas, decreasing values of a 36-variant GRS for prostate-specific antigen (PSA) levels were positively associated with conversion (e.g., comparing the lowest to the two middle deciles gave a HR = 1.25; 95% CI, 1.04-1.50). These results suggest that germline genetics may help inform and individualize the decision of AS-or the intensity of monitoring on AS-versus treatment for the initial management of patients with low-risk PC.

Published
2022

6. Association between circulating inflammatory markers and adult cancer risk: a Mendelian randomization analysis

Author

Landi, Maria Teresa, Stevens, Victoria, Wang, Ying, Albanes, Demetrios, Caporaso, Neil, Brennan, Paul, Amos, Christopher I., Shete, Sanjay, Hung, Rayjean J., Bickeböller, Heike, Risch, Angela, Houlston, Richard, Lam, Stephen, Tardon, Adonina, Chen, Chu, Bojesen, Stig E., Johansson, Mattias, Wichmann, H-Erich, Christiani, David, Rennert, Gadi, Arnold, Susanne, Field, John K., Le Marchand, Loic, Melander, Olle, Brunnström, Hans, Liu, Geoffrey, Andrew, Angeline, Kiemeney, Lambertus A., Shen, Hongbing, Zienolddiny, Shan, Grankvist, Kjell, Johansson, Mikael, Teare, M. Dawn, Hong, Yun-Chul, Yuan, Jian-Min, Lazarus, Philip, Schabath, Matthew B., Aldrich, Melinda C., Eeles, Rosalind A., Haiman, Christopher A., Kote-Jarai, Zsofia, Schumacher, Fredrick R., Benlloch, Sara, Al Olama, Ali Amin, Muir, Kenneth R., Berndt, Sonja I., Conti, David V., Wiklund, Fredrik, Chanock, Stephen, Tangen, Catherine M., Batra, Jyotsna, Clements, Judith A., Grönberg, Henrik, Pashayan, Nora, Schleutker, Johanna, Albanes, Demetrius, Weinstein, Stephanie J., Wolk, Alicja, West, Catharine M.L., Mucci, Lorelei A., Cancel-Tassin, Géraldine, Koutros, Stella, Sørensen, Karina Dalsgaard, Grindedal, Eli Marie, Neal, David E., Hamdy, Freddie C., Donovan, Jenny L., Travis, Ruth C., Hamilton, Robert J., Ingles, Sue Ann, Rosenstein, Barry S., Lu, Yong-Jie, Giles, Graham G., MacInnis, Robert J., Kibel, Adam S., Vega, Ana, Kogevinas, Manolis, Penney, Kathryn L., Park, Jong Y., Stanfrod, Janet L., Cybulski, Cezary, Nordestgaard, Børge G., Nielsen, Sune F., Brenner, Hermann, Maier, Christiane, Logothetis, Christopher J., John, Esther M., Teixeira, Manuel R., Neuhausen, Susan L., De Ruyck, Kim, Razack, Azad, Newcomb, Lisa F., Lessel, Davor, Kaneva, Radka, Usmani, Nawaid, Claessens, Frank, Townsend, Paul A., Castelao, Jose Esteban, Roobol, Monique J., Menegaux, Florence, Khaw, Kay-Tee, Cannon-Albright, Lisa, Pandha, Hardev, Thibodeau, Stephen N., Hunter, David J., Kraft, Peter, Blot, William J., Riboli, Elio, Yarmolinsky, James, Robinson, Jamie W., Mariosa, Daniela, Karhunen, Ville, Huang, Jian, Dimou, Niki, Murphy, Neil, Burrows, Kimberley, Bouras, Emmanouil, Smith-Byrne, Karl, Lewis, Sarah J., Galesloot, Tessel E., Vermeulen, Sita, Martin, Paul, Hou, Lifang, Newcomb, Polly A., White, Emily, Wu, Anna H., Le Marchand, Loïc, Phipps, Amanda I., Buchanan, Daniel D., Zhao, Sizheng Steven, Gill, Dipender, Chanock, Stephen J., Purdue, Mark P., Davey Smith, George, Herzig, Karl-Heinz, Järvelin, Marjo-Riitta, Amos, Chris I., Dehghan, Abbas, Gunter, Marc J., Tsilidis, Kostas K., and Martin, Richard M.

Published
2024
Full Text
View/download PDF

7. Additional SNPs improve risk stratification of a polygenic hazard score for prostate cancer.

Author

Karunamuni, Roshan A, Huynh-Le, Minh-Phuong, Fan, Chun C, Thompson, Wesley, Eeles, Rosalind A, Kote-Jarai, Zsofia, Muir, Kenneth, Lophatananon, Artitaya, UKGPCS collaborators, Schleutker, Johanna, Pashayan, Nora, Batra, Jyotsna, APCB BioResource (Australian Prostate Cancer BioResource), Grönberg, Henrik, Walsh, Eleanor I, Turner, Emma L, Lane, Athene, Martin, Richard M, Neal, David E, Donovan, Jenny L, Hamdy, Freddie C, Nordestgaard, Børge G, Tangen, Catherine M, MacInnis, Robert J, Wolk, Alicja, Albanes, Demetrius, Haiman, Christopher A, Travis, Ruth C, Stanford, Janet L, Mucci, Lorelei A, West, Catharine ML, Nielsen, Sune F, Kibel, Adam S, Wiklund, Fredrik, Cussenot, Olivier, Berndt, Sonja I, Koutros, Stella, Sørensen, Karina Dalsgaard, Cybulski, Cezary, Grindedal, Eli Marie, Park, Jong Y, Ingles, Sue A, Maier, Christiane, Hamilton, Robert J, Rosenstein, Barry S, Vega, Ana, IMPACT Study Steering Committee and Collaborators, Kogevinas, Manolis, Penney, Kathryn L, Teixeira, Manuel R, Brenner, Hermann, John, Esther M, Kaneva, Radka, Logothetis, Christopher J, Neuhausen, Susan L, Razack, Azad, Newcomb, Lisa F, Canary PASS Investigators, Gamulin, Marija, Usmani, Nawaid, Claessens, Frank, Gago-Dominguez, Manuela, Townsend, Paul A, Roobol, Monique J, Zheng, Wei, Profile Study Steering Committee, Mills, Ian G, Andreassen, Ole A, Dale, Anders M, Seibert, Tyler M, and PRACTICAL Consortium

Subjects
UKGPCS collaborators, APCB BioResource, IMPACT Study Steering Committee and Collaborators, Canary PASS Investigators, Profile Study Steering Committee, PRACTICAL Consortium, Prevention, Urologic Diseases, Cancer, Prostate Cancer, Aging, Urology & Nephrology, Oncology and Carcinogenesis
Abstract

BackgroundPolygenic hazard scores (PHS) can identify individuals with increased risk of prostate cancer. We estimated the benefit of additional SNPs on performance of a previously validated PHS (PHS46).Materials and method180 SNPs, shown to be previously associated with prostate cancer, were used to develop a PHS model in men with European ancestry. A machine-learning approach, LASSO-regularized Cox regression, was used to select SNPs and to estimate their coefficients in the training set (75,596 men). Performance of the resulting model was evaluated in the testing/validation set (6,411 men) with two metrics: (1) hazard ratios (HRs) and (2) positive predictive value (PPV) of prostate-specific antigen (PSA) testing. HRs were estimated between individuals with PHS in the top 5% to those in the middle 40% (HR95/50), top 20% to bottom 20% (HR80/20), and bottom 20% to middle 40% (HR20/50). PPV was calculated for the top 20% (PPV80) and top 5% (PPV95) of PHS as the fraction of individuals with elevated PSA that were diagnosed with clinically significant prostate cancer on biopsy.Results166 SNPs had non-zero coefficients in the Cox model (PHS166). All HR metrics showed significant improvements for PHS166 compared to PHS46: HR95/50 increased from 3.72 to 5.09, HR80/20 increased from 6.12 to 9.45, and HR20/50 decreased from 0.41 to 0.34. By contrast, no significant differences were observed in PPV of PSA testing for clinically significant prostate cancer.ConclusionsIncorporating 120 additional SNPs (PHS166 vs PHS46) significantly improved HRs for prostate cancer, while PPV of PSA testing remained the same.

Published
2021

8. Polygenic hazard score is associated with prostate cancer in multi-ethnic populations.

Author

Huynh-Le, Minh-Phuong, Fan, Chun Chieh, Karunamuni, Roshan, Thompson, Wesley K, Martinez, Maria Elena, Eeles, Rosalind A, Kote-Jarai, Zsofia, Muir, Kenneth, Schleutker, Johanna, Pashayan, Nora, Batra, Jyotsna, Grönberg, Henrik, Neal, David E, Donovan, Jenny L, Hamdy, Freddie C, Martin, Richard M, Nielsen, Sune F, Nordestgaard, Børge G, Wiklund, Fredrik, Tangen, Catherine M, Giles, Graham G, Wolk, Alicja, Albanes, Demetrius, Travis, Ruth C, Blot, William J, Zheng, Wei, Sanderson, Maureen, Stanford, Janet L, Mucci, Lorelei A, West, Catharine ML, Kibel, Adam S, Cussenot, Olivier, Berndt, Sonja I, Koutros, Stella, Sørensen, Karina Dalsgaard, Cybulski, Cezary, Grindedal, Eli Marie, Menegaux, Florence, Khaw, Kay-Tee, Park, Jong Y, Ingles, Sue A, Maier, Christiane, Hamilton, Robert J, Thibodeau, Stephen N, Rosenstein, Barry S, Lu, Yong-Jie, Watya, Stephen, Vega, Ana, Kogevinas, Manolis, Penney, Kathryn L, Huff, Chad, Teixeira, Manuel R, Multigner, Luc, Leach, Robin J, Cannon-Albright, Lisa, Brenner, Hermann, John, Esther M, Kaneva, Radka, Logothetis, Christopher J, Neuhausen, Susan L, De Ruyck, Kim, Pandha, Hardev, Razack, Azad, Newcomb, Lisa F, Fowke, Jay H, Gamulin, Marija, Usmani, Nawaid, Claessens, Frank, Gago-Dominguez, Manuela, Townsend, Paul A, Bush, William S, Roobol, Monique J, Parent, Marie-Élise, Hu, Jennifer J, Mills, Ian G, Andreassen, Ole A, Dale, Anders M, Seibert, Tyler M, UKGPCS collaborators, APCB (Australian Prostate Cancer BioResource), NC-LA PCaP Investigators, IMPACT Study Steering Committee and Collaborators, Canary PASS Investigators, Profile Study Steering Committee, and PRACTICAL Consortium

Subjects
UKGPCS collaborators, APCB, NC-LA PCaP Investigators, IMPACT Study Steering Committee and Collaborators, Canary PASS Investigators, Profile Study Steering Committee, PRACTICAL Consortium, Humans, Prostatic Neoplasms, Neoplasm Invasiveness, Multivariate Analysis, Multifactorial Inheritance, Aged, Middle Aged, Ethnic Groups, Male, Self Report, Aging, Urologic Diseases, Cancer, Prostate Cancer
Abstract

Genetic models for cancer have been evaluated using almost exclusively European data, which could exacerbate health disparities. A polygenic hazard score (PHS1) is associated with age at prostate cancer diagnosis and improves screening accuracy in Europeans. Here, we evaluate performance of PHS2 (PHS1, adapted for OncoArray) in a multi-ethnic dataset of 80,491 men (49,916 cases, 30,575 controls). PHS2 is associated with age at diagnosis of any and aggressive (Gleason score ≥ 7, stage T3-T4, PSA ≥ 10 ng/mL, or nodal/distant metastasis) cancer and prostate-cancer-specific death. Associations with cancer are significant within European (n = 71,856), Asian (n = 2,382), and African (n = 6,253) genetic ancestries (p

Published
2021

9. Personalised biopsy schedules based on risk of Gleason upgrading for patients with low-risk prostate cancer on active surveillance.

Author

Tomer, Anirudh, Nieboer, Daan, Roobol, Monique J, Bjartell, Anders, Steyerberg, Ewout W, Rizopoulos, Dimitris, and Movember Foundation’s Global Action Plan Prostate Cancer Active Surveillance (GAP3) consortium

Subjects
Movember Foundation’s Global Action Plan Prostate Cancer Active Surveillance (GAP3) consortium, Prostate, Humans, Prostatic Neoplasms, Prostate-Specific Antigen, Biopsy, Area Under Curve, Models, Statistical, Risk Assessment, Risk Factors, ROC Curve, Internet, Software, Aged, Middle Aged, Appointments and Schedules, Male, Watchful Waiting, Neoplasm Grading, Clinical Decision-Making, Decision Making, Shared, active surveillance, biopsies, personalised medicine, prostate cancer, shared decision-making, Cancer, Prostate Cancer, Aging, Urologic Diseases, Clinical Research, Prevention, 4.2 Evaluation of markers and technologies, Detection, screening and diagnosis, Good Health and Well Being, Clinical Sciences, Urology & Nephrology
Abstract

ObjectiveTo develop a model and methodology for predicting the risk of Gleason upgrading in patients with prostate cancer on active surveillance (AS) and using the predicted risks to create risk-based personalised biopsy schedules as an alternative to one-size-fits-all schedules (e.g. annually). Furthermore, to assist patients and doctors in making shared decisions on biopsy schedules, by providing them quantitative estimates of the burden and benefit of opting for personalised vs any other schedule in AS. Lastly, to externally validate our model and implement it along with personalised schedules in a ready to use web-application.Patients and methodsRepeat prostate-specific antigen (PSA) measurements, timing and results of previous biopsies, and age at baseline from the world's largest AS study, Prostate Cancer Research International Active Surveillance (PRIAS; 7813 patients, 1134 experienced upgrading). We fitted a Bayesian joint model for time-to-event and longitudinal data to this dataset. We then validated our model externally in the largest six AS cohorts of the Movember Foundation's third Global Action Plan (GAP3) database (>20 000 patients, 27 centres worldwide). Using the model predicted upgrading risks; we scheduled biopsies whenever a patient's upgrading risk was above a certain threshold. To assist patients/doctors in the choice of this threshold, and to compare the resulting personalised schedule with currently practiced schedules, along with the timing and the total number of biopsies (burden) planned, for each schedule we provided them with the time delay expected in detecting upgrading (shorter is better).ResultsThe cause-specific cumulative upgrading risk at the 5-year follow-up was 35% in PRIAS, and at most 50% in the GAP3 cohorts. In the PRIAS-based model, PSA velocity was a stronger predictor of upgrading (hazard ratio [HR] 2.47, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.93-2.99) than the PSA level (HR 0.99, 95% CI 0.89-1.11). Our model had a moderate area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (0.6-0.7) in the validation cohorts. The prediction error was moderate (0.1-0.2) in theGAP3 cohorts where the impact of the PSA level and velocity on upgrading risk was similar to PRIAS, but large (0.2-0.3) otherwise. Our model required re-calibration of baseline upgrading risk in the validation cohorts. We implemented the validated models and the methodology for personalised schedules in a web-application (http://tiny.cc/biopsy).ConclusionsWe successfully developed and validated a model for predicting upgrading risk, and providing risk-based personalised biopsy decisions in AS of prostate cancer. Personalised prostate biopsies are a novel alternative to fixed one-size-fits-all schedules, which may help to reduce unnecessary prostate biopsies, while maintaining cancer control. The model and schedules made available via a web-application enable shared decision-making on biopsy schedules by comparing fixed and personalised schedules on total biopsies and expected time delay in detecting upgrading.

Published
2021

10. Comparison of biopsy under‐sampling and annual progression using hidden markov models to learn from prostate cancer active surveillance studies

Author

Li, Weiyu, Denton, Brian T, Nieboer, Daan, Carroll, Peter R, Roobol, Monique J, Morgan, Todd M, and consortium, Movember Foundation’s Global Action Plan Prostate Cancer Active Surveillance

Subjects
Biomedical and Clinical Sciences, Clinical Sciences, Oncology and Carcinogenesis, Prevention, Aging, Prostate Cancer, Clinical Research, Urologic Diseases, Cancer, Aged, Biopsy, Cohort Studies, Databases, Factual, Disease Progression, Early Detection of Cancer, Humans, Male, Markov Chains, Middle Aged, Models, Statistical, Neoplasm Grading, Prostate-Specific Antigen, Prostatic Neoplasms, Risk Assessment, Watchful Waiting, active surveillance, biopsy, biopsy under&#8208, sampling, cancer progression, hidden Markov model, prostate cancer, Movember Foundation’s Global Action Plan Prostate Cancer Active Surveillance (GAP3) consortium, biopsy under-sampling, Biochemistry and Cell Biology, Oncology and carcinogenesis
Abstract

This study aimed to estimate the rates of biopsy undersampling and progression for four prostate cancer (PCa) active surveillance (AS) cohorts within the Movember Foundation's Global Action Plan Prostate Cancer Active Surveillance (GAP3) consortium. We used a hidden Markov model (HMM) to estimate factors that define PCa dynamics for men on AS including biopsy under-sampling and progression that are implied by longitudinal data in four large cohorts included in the GAP3 database. The HMM was subsequently used as the basis for a simulation model to evaluate the biopsy strategies previously proposed for each of these cohorts. For the four AS cohorts, the estimated annual progression rate was between 6%-13%. The estimated probability of a biopsy successfully sampling undiagnosed non-favorable risk cancer (biopsy sensitivity) was between 71% and 80%. In the simulation study of patients diagnosed with favorable risk cancer at age 50, the mean number of biopsies performed before age 75 was between 4.11 and 12.60, depending on the biopsy strategy. The mean delay time to detection of non-favorable risk cancer was between 0.38 and 2.17 years. Biopsy undersampling and progression varied considerably across study cohorts. There was no single best biopsy protocol that is optimal for all cohorts, because of the variation in biopsy under-sampling error and annual progression rates across cohorts. All strategies demonstrated diminishing benefits from additional biopsies.

Published
2020

11. Personalized Decision Making for Biopsies in Prostate Cancer Active Surveillance Programs

Author

Tomer, Anirudh, Rizopoulos, Dimitris, Nieboer, Daan, Drost, Frank-Jan, Roobol, Monique J., and Steyerberg, Ewout W.

Subjects
Statistics - Applications, Statistics - Methodology
Abstract

Background: Low-risk prostate cancer patients enrolled in active surveillance programs commonly undergo biopsies for examination of cancer progression. Biopsies are conducted as per a fixed and frequent schedule (e.g., annual biopsies). Since biopsies are burdensome, patients do not always comply with the schedule, which increases the risk of delayed detection of cancer progression. Objective: Our aim is to better balance the number of biopsies (burden) and the delay in detection of cancer progression (less is beneficial), by personalizing the decision of conducting biopsies. Data Sources: We use patient data of the world's largest active surveillance program (PRIAS). It enrolled 5270 patients, had 866 cancer progressions, and an average of nine prostate-specific antigen (PSA) and five digital rectal examination (DRE) measurements per patient. Methods: Using joint models for time-to-event and longitudinal data, we model the historical DRE and PSA measurements, and biopsy results of a patient at each follow-up visit. This results in a visit and patient-specific cumulative risk of cancer progression. If this risk is above a certain threshold, we schedule a biopsy. We compare this personalized approach with the currently practiced biopsy schedules via an extensive and realistic simulation study, based on a replica of the patients from the PRIAS program. Results: The personalized approach saved a median of six biopsies (median: 4, IQR: 2-5), compared to the annual schedule (median: 10, IQR: 3-10). However, the delay in detection of progression (years) is similar for the personalized (median: 0.7, IQR: 0.3-1.0) and the annual schedule (median: 0.5, IQR: 0.3-0.8). Conclusions: We conclude that personalized schedules provide substantially better balance in the number of biopsies per detected progression for men with low-risk prostate cancer.

Published
2019

13. Personalized Schedules for Surveillance of Low Risk Prostate Cancer Patients

Author

Tomer, Anirudh, Nieboer, Daan, Roobol, Monique J., Steyerberg, Ewout W., and Rizopoulos, Dimitris

Subjects
Statistics - Applications
Abstract

Low risk prostate cancer patients enrolled in active surveillance (AS) programs commonly undergo biopsies on a frequent basis for examination of cancer progression. AS programs employ a fixed schedule of biopsies for all patients. Such fixed and frequent schedules, may schedule unnecessary biopsies for the patients. Since biopsies have an associated risk of complications, patients do not always comply with the schedule, which increases the risk of delayed detection of cancer progression. Motivated by the world's largest AS program, Prostate Cancer Research International Active Surveillance (PRIAS), in this paper we present personalized schedules for biopsies to counter these problems. Using joint models for time to event and longitudinal data, our methods combine information from historical prostate-specific antigen (PSA) levels and repeat biopsy results of a patient, to schedule the next biopsy. We also present methods to compare personalized schedules with existing biopsy schedules., Comment: 16 pages, 5 figures, 1 table. Supplementary materials available at https://goo.gl/jpPtL8

Published
2017

14. Reasons for Discontinuing Active Surveillance: Assessment of 21 Centres in 12 Countries in the Movember GAP3 Consortium

Author

Van Hemelrijck, Mieke, Ji, Xi, Helleman, Jozien, Roobol, Monique J, van der Linden, Wim, Nieboer, Daan, Bangma, Chris H, Frydenberg, Mark, Rannikko, Antti, Lee, Lui S, Gnanapragasam, Vincent J, Kattan, Mike W, Trock, Bruce, Ehdaie, Behfar, Carroll, Peter, Filson, Christopher, Kim, Jeri, Logothetis, Christopher, Morgan, Todd, Klotz, Laurence, Pickles, Tom, Hyndman, Eric, Moore, Caroline M, Gnanapragasam, Vincent, Dasgupta, Prokar, Bangma, Chris, Roobol, Monique, Villers, Arnauld, Valdagni, Riccardo, Perry, Antoinette, Hugosson, Jonas, Rubio-Briones, Jose, Bjartell, Anders, Hefermehl, Lukas, Shiong, Lee Lui, Kakehi, Yoshiyuki, Chung, Byung Ha, van der Kwast, Theo, Obbink, Henk, Hulsen, Tim, de Jonge, Cees, Kattan, Mike, Xinge, Ji, Muir, Kenneth, Lophatananon, Artitaya, Fahey, Michael, Steyerberg, Ewout, Zhang, Liying, Santa Olalla, Aida, Beckmann, Kerri, Denton, Brian, Hayen, Andrew, Boutros, Paul, Guo, Wei, Benfante, Nicole, Cowan, Janet, Patil, Dattatraya, Tolosa, Emily, Kim, Tae-Kyung, Mamedov, Alexandre, La Pointe, Vincent, Crump, Trafford, Kimberly-Duffell, Jenna, Santaolalla, Aida, Olivier, Jonathan, Rancati, Tiziana, Ahlgren, Helén, Mascarós, Juanma, Löfgren, Annica, Lehmann, Kurt, Lin, Catherine Han, Hirama, Hiromi, Lee, Kwang Suk, Jenster, Guido, Auvinen, Anssi, Haider, Masoom, van Bochove, Kees, Carter, Ballentine, Gledhill, Sam, Buzza, Mark, and Bruinsma, Sophie

Subjects
Biomedical and Clinical Sciences, Clinical Sciences, Oncology and Carcinogenesis, Prostate Cancer, Aging, Prevention, Urologic Diseases, Cancer, Good Health and Well Being, Aged, Asia, Australia, Biopsy, Cause of Death, Clinical Decision-Making, Databases, Factual, Disease Progression, Early Detection of Cancer, Europe, Humans, Kallikreins, Male, Middle Aged, North America, Patient Dropouts, Predictive Value of Tests, Prostate-Specific Antigen, Prostatic Neoplasms, Risk Assessment, Risk Factors, Time Factors, Watchful Waiting, Prostate cancer, Active surveillance, Discontinuation, Worldwide, Members of the Movember Foundation's Global Action Plan Prostate Cancer Active Surveillance GAP3 consortium, Urology & Nephrology, Clinical sciences
Abstract

BackgroundCareful assessment of the reasons for discontinuation of active surveillance (AS) is required for men with prostate cancer (PCa).ObjectiveUsing Movember's Global Action Plan Prostate Cancer Active Surveillance initiative (GAP3) database, we report on reasons for AS discontinuation.Design, setting, and participantsWe compared data from 10296 men on AS from 21 centres across 12 countries.Outcome measurements and statistical analysisCumulative incidence methods were used to estimate the cumulative incidence rates of AS discontinuation.Results and limitationsDuring 5-yr follow-up, 27.5% (95% confidence interval [CI]: 26.4-28.6%) men showed signs of disease progression, 12.8% (95% CI: 12.0-13.6%) converted to active treatment without evidence of progression, 1.7% (95% CI: 1.5-2.0%) continued to watchful waiting, and 1.7% (95% CI: 1.4-2.1%) died from other causes. Of the 7049 men who remained on AS, 2339 had follow-up for >5yr, 4561 had follow-up for

Published
2019

15. Author Correction: Germline variation at 8q24 and prostate cancer risk in men of European ancestry.

Author

Matejcic, Marco, Saunders, Edward J, Dadaev, Tokhir, Brook, Mark N, Wang, Kan, Sheng, Xin, Olama, Ali Amin Al, Schumacher, Fredrick R, Ingles, Sue A, Govindasami, Koveela, Benlloch, Sara, Berndt, Sonja I, Albanes, Demetrius, Koutros, Stella, Muir, Kenneth, Stevens, Victoria L, Gapstur, Susan M, Tangen, Catherine M, Batra, Jyotsna, Clements, Judith, Gronberg, Henrik, Pashayan, Nora, Schleutker, Johanna, Wolk, Alicja, West, Catharine, Mucci, Lorelei, Kraft, Peter, Cancel-Tassin, Géraldine, Sorensen, Karina D, Maehle, Lovise, Grindedal, Eli M, Strom, Sara S, Neal, David E, Hamdy, Freddie C, Donovan, Jenny L, Travis, Ruth C, Hamilton, Robert J, Rosenstein, Barry, Lu, Yong-Jie, Giles, Graham G, Kibel, Adam S, Vega, Ana, Bensen, Jeanette T, Kogevinas, Manolis, Penney, Kathryn L, Park, Jong Y, Stanford, Janet L, Cybulski, Cezary, Nordestgaard, Børge G, Brenner, Hermann, Maier, Christiane, Kim, Jeri, Teixeira, Manuel R, Neuhausen, Susan L, De Ruyck, Kim, Razack, Azad, Newcomb, Lisa F, Lessel, Davor, Kaneva, Radka, Usmani, Nawaid, Claessens, Frank, Townsend, Paul A, Gago-Dominguez, Manuela, Roobol, Monique J, Menegaux, Florence, Khaw, Kay-Tee, Cannon-Albright, Lisa A, Pandha, Hardev, Thibodeau, Stephen N, Schaid, Daniel J, PRACTICAL Consortium, Wiklund, Fredrik, Chanock, Stephen J, Easton, Douglas F, Eeles, Rosalind A, Kote-Jarai, Zsofia, Conti, David V, and Haiman, Christopher A

Subjects
PRACTICAL Consortium
Abstract

The original version of this Article contained an error in the spelling of the author Manuela Gago-Dominguez, which was incorrectly given as Manuela G. Dominguez. This has now been corrected in both the PDF and HTML versions of the Article.

Published
2019

17. Active Surveillance for Men Younger than 60 Years or with Intermediate-risk Localized Prostate Cancer. Descriptive Analyses of Clinical Practice in the Movember GAP3 Initiative

Author

Trock, Bruce, Ehdaie, Behfar, Carroll, Peter, Filson, Christopher, Logothetis, Christopher, Morgan, Todd, Klotz, Laurence, Pickles, Tom, Hyndman, Eric, Moore, Caroline, Gnanapragasam, Vincent, Van Hemelrijck, Mieke, Dasgupta, Prokar, Bangma, Chris, Roobol, Monique, Villers, Arnauld, Robert, Grégoire, Semjonow, Axel, Rannikko, Antti, Valdagni, Riccardo, Perry, Antoinette, Hugosson, Jonas, Rubio-Briones, Jose, Bjartell, Anders, Hefermehl, Lukas, Lui Shiong, Lee, Frydenberg, Mark, Stricker, Phillip, Sugimoto, Mikio, Ha Chung, Byung, van der Kwast, Theo, van der Linden, Wim, Hulsen, Tim, Ruwe, Boris, Peter van Hooft, Steyerberg, Ewout, Nieboer, Daan, Beckmann, Kerri, Denton, Brian, Hayen, Andrew, Boutros, Paul, Guo, Wei, Benfante, Nicole, Cowan, Janet, Patil, Dattatraya, Park, Lauren, Ferrante, Stephanie, Mamedov, Alexandre, LaPointe, Vincent, Crump, Trafford, Stavrinides, Vasilis, Kimberly-Duffell, Jenna, Santaolalla, Aida, Olivier, Jonathan, Rancati, Tiziana, Ahlgren, Helén, Mascarós, Juanma, Löfgren, Annica, Lehmann, Kurt, Han Lin, Catherine, Cusick, Thomas, Hirama, Hiromi, Suk Lee, Kwang, Jenster, Guido, Auvinen, Anssi, Haider, Masoom, van Bochove, Kees, Kouspou, Michelle, Paich, Kellie, Helleman, Jozien, Remmers, Sebastiaan, Hyndman, Matthew E., Moore, Caroline M., Shiong Lee, Lui, Elhage, Oussama, Morgan, Todd M., Bangma, Chris H., and Roobol, Monique J.

Published
2022
Full Text
View/download PDF

22. Association between circulating inflammatory markers and adult cancer risk: a Mendelian randomization analysis

Author

Yarmolinsky, James, primary, Robinson, Jamie W., additional, Mariosa, Daniela, additional, Karhunen, Ville, additional, Huang, Jian, additional, Dimou, Niki, additional, Murphy, Neil, additional, Burrows, Kimberley, additional, Bouras, Emmanouil, additional, Smith-Byrne, Karl, additional, Lewis, Sarah J., additional, Galesloot, Tessel E., additional, Kiemeney, Lambertus A., additional, Vermeulen, Sita, additional, Martin, Paul, additional, Albanes, Demetrius, additional, Hou, Lifang, additional, Newcomb, Polly A., additional, White, Emily, additional, Wolk, Alicja, additional, Wu, Anna H., additional, Le Marchand, Loïc, additional, Phipps, Amanda I., additional, Buchanan, Daniel D., additional, Zhao, Sizheng Steven, additional, Gill, Dipender, additional, Chanock, Stephen J., additional, Purdue, Mark P., additional, Davey Smith, George, additional, Brennan, Paul, additional, Herzig, Karl-Heinz, additional, Järvelin, Marjo-Riitta, additional, Amos, Chris I., additional, Hung, Rayjean J., additional, Dehghan, Abbas, additional, Johansson, Mattias, additional, Gunter, Marc J., additional, Tsilidis, Kostas K., additional, Martin, Richard M., additional, Landi, Maria Teresa, additional, Stevens, Victoria, additional, Wang, Ying, additional, Albanes, Demetrios, additional, Caporaso, Neil, additional, Amos, Christopher I., additional, Shete, Sanjay, additional, Bickeböller, Heike, additional, Risch, Angela, additional, Houlston, Richard, additional, Lam, Stephen, additional, Tardon, Adonina, additional, Chen, Chu, additional, Bojesen, Stig E., additional, Wichmann, H-Erich, additional, Christiani, David, additional, Rennert, Gadi, additional, Arnold, Susanne, additional, Field, John K., additional, Le Marchand, Loic, additional, Melander, Olle, additional, Brunnström, Hans, additional, Liu, Geoffrey, additional, Andrew, Angeline, additional, Shen, Hongbing, additional, Zienolddiny, Shan, additional, Grankvist, Kjell, additional, Johansson, Mikael, additional, Teare, M. Dawn, additional, Hong, Yun-Chul, additional, Yuan, Jian-Min, additional, Lazarus, Philip, additional, Schabath, Matthew B., additional, Aldrich, Melinda C., additional, Eeles, Rosalind A., additional, Haiman, Christopher A., additional, Kote-Jarai, Zsofia, additional, Schumacher, Fredrick R., additional, Benlloch, Sara, additional, Al Olama, Ali Amin, additional, Muir, Kenneth R., additional, Berndt, Sonja I., additional, Conti, David V., additional, Wiklund, Fredrik, additional, Chanock, Stephen, additional, Tangen, Catherine M., additional, Batra, Jyotsna, additional, Clements, Judith A., additional, Grönberg, Henrik, additional, Pashayan, Nora, additional, Schleutker, Johanna, additional, Weinstein, Stephanie J., additional, West, Catharine M.L., additional, Mucci, Lorelei A., additional, Cancel-Tassin, Géraldine, additional, Koutros, Stella, additional, Sørensen, Karina Dalsgaard, additional, Grindedal, Eli Marie, additional, Neal, David E., additional, Hamdy, Freddie C., additional, Donovan, Jenny L., additional, Travis, Ruth C., additional, Hamilton, Robert J., additional, Ingles, Sue Ann, additional, Rosenstein, Barry S., additional, Lu, Yong-Jie, additional, Giles, Graham G., additional, MacInnis, Robert J., additional, Kibel, Adam S., additional, Vega, Ana, additional, Kogevinas, Manolis, additional, Penney, Kathryn L., additional, Park, Jong Y., additional, Stanfrod, Janet L., additional, Cybulski, Cezary, additional, Nordestgaard, Børge G., additional, Nielsen, Sune F., additional, Brenner, Hermann, additional, Maier, Christiane, additional, Logothetis, Christopher J., additional, John, Esther M., additional, Teixeira, Manuel R., additional, Neuhausen, Susan L., additional, De Ruyck, Kim, additional, Razack, Azad, additional, Newcomb, Lisa F., additional, Lessel, Davor, additional, Kaneva, Radka, additional, Usmani, Nawaid, additional, Claessens, Frank, additional, Townsend, Paul A., additional, Castelao, Jose Esteban, additional, Roobol, Monique J., additional, Menegaux, Florence, additional, Khaw, Kay-Tee, additional, Cannon-Albright, Lisa, additional, Pandha, Hardev, additional, Thibodeau, Stephen N., additional, Hunter, David J., additional, Kraft, Peter, additional, Blot, William J., additional, and Riboli, Elio, additional

Published
2024
Full Text
View/download PDF

25. A Meta-analysis of Individual Participant Data Reveals an Association between Circulating Levels of IGF-I and Prostate Cancer Risk

Author

Travis, Ruth C, Appleby, Paul N, Martin, Richard M, Holly, Jeff MP, Albanes, Demetrius, Black, Amanda, Bueno-de-Mesquita, HB As, Chan, June M, Chen, Chu, Chirlaque, Maria-Dolores, Cook, Michael B, Deschasaux, Mélanie, Donovan, Jenny L, Ferrucci, Luigi, Galan, Pilar, Giles, Graham G, Giovannucci, Edward L, Gunter, Marc J, Habel, Laurel A, Hamdy, Freddie C, Helzlsouer, Kathy J, Hercberg, Serge, Hoover, Robert N, Janssen, Joseph AMJL, Kaaks, Rudolf, Kubo, Tatsuhiko, Le Marchand, Loic, Metter, E Jeffrey, Mikami, Kazuya, Morris, Joan K, Neal, David E, Neuhouser, Marian L, Ozasa, Kotaro, Palli, Domenico, Platz, Elizabeth A, Pollak, Michael, Price, Alison J, Roobol, Monique J, Schaefer, Catherine, Schenk, Jeannette M, Severi, Gianluca, Stampfer, Meir J, Stattin, Pär, Tamakoshi, Akiko, Tangen, Catherine M, Touvier, Mathilde, Wald, Nicholas J, Weiss, Noel S, Ziegler, Regina G, Key, Timothy J, and Allen, Naomi E

Subjects
Biomedical and Clinical Sciences, Clinical Sciences, Oncology and Carcinogenesis, Aging, Prostate Cancer, Cancer, Urologic Diseases, Aged, Humans, Insulin-Like Growth Factor I, Male, Middle Aged, Prostatic Neoplasms, Risk Factors, Oncology & Carcinogenesis, Biochemistry and cell biology, Oncology and carcinogenesis
Abstract

The role of insulin-like growth factors (IGF) in prostate cancer development is not fully understood. To investigate the association between circulating concentrations of IGFs (IGF-I, IGF-II, IGFBP-1, IGFBP-2, and IGFBP-3) and prostate cancer risk, we pooled individual participant data from 17 prospective and two cross-sectional studies, including up to 10,554 prostate cancer cases and 13,618 control participants. Conditional logistic regression was used to estimate the ORs for prostate cancer based on the study-specific fifth of each analyte. Overall, IGF-I, IGF-II, IGFBP-2, and IGFBP-3 concentrations were positively associated with prostate cancer risk (Ptrend all ≤ 0.005), and IGFBP-1 was inversely associated weakly with risk (Ptrend = 0.05). However, heterogeneity between the prospective and cross-sectional studies was evident (Pheterogeneity = 0.03), unless the analyses were restricted to prospective studies (with the exception of IGF-II, Pheterogeneity = 0.02). For prospective studies, the OR for men in the highest versus the lowest fifth of each analyte was 1.29 (95% confidence interval, 1.16-1.43) for IGF-I, 0.81 (0.68-0.96) for IGFBP-1, and 1.25 (1.12-1.40) for IGFBP-3. These associations did not differ significantly by time-to-diagnosis or tumor stage or grade. After mutual adjustment for each of the other analytes, only IGF-I remained associated with risk. Our collaborative study represents the largest pooled analysis of the relationship between prostate cancer risk and circulating concentrations of IGF-I, providing strong evidence that IGF-I is highly likely to be involved in prostate cancer development. Cancer Res; 76(8); 2288-300. ©2016 AACR.

Published
2016

27. Decision aid and cost compensation influence uptake of PSA-based early detection without affecting decisional conflict: a cluster randomised trial

Author

Tiedje, Dorothee, Borowski, Matthias, Simbrich, Alexandra, Schlößler, Kathrin, Kruse, Klaus, Bothe, Christiane, Kuss, Katrin, Adarkwah, Charles Christian, Maisel, Peter, Jendyk, Ralf, Kurosinski, Marc-André, Gerß, Joachim, Tschuschke, Christian, Becker, Ralf, Roobol, Monique J., Bangma, Chris H., Hense, Hans-Werner, Donner-Banzhoff, Norbert, and Semjonow, Axel

Published
2021
Full Text
View/download PDF

28. Comparison of Tumor Volume Parameters on Prostate Cancer Biopsies

Author

Verhoef, Esther I., Kweldam, Charlotte F., Kummerlin, Intan P., Nieboer, Daan, Bangma, Chris H., Incrocci, Luca, van der Kwast, Theodorus H., Roobol, Monique J., and van Leenders, Geert J.L.H.

Subjects
Antigens -- Usage -- Analysis, Cancer screening -- Usage -- Analysis, Tumors -- Prognosis, Prostate cancer -- Prognosis, Health, World Health Organization
Abstract

Context.--Prostate biopsy reports require an indication of prostate cancer volume. No consensus exists on the methodology of tumor volume reporting. Objective.--To compare the prognostic value of different biopsy prostate cancer volume parameters. Design.--Prostate biopsies of the European Randomized Study of Screening for Prostate Cancer were reviewed (n = 1031). Tumor volume was quantified in 6 ways: average estimated tumor percentage, measured total tumor length, average calculated tumor percentage, greatest tumor length, greatest tumor percentage, and average tumor percentage of all biopsies. Their prognostic value was determined by using either logistic regression for extraprostatic expansion (EPE) and surgical margin status after radical prostatectomy (RP), or Cox regression for biochemical recurrence-free survival (BCRFS) and diseasespecific survival (DSS) after RP (n = 406) and radiation therapy (RT) (n = 508). Results.--All tumor volume parameters were significantly mutually correlated ([R.sup.2] > 0.500, P < .001). None were predictive for EPE, surgical margin, or BCRFS after RP in multivariable analysis, including age, prostate-specific antigen, number of positive biopsies, and grade group. In contrast, all tumor volume parameters were significant predictors for BCRFS (all P < .05) and DSS (all P < .05) after RT, except greatest tumor length. In multivariable analysis including only all tumor volume parameters as covariates, calculated tumor length was the only predictor for EPE after RP (P = .02) and DSS after RT (P = .02). Conclusions.--All tumor volume parameters had comparable prognostic value and could be used in clinical practice. If tumor volume quantification is a threshold for treatment decision, calculated tumor length seems preferential, slightly outperforming the other parameters. doi: 10.5858/arpa.2019-0361-OA, Men suspected of having prostate cancer undergo biopsies to determine the presence and aggressiveness of a potential tumor. Apart from Gleason score (GS) and number of positive biopsies, an indication [...]

Published
2020
Full Text
View/download PDF

31. Health Policy for Prostate Cancer Early Detection in the European Union and the Impact of Opportunistic Screening: PRAISE-U Consortium.

Author

Beyer, Katharina, Leenen, Renée, Venderbos, Lionne D. F., Helleman, Jozien, Denijs, Frederique, Bramer, Wichor, Vasilyeva, Vera, Briers, Erik, Rivas, Juan Gomez, Chloupkova, Renata, Majek, Ondrej, Annemans, Lieven, Vynckier, Pieter, Basu, Partha, Chandran, Arunah, van den Bergh, Roderick, Collen, Sarah, van Poppel, Hendrik, and Roobol, Monique J.

Subjects
MEDICAL screening, EARLY detection of cancer, PROSTATE cancer, HEALTH policy, SCIENTIFIC literature
Abstract

With the new policy recommendation in 2022 to explore the possibilities of screening for prostate cancer by the European Commission, the landscape for prostate cancer early detection is evolving. In line with this recommendation, the PRAISE-U project aims to evaluate the early detection and diagnosis of prostate cancer through customised and risk-based screening programmes, with the goal to align protocols across European Union member states. This systematic review is part of the PRAISE-U project, with the goal to review the policy, medical guideline recommendations, and the current level of opportunistic screening presented in the scientific literature on prostate cancer early detection from 2016 to 2023 in European Union member states. An extensive literature search was performed on 1 June 2023 in a large number of databases, including Embase.com, Medline (Ovid), Web of Science Core Collection, Google Scholar, and Policy Commons. We identified 318 articles (qualitative, quantitative, and reviews), of which 41 were included in the full-text screening. Seventeen articles were ultimately identified as eligible for inclusion. The included articles revealed significant variations towards PSA-based early detection policies for prostate cancer in nine European countries. Despite official recommendations, opportunistic screening was prevalent across all nine countries regardless of recommendations for or against PSA-based early detection. This systematic review suggests that the current early detection policies are not fit for purpose. High levels of opportunistic screening and overdiagnosis persist, prompting policy recommendations for standardised guidelines, informed decision making, and increased awareness to improve efficiency and effectiveness in early detection. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Published
2024
Full Text
View/download PDF

32. Evaluating approaches for constructing polygenic risk scores for prostate cancer in men of African and European ancestry

Author

Darst, Burcu F., primary, Shen, Jiayi, additional, Madduri, Ravi K., additional, Rodriguez, Alexis A., additional, Xiao, Yukai, additional, Sheng, Xin, additional, Saunders, Edward J., additional, Dadaev, Tokhir, additional, Brook, Mark N., additional, Hoffmann, Thomas J., additional, Muir, Kenneth, additional, Wan, Peggy, additional, Le Marchand, Loic, additional, Wilkens, Lynne, additional, Wang, Ying, additional, Schleutker, Johanna, additional, MacInnis, Robert J., additional, Cybulski, Cezary, additional, Neal, David E., additional, Nordestgaard, Børge G., additional, Nielsen, Sune F., additional, Batra, Jyotsna, additional, Clements, Judith A., additional, Cancer BioResource, Australian Prostate, additional, Grönberg, Henrik, additional, Pashayan, Nora, additional, Travis, Ruth C., additional, Park, Jong Y., additional, Albanes, Demetrius, additional, Weinstein, Stephanie, additional, Mucci, Lorelei A., additional, Hunter, David J., additional, Penney, Kathryn L., additional, Tangen, Catherine M., additional, Hamilton, Robert J., additional, Parent, Marie-Élise, additional, Stanford, Janet L., additional, Koutros, Stella, additional, Wolk, Alicja, additional, Sørensen, Karina D., additional, Blot, William J., additional, Yeboah, Edward D., additional, Mensah, James E., additional, Lu, Yong-Jie, additional, Schaid, Daniel J., additional, Thibodeau, Stephen N., additional, West, Catharine M., additional, Maier, Christiane, additional, Kibel, Adam S., additional, Cancel-Tassin, Géraldine, additional, Menegaux, Florence, additional, John, Esther M., additional, Grindedal, Eli Marie, additional, Khaw, Kay-Tee, additional, Ingles, Sue A., additional, Vega, Ana, additional, Rosenstein, Barry S., additional, Teixeira, Manuel R., additional, Kogevinas, Manolis, additional, Cannon-Albright, Lisa, additional, Huff, Chad, additional, Multigner, Luc, additional, Kaneva, Radka, additional, Leach, Robin J., additional, Brenner, Hermann, additional, Hsing, Ann W., additional, Kittles, Rick A., additional, Murphy, Adam B., additional, Logothetis, Christopher J., additional, Neuhausen, Susan L., additional, Isaacs, William B., additional, Nemesure, Barbara, additional, Hennis, Anselm J., additional, Carpten, John, additional, Pandha, Hardev, additional, De Ruyck, Kim, additional, Xu, Jianfeng, additional, Razack, Azad, additional, Teo, Soo-Hwang, additional, Newcomb, Lisa F., additional, Fowke, Jay H., additional, Neslund-Dudas, Christine, additional, Rybicki, Benjamin A., additional, Gamulin, Marija, additional, Usmani, Nawaid, additional, Claessens, Frank, additional, Gago-Dominguez, Manuela, additional, Castelao, Jose Esteban, additional, Townsend, Paul A., additional, Crawford, Dana C., additional, Petrovics, Gyorgy, additional, Casey, Graham, additional, Roobol, Monique J., additional, Hu, Jennifer F., additional, Berndt, Sonja I., additional, Van Den Eeden, Stephen K., additional, Easton, Douglas F., additional, Chanock, Stephen J., additional, Cook, Michael B., additional, Wiklund, Fredrik, additional, Witte, John S., additional, Eeles, Rosalind A., additional, Kote-Jarai, Zsofia, additional, Watya, Stephen, additional, Gaziano, John M., additional, Justice, Amy C., additional, Conti, David V., additional, and Haiman, Christopher A., additional

Published
2023
Full Text
View/download PDF

33. How to follow the new EU Council recommendation and improve prostate cancer early detection: the Prostaforum 2022 declaration

Author

Májek, Ondřej, Babjuk, Marek, Roobol, Monique J., Bratt, Ola, Van Poppel, Hendrik, Zachoval, Roman, Ferda, Jiří, Koudelková, Marcela, Ngo, Ondřej, Gregor, Jakub, Collen, Sarah, Hejduk, Karel, Dušek, Ladislav, Válek, Vlastimil, and Urology

Subjects
SDG 3 - Good Health and Well-being
Abstract

An updated Council of the EU recommendation on cancer screening was adopted in December 2022 during the Czech EU presidency. The recommendation included prostate cancer as a suitable target disease for organised screening, and invited countries to proceed with piloting and further research. To support further discussions and actions to promote early detection of prostate cancer, an international conference in November 2022 (Prostaforum 2022) resulted in a joint declaration. Here we describe the EU policy background, summarise the preparation of the declaration and the key underlying evidence and expert recommendations, and report the text of the declaration. The declaration summarises the striking inequalities in prostate cancer burden in Europe and calls on all stakeholders to consider and support concrete steps for advancement of organised early detection of prostate cancer. Our aim is to request endorsement of the text and potential initiation of practical actions by all stakeholders to support the aims of the declaration. Patient summary: Prostate cancer is among the most frequent cancers and is one of the most common causes of cancer death among men. The European Union has recommended new pilot programmes for prostate cancer screening. The Prostaforum 2022 declaration invites all stakeholders to support this new recommendation with specific steps.

Published
2023

34. An integrative multi-omics analysis to identify candidate DNA methylation biomarkers related to prostate cancer risk

Author

Wu, Lang, Yang, Yaohua, Guo, Xingyi, Shu, Xiao-Ou, Cai, Qiuyin, Shu, Xiang, Li, Bingshan, Tao, Ran, Wu, Chong, Nikas, Jason B., Sun, Yanfa, Zhu, Jingjing, Roobol, Monique J., Giles, Graham G., Brenner, Hermann, John, Esther M., Clements, Judith, Grindedal, Eli Marie, Park, Jong Y., Stanford, Janet L., Kote-Jarai, Zsofia, Haiman, Christopher A., Eeles, Rosalind A., Zheng, Wei, and Long, Jirong

Published
2020
Full Text
View/download PDF

35. Survivorship Data in Prostate Cancer: Where Are We and Where Do We Need To Be?

Author

Smith, Emma, N'Dow, James, Plass, Karin, Ribal, Maria, Mottet, Nicolas, Shepherd, Robert, Abbott, Tom, Mastris, Ken, Moris, Lisa, Lardas, Michael, Van den Broeck, Thomas, Willemse, Peter-Paul, Fossati, Nicola, Pang, Karl, Campi, Riccardo, Greco, Isabella, Gacci, Mauro, Serni, Sergio, Bjartell, Anders, Lonnerbro, Ragnar, Briganti, Alberto, Crosti, Daniele, Garzonio, Roberto, Gandaglia, Giorgio, Faticoni, Martina, Grant office, Bangma, Chris, Jongerden, Maria, Tilki, Derya, Auvinen, Anssi, Murtola, Teemu, Visakorpi, Tapio, Talala, Kirsi, Tammela, Teuvo, Siltari, Aino, Lejeune, Stephane, Colette, Laurence, Caputova, Simona, Poli, Delielena, Byrne, Sophie, Fialho, Luz, Rowland, Ashley, Tapela, Neo, Di Flora, Nicola, Apostolidis, Kathi, Lemair, Valerie, De Meulder, Bertrand, Auffray, Charles, Taibi, Nesrine, Hijazy, Ayman, Saporta, Albert, Sun, Kai, Power, Shaun, Zounemat Kermani, Nazanin, van Bochove, Kees, Tafreshiha, Azadeh, Bernini, Chiara, Horgan, Denis, Fullwood, Louise, Holtorf, Marc, Lancet, Doron, Bernstein, Gabi, Tripathee, Sheela, Wirth, Manfred, Froehner, Michael, Brenner, Beate, Borkowetz, Angelika, Thomas, Christian, Horn, Friedemann, Reiche, Kristin, Kreuz, Markus, Josefsson, Andreas, Gasi Tandefelt, Delila, Hugosson, Jonas, Schalken, Jack, Huisman, Henkjan, Hofmarcher, Thomas, Lindgren, Peter, Andersson, Emelie, Fridhammar, Adam, Tames Grijalva, Monica, Evans-Axelsson, Susan, Verholen, Frank, Zong, Jihong, Butler-Ransohoff, John-Edward, Williamson, Todd, Waldeck, Reg, Bruno, Amanda, Nevedomskaya, Ekaterina, Fatoba, Samuel, Constantinovici, Niculae, Steinbeisser, Carl, Maass, Monika, Torremante, Patrizia, Dochy, Emmanuelle, Pisa, Federica, Voss, Marc Dietrich, Papineni, Kishore, Wang-silvanto, Jing, Snijder, Robert, Wang, Xuewei, Lambrecht, Mark, Wolfinger, Russ, Eid, Sherinne, Palanisamy, Soundarya, Haque, Samiul, Antoni, Laurent, Servan, Angela, Pascoe, Katie, Robinson, Paul, Lencart, Joana, Jaton, Bertrand, Turunen, Heidi, Kilkku, Olavi, Pohjanjousi, Pasi, Voima, Olli, Nevalaita, Liina, Punakivi, Keijo, Seager, Sarah, Ratwani, Shilpa, Grzeslak, Katarzyna, Brash, James, Longden-Chapman, Elaine, Burke, Danny, Licour, Muriel, Payne, Sarah, Yong, Alan, Lujan, Flavia, Le Mare, Sophia, Hendrich, Jan, Bussmann, Michael, Juckeland, Kotik, Reich, Christian, Russell, Beth, Beyer, Katharina, Lawlor, Ailbhe, Roobol, Monique J., Venderbos, Lionne D.F., Remmers, Sebastiaan, Briers, Erik, MacLennan, Sara J., MacLennan, Steven, Omar, Muhammad Imran, and Van Hemelrijck, Mieke

Published
2024
Full Text
View/download PDF

40. Research protocol to identify progression and death amongst patients with metastatic hormone-sensitive prostate cancer treated with available treatments: PIONEER IMI's "big data for better outcomes" program.

Author

Gomez Rivas, Juan, Nicoletti, Rossella, Ibáñez, Laura, Steinbeisser, Carl, de Meulder, Bertrand, Golozar, Asieh, Evans Axelsson, Susan, Snijder, Robert, Bjartell, Anders, Cornford, Philip, Van Hemelrijck, Mieke, Beyer, Katharina, Willemse, Peter-Paul, Murtola, Teemu, Roobol, Monique J., Moreno-Sierra, Jesús, Campi, Riccardo, Gacci, Mauro, Mottet, Nicolas, and Merseburger, Axel

Published
2023
Full Text
View/download PDF

41. Navigating through the Controversies and Emerging Paradigms in Early Detection of Prostate Cancer: Bridging the Gap from Classic RCTs to Modern Population-Based Pilot Programs.

Author

Gómez Rivas, Juan, Leenen, Renée C. A., Venderbos, Lionne D. F., Helleman, Jozien, de la Parra, Irene, Vasilyeva, Vera, Moreno-Sierra, Jesús, Basu, Partha, Chandran, Arunah, van den Bergh, Roderick C. N., Collen, Sarah, Van Poppel, Hein, Roobol, Monique J., and Beyer, Katharina

Subjects
EARLY detection of cancer, PROSTATE cancer, MEDICAL screening, PILOT projects, PROSTATE biopsy, CANCER-related mortality
Abstract

Over the last three decades, the European Randomized Study of Screening for Prostate Cancer (ERSPC) and the US-based Prostate, Lung, Colorectal and Ovarian (PLCO) Cancer Screening have steered the conversation around the early detection of prostate cancer. These two randomized trials assessed the effect of screening on prostate cancer disease-specific mortality. Elevated PSA levels were followed by a systematic sextant prostate biopsy. Standard repeat testing intervals were applied. After controversies from 2009 to 2016 due to contradicting results of the two trials, the results aligned in 2016 and showed that early PSA detection reduces prostate cancer-specific mortality. However, overdiagnosis rates of up to 50% were reported, and this sparked an intense debate on harms and benefits for almost 20 years. The balance between harms and benefits is highly debated and has initiated further research to investigate new ways of early detection. In the meantime, the knowledge and tools for the diagnostic algorithm improved. This is a continuously ongoing effort which focuses on individual risk-based screening algorithms that preserve the benefits of the purely PSA-based screening algorithms, while reducing the side effects. An important push towards investigating new techniques for early detection came from the European Commission on the 20th of September 2022. The European Commission published its updated recommendation to investigate prostate, lung, and gastric cancer early detection programs. This opened a new window of opportunity to move away from the trial setting to population-based early detection settings. With this review, we aim to review 30 years of historical evidence of prostate cancer screening, which led to the initiation of the 'The Prostate Cancer Awareness and Initiative for Screening in the European Union' (PRAISE-U) project, which aims to encourage the early detection and diagnosis of PCa through customized and risk-based screening programs. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Published
2023
Full Text
View/download PDF

42. Evaluating Approaches for Constructing Polygenic Risk Scores for Prostate Cancer in Men of African and European Ancestry

Author

Darst, Burcu F., Shen, Jiayi, Madduri, Ravi K., Rodriguez, Alexis A., Xiao, Yukai, Sheng, Xin, Saunders, Edward J., Dadaev, Tokhir, Brook, Mark N., Hoffmann, Thomas J., Muir, Kenneth, Wan, Peggy, Marchand, Loic Le, Wilkens, Lynne, Wang, Ying, Schleutker, Johanna, MacInnis, Robert J., Cybulski, Cezary, Neal, David E., G. Nordestgaard, Børge, Nielsen, Sune F., Batra, Jyotsna, Clements, Judith A., Grönberg, Henrik, Pashayan, Nora, Travis, Ruth C., Park, Jong Y., Albanes, Demetrius, Weinstein, Stephanie, Mucci, Lorelei A., Hunter, David J., Penney, Kathryn L., Tangen, Catherine M., Hamilton, Robert J., Parent, Marie-Élise, Stanford, Janet L., Koutros, Stella, Wolk, Alicja, Sørensen, Karina D., Blot, William J., Yeboah, Edward D., Mensah, James E., Lu, Yong-Jie, Schaid, Daniel J., Thibodeau, Stephen N., West, Catharine M., Maier, Christiane, Kibel, Adam S., Cancel-Tassin, Géraldine, Menegaux, Florence, John, Esther M., Grindedal, Eli Marie, Khaw, Kay-Tee, Ingles, Sue A., Vega, Ana, Rosenstein, Barry S., Teixeira, Manuel R., Kogevinas, Manolis, Cannon-Albright, Lisa, Huff, Chad, Multigner, Luc, Kaneva, Radka, Leach, Robin J., Brenner, Hermann, Hsing, Ann W., Kittles, Rick A., Murphy, Adam B., Logothetis, Christopher J., Neuhausen, Susan L., Isaacs, William B., Nemesure, Barbara, Hennis, Anselm J., Carpten, John, Pandha, Hardev, De Ruyck, Kim, Xu, Jianfeng, Razack, Azad, Teo, Soo-Hwang, Newcomb, Lisa F., Fowke, Jay H., Neslund-Dudas, Christine, Rybicki, Benjamin A., Gamulin, Marija, Usmani, Nawaid, Claessens, Frank, Gago-Dominguez, Manuela, Castelao, Jose Esteban, Townsend, Paul A., Crawford, Dana C., Petrovics, Gyorgy, Casey, Graham, Roobol, Monique J., Hu, Jennifer F., Berndt, Sonja I., Van Den Eeden, Stephen K., Easton, Douglas F., Chanock, Stephen J., Cook, Michael B., Wiklund, Fredrik, Witte, John S., Eeles, Rosalind A., Kote-Jarai, Zsofia, Watya, Stephen, Gaziano, John M., Justice, Amy C., Conti, David V., and Haiman, Christopher A.

Subjects
Article
Abstract

Genome-wide polygenic risk scores (GW-PRS) have been reported to have better predictive ability than PRS based on genome-wide significance thresholds across numerous traits. We compared the predictive ability of several GW-PRS approaches to a recently developed PRS of 269 established prostate cancer risk variants from multi-ancestry GWAS and fine-mapping studies (PRS (269) ). GW-PRS models were trained using a large and diverse prostate cancer GWAS of 107,247 cases and 127,006 controls used to develop the multi-ancestry PRS (269) . Resulting models were independently tested in 1,586 cases and 1,047 controls of African ancestry from the California/Uganda Study and 8,046 cases and 191,825 controls of European ancestry from the UK Biobank and further validated in 13,643 cases and 210,214 controls of European ancestry and 6,353 cases and 53,362 controls of African ancestry from the Million Veteran Program. In the testing data, the best performing GW-PRS approach had AUCs of 0.656 (95% CI=0.635-0.677) in African and 0.844 (95% CI=0.840-0.848) in European ancestry men and corresponding prostate cancer OR of 1.83 (95% CI=1.67-2.00) and 2.19 (95% CI=2.14-2.25), respectively, for each SD unit increase in the GW-PRS. However, compared to the GW-PRS, in African and European ancestry men, the PRS (269) had larger or similar AUCs (AUC=0.679, 95% CI=0.659-0.700 and AUC=0.845, 95% CI=0.841-0.849, respectively) and comparable prostate cancer OR (OR=2.05, 95% CI=1.87-2.26 and OR=2.21, 95% CI=2.16-2.26, respectively). Findings were similar in the validation data. This investigation suggests that current GW-PRS approaches may not improve the ability to predict prostate cancer risk compared to the multi-ancestry PRS (269) constructed with fine-mapping.

Published
2023

43. A Detailed Evaluation of the Effect of Prostate-specific Antigen–based Screening on Morbidity and Mortality of Prostate Cancer: 21-year Follow-up Results of the Rotterdam Section of the European Randomised Study of Screening for Prostate Cancer

Author

de Vos, Ivo I., Meertens, Annick, Hogenhout, Renée, Remmers, Sebastiaan, Roobol, Monique J., Rotterdam Study Group, ERSPC, and Urology

Subjects
SDG 3 - Good Health and Well-being, Urology, Medicine and Health Sciences
Abstract

Background: Considering the long natural history of prostate cancer (PCa), long-term results of the European Randomised Study of Screening for PCa (ERSPC) are crucial. Objective: To provide an update on the effect of prostate-specific antigen (PSA)-based screening on PCa-specific mortality (PCSM), metastatic disease, and overdiagnosis in the Dutch arm of the ERSPC. Design, setting, and participants: Between 1993 and 2000, a total of 42 376 men, aged 55–74 yr, were randomised to a screening or a control arm. The main analysis was performed with men aged 55–69 yr (n = 34 831). Men in the screening arm were offered PSA-based screening with an interval of 4 yr. Outcome measurements and statistical analysis: Intention-to-screen analyses with Poisson regression were used to calculate rate ratios (RRs) of PCSM and metastatic PCa. Results and limitations: After a median follow-up of 21 yr, the RR of PCSM was 0.73 (95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.61–0.88) favouring screening. The numbers of men needed to invite (NNI) and needed to diagnose (NND) to prevent one PCa death were 246 and 14, respectively. For metastatic PCa, the RR was 0.67 (95% CI: 0.58–0.78) favouring screening. The NNI and NND to prevent one metastasis were 121 and 7, respectively. No statistical difference in PCSM (RR of 1.18 [95% CI: 0.87–1.62]) was observed in men aged ≥70 yr at the time of randomisation. In the screening arm, higher rates of PCSM and metastatic disease were observed in men who were screened only once and in a selected group of men above the screening age cut-off of 74 yr. Conclusions: The current analysis illustrates that with a follow-up of 21 yr, both absolute metastasis and mortality reduction continue to increase, resulting in a more favourable harm-benefit ratio than demonstrated previously. These data do not support starting screening at the age of 70–74 yr and show that repeated screening is essential. Patient summary: Prostate-specific antigen–based prostate cancer screening reduces metastasis and mortality. Longer follow-up shows fewer invitations and diagnoses needed to prevent one death, a positive note towards the issue of overdiagnosis.

Published
2023

44. Urinary Incontinence and Sexual Function After the Introduction of NeuroSAFE in Radical Prostatectomy for Prostate Cancer

Author

van der Slot, Margaretha A., Remmers, Sebastiaan, van Leenders, Geert J.L.H., Busstra, Martijn B., Gan, Melanie, Klaver, Sjoerd, Rietbergen, John B.W., den Bakker, Michael A., Kweldam, Charlotte F., Bangma, Chris H., Roobol, Monique J., Venderbos, Lionne D.F., and Urology

Subjects
SDG 3 - Good Health and Well-being, Urology
Abstract

Background: Nerve-sparing (NS) radical prostatectomy (RP) results in better functional outcomes. Intraoperative neurovascular structure–adjacent frozen section examination (NeuroSAFE) significantly increases the frequency of NS surgery. The effect of NeuroSAFE on postoperative erectile function (EF) and continence is not yet clear. Objective: To describe EF and continence outcomes for men undergoing RP with the NeuroSAFE technique. Design, setting, and participants: Between September 2018 and February 2021, 1034 men underwent robot-assisted RP. Data for patient-reported outcomes were collected via validated questionnaires. Intervention: NeuroSAFE technique for RP. Outcome measurements and statistical analysis: Continence was assessed using the International Consultation on Incontinence Questionnaire-Urinary Incontinence Short Form (ICIQ-UI SF) or Expanded Prostate Cancer Index Composite short form (EPIC-26) and defined as use of 0–1 pads/d. EF was evaluated using EPIC-26 or the International Index of Erectile Function short form (IIEF-5), with data converted according to the Vertosick method and categorized. Descriptive statistics were used to asses and describe tumor characteristics and continence and EF outcomes. Results and limitations: Of the 1034 men who underwent RP after introduction of the NeuroSAFE technique, 63% and 60% completed a preoperative and at least one postoperative questionnaire on continence and EF, respectively. Of the men who underwent unilateral or bilateral NS surgery, use of 0–1 pads/d was reported by 93% after 1 yr and 96% after 2 yr; the corresponding rates for men who underwent non-NS surgery were 86% and 78%. Overall, use of 0–1 pads/d was reported by 92% of the men at 1 yr and by 94% at 2 yr after RP. Men in the NS group had a good or intermediate Vertosick score after RP more often than the non-NS group. Overall, 44% of the men had a good or intermediate Vertosick score at 1 and 2 yr after RP. Conclusions: After introduction of the NeuroSAFE technique, the continence rate was 92% at 1 yr and 94% at 2 yr after RP. The NS group had a greater percentage of men with an intermediate or good Vertosick score and a higher continence rate after RP in comparison to the non-NS group. Patient summary: Our study shows that after introduction of the NeuroSAFE technique during removal of the prostate, the continence rate among patients was 92% at 1 year and 94% at 2 years after surgery. Some 44% of the men had a good or intermediate score for erectile function 1 and 2 years after surgery.

Published
2023

45. Relationship Between Baseline Prostate-specific Antigen on Cancer Detection and Prostate Cancer Death: Long-term Follow-up from the European Randomized Study of Screening for Prostate Cancer

Author

Remmers, Sebastiaan, Bangma, Chris H., Godtman, Rebecka A., Carlsson, Sigrid V., Auvinen, Anssi, Tammela, Teuvo L.J., Denis, Louis J., Nelen, Vera, Villers, Arnauld, Rebillard, Xavier, Kwiatkowski, Maciej, Recker, Franz, Wyler, Stephen, Zappa, Marco, Puliti, Donella, Gorini, Giuseppe, Paez, Alvaro, Lujan, Marcos, Nieboer, Daan, Schröder, Fritz H., Roobol, Monique J., Urology, and Public Health

Subjects
SDG 3 - Good Health and Well-being, Urology
Abstract

Background: The European Association of Urology guidelines recommend a risk-based strategy for prostate cancer screening based on the first prostate-specific antigen (PSA) level and age. Objective: To analyze the impact of the first PSA level on prostate cancer (PCa) detection and PCa-specific mortality (PCSM) in a population-based screening trial (repeat screening every 2–4 yr). Design, setting, and participants: We evaluated 25 589 men aged 55–59 yr, 16 898 men aged 60–64 yr, and 12 936 men aged 65–69 yr who attended at least one screening visit in the European Randomized Study of Screening for Prostate Cancer (ERSPC) trial (screening arm: repeat PSA testing every 2–4 yr and biopsy in cases with elevated PSA; control arm: no active screening offered) during 16-yr follow-up (FU). Outcome measurements and statistical analysis: We assessed the actuarial probability for any PCa and for clinically significant (cs)PCa (Gleason ≥7). Cox proportional-hazards regression was performed to assess whether the association between baseline PSA and PCSM was comparable for all age groups. A Lorenz curve was computed to assess the association between baseline PSA and PCSM for men aged 60–61 yr. Results and limitations: The overall actuarial probability at 16 yr ranged from 12% to 16% for any PCa and from 3.7% to 5.7% for csPCa across the age groups. The actuarial probability of csPCa at 16 yr ranged from 1.2–1.5% for men with PSA

Published
2023

46. Prostate cancer risk assessment by the primary care physician and urologist: transabdominal- versus transrectal ultrasound prostate volume-based use of the Rotterdam Prostate Cancer Risk Calculator

Author

de Vos, Ivo I., primary, Drost, Frank-Jan H., additional, Bokhorst, Leonard P., additional, Alberts, Arnout R., additional, van Gelder, Martine, additional, Herman, Erik M., additional, Boswinkel, Wouter D., additional, Bangma, Chris H., additional, and Roobol, Monique J., additional

Published
2023
Full Text
View/download PDF

47. The combined role of MRI prostate and prostate health index in improving detection of significant prostate cancer in a screening population of Chinese men

Author

Chiu, Peter KF, primary, Lam, Thomas YT, additional, Ng, Chi-Fai, additional, Teoh, Jeremy YC, additional, Cho, Carmen CM, additional, Hung, Hiu-Yee, additional, Hong, Cindy, additional, Roobol, Monique J, additional, Chu, Winnie CW, additional, Wong, Samuel YS, additional, and Sung, Joseph JY, additional

Published
2023
Full Text
View/download PDF

49. Externe validatie van de Prostaatwijzer binnen een Nederlands klinisch hoogrisicocohort

Author

Hagens, Marinus J., Stelwagen, Piter J., Veerman, Hans, Rynja, Sybren P., Smeenge, Martijn, van der Noort, Vincent, Roeleveld, Ton A., van Kesteren, Jolien, Remmers, Sebastiaan, Roobol, Monique J., van Leeuwen, Pim J., van der Poel, Henk G., and Urology

Subjects
SDG 3 - Good Health and Well-being
Abstract

The positive effect of the Rotterdam Prostate Cancer Risk Calculator (RPCRC)-3/4 and RPCRC-MRI has already been confirmed. Nevertheless, its performance and applicability in clinical practice are still questioned. This study performs an external validation of the RPCRC-3/4 and -MRI within a Dutch clinical high-risk cohort. Men (n = 1,575) subjected to prostate biopsies between 2018 and 2021 due to a clinical suspicion of prostate cancer (PCa) were retrospectively included. PCa and clinically significant PCa (csPCa) were diagnosed in 996/1,575 (63.2%) and 656/1,575 (41.7%) men, respectively. The analysis showed that the RPCRC-3/4 underestimates the risk of csPCa within this Dutch high-risk clinical cohort: even though the RPCRC-3/4 could have prevented 37.3% of all MRIs, 18.3% of csPCa diagnoses would have been consequently missed. Recalibration of this risk calculator and adjustment of its risk thresholds was therefore indicated. The RPCRC-MRI, on the other hand, performed adequately and recalibration was not necessary.

Published
2023

50. Publisher Correction: Shared heritability and functional enrichment across six solid cancers

Author

Jiang, Xia, Finucane, Hilary K., Schumacher, Fredrick R., Schmit, Stephanie L., Tyrer, Jonathan P., Han, Younghun, Michailidou, Kyriaki, Lesseur, Corina, Kuchenbaecker, Karoline B., Dennis, Joe, Conti, David V., Casey, Graham, Gaudet, Mia M., Huyghe, Jeroen R., Albanes, Demetrius, Aldrich, Melinda C., Andrew, Angeline S., Andrulis, Irene L., Anton-Culver, Hoda, Antoniou, Antonis C., Antonenkova, Natalia N., Arnold, Susanne M., Aronson, Kristan J., Arun, Banu K., Bandera, Elisa V., Barkardottir, Rosa B., Barnes, Daniel R., Batra, Jyotsna, Beckmann, Matthias W., Benitez, Javier, Benlloch, Sara, Berchuck, Andrew, Berndt, Sonja I., Bickeböller, Heike, Bien, Stephanie A., Blomqvist, Carl, Boccia, Stefania, Bogdanova, Natalia V., Bojesen, Stig E., Bolla, Manjeet K., Brauch, Hiltrud, Brenner, Hermann, Brenton, James D., Brook, Mark N., Brunet, Joan, Brunnström, Hans, Buchanan, Daniel D., Burwinkel, Barbara, Butzow, Ralf, Cadoni, Gabriella, Caldés, Trinidad, Caligo, Maria A., Campbell, Ian, Campbell, Peter T., Cancel-Tassin, Géraldine, Cannon-Albright, Lisa, Campa, Daniele, Caporaso, Neil, Carvalho, André L., Chan, Andrew T., Chang-Claude, Jenny, Chanock, Stephen J., Chen, Chu, Christiani, David C., Claes, Kathleen B. M., Claessens, Frank, Clements, Judith, Collée, J. Margriet, Correa, Marcia Cruz, Couch, Fergus J., Cox, Angela, Cunningham, Julie M., Cybulski, Cezary, Czene, Kamila, Daly, Mary B., deFazio, Anna, Devilee, Peter, Diez, Orland, Gago-Dominguez, Manuela, Donovan, Jenny L., Dörk, Thilo, Duell, Eric J., Dunning, Alison M., Dwek, Miriam, Eccles, Diana M., Edlund, Christopher K., Edwards, Digna R. Velez, Ellberg, Carolina, Evans, D. Gareth, Fasching, Peter A., Ferris, Robert L., Liloglou, Triantafillos, Figueiredo, Jane C., Fletcher, Olivia, Fortner, Renée T., Fostira, Florentia, Franceschi, Silvia, Friedman, Eitan, Gallinger, Steven J., Ganz, Patricia A., Garber, Judy, García-Sáenz, José A., Gayther, Simon A., Giles, Graham G., Godwin, Andrew K., Goldberg, Mark S., Goldgar, David E., Goode, Ellen L., Goodman, Marc T., Goodman, Gary, Grankvist, Kjell, Greene, Mark H., Gronberg, Henrik, Gronwald, Jacek, Guénel, Pascal, Håkansson, Niclas, Hall, Per, Hamann, Ute, Hamdy, Freddie C., Hamilton, Robert J., Hampe, Jochen, Haugen, Aage, Heitz, Florian, Herrero, Rolando, Hillemanns, Peter, Hoffmeister, Michael, Høgdall, Estrid, Hong, Yun-Chul, Hopper, John L., Houlston, Richard, Hulick, Peter J., Hunter, David J., Huntsman, David G., Idos, Gregory, Imyanitov, Evgeny N., Ingles, Sue Ann, Isaacs, Claudine, Jakubowska, Anna, James, Paul, Jenkins, Mark A., Johansson, Mattias, Johansson, Mikael, John, Esther M., Joshi, Amit D., Kaneva, Radka, Karlan, Beth Y., Kelemen, Linda E., Kühl, Tabea, Khaw, Kay-Tee, Khusnutdinova, Elza, Kibel, Adam S., Kiemeney, Lambertus A., Kim, Jeri, Kjaer, Susanne K., Knight, Julia A., Kogevinas, Manolis, Kote-Jarai, Zsofia, Koutros, Stella, Kristensen, Vessela N., Kupryjanczyk, Jolanta, Lacko, Martin, Lam, Stephan, Lambrechts, Diether, Landi, Maria Teresa, Lazarus, Philip, Le, Nhu D., Lee, Eunjung, Lejbkowicz, Flavio, Lenz, Heinz-Josef, Leslie, Goska, Lessel, Davor, Lester, Jenny, Levine, Douglas A., Li, Li, Li, Christopher I., Lindblom, Annika, Lindor, Noralane M., Liu, Geoffrey, Loupakis, Fotios, Lubiński, Jan, Maehle, Lovise, Maier, Christiane, Mannermaa, Arto, Marchand, Loic Le, Margolin, Sara, May, Taymaa, McGuffog, Lesley, Meindl, Alfons, Middha, Pooja, Miller, Austin, Milne, Roger L., MacInnis, Robert J., Modugno, Francesmary, Montagna, Marco, Moreno, Victor, Moysich, Kirsten B., Mucci, Lorelei, Muir, Kenneth, Mulligan, Anna Marie, Nathanson, Katherine L., Neal, David E., Ness, Andrew R., Neuhausen, Susan L., Nevanlinna, Heli, Newcomb, Polly A., Newcomb, Lisa F., Nielsen, Finn Cilius, Nikitina-Zake, Liene, Nordestgaard, Børge G., Nussbaum, Robert L., Offit, Kenneth, Olah, Edith, Olama, Ali Amin Al, Olopade, Olufunmilayo I., Olshan, Andrew F., Olsson, Håkan, Osorio, Ana, Pandha, Hardev, Park, Jong Y., Pashayan, Nora, Parsons, Michael T., Pejovic, Tanja, Penney, Kathryn L., Peters, Wilbert H. M., Phelan, Catherine M., Phipps, Amanda I., Plaseska-Karanfilska, Dijana, Pring, Miranda, Prokofyeva, Darya, Radice, Paolo, Stefansson, Kari, Ramus, Susan J., Raskin, Leon, Rennert, Gad, Rennert, Hedy S., van Rensburg, Elizabeth J., Riggan, Marjorie J., Risch, Harvey A., Risch, Angela, Roobol, Monique J., Rosenstein, Barry S., Rossing, Mary Anne, De Ruyck, Kim, Saloustros, Emmanouil, Sandler, Dale P., Sawyer, Elinor J., Schabath, Matthew B., Schleutker, Johanna, Schmidt, Marjanka K., Setiawan, V. Wendy, Shen, Hongbing, Siegel, Erin M., Sieh, Weiva, Singer, Christian F., Slattery, Martha L., Sorensen, Karina Dalsgaard, Southey, Melissa C., Spurdle, Amanda B., Stanford, Janet L., Stevens, Victoria L., Stintzing, Sebastian, Stone, Jennifer, Sundfeldt, Karin, Sutphen, Rebecca, Swerdlow, Anthony J., Tajara, Eloiza H., Tangen, Catherine M., Tardon, Adonina, Taylor, Jack A., Teare, M. Dawn, Teixeira, Manuel R., Terry, Mary Beth, Terry, Kathryn L., Thibodeau, Stephen N., Thomassen, Mads, Bjørge, Line, Tischkowitz, Marc, Toland, Amanda E., Torres, Diana, Townsend, Paul A., Travis, Ruth C., Tung, Nadine, Tworoger, Shelley S., Ulrich, Cornelia M., Usmani, Nawaid, Vachon, Celine M., Van Nieuwenhuysen, Els, Vega, Ana, Aguado-Barrera, Miguel Elías, Wang, Qin, Webb, Penelope M., Weinberg, Clarice R., Weinstein, Stephanie, Weissler, Mark C., Weitzel, Jeffrey N., West, Catharine M. L., White, Emily, Whittemore, Alice S., Wichmann, H-Erich, Wiklund, Fredrik, Winqvist, Robert, Wolk, Alicja, Woll, Penella, Woods, Michael, Wu, Anna H., Wu, Xifeng, Yannoukakos, Drakoulis, Zheng, Wei, Zienolddiny, Shanbeh, Ziogas, Argyrios, Zorn, Kristin K., Lane, Jacqueline M., Saxena, Richa, Thomas, Duncan, Hung, Rayjean J., Diergaarde, Brenda, McKay, James, Peters, Ulrike, Hsu, Li, García-Closas, Montserrat, Eeles, Rosalind A., Chenevix-Trench, Georgia, Brennan, Paul J., Haiman, Christopher A., Simard, Jacques, Easton, Douglas F., Gruber, Stephen B., Pharoah, Paul D. P., Price, Alkes L., Pasaniuc, Bogdan, Amos, Christopher I., Kraft, Peter, and Lindström, Sara

Published
2019
Full Text
View/download PDF

Catalog

Books, media, physical & digital resources
See catalog results