Skip to main content
Top
Published in: BMC Urology 1/2017

Open Access 01-12-2017 | Research article

Impact of a protein-based assay that predicts prostate cancer aggressiveness on urologists’ recommendations for active treatment or active surveillance: a randomized clinical utility trial

Authors: John W. Peabody, Lisa M. DeMaria, Diana Tamondong-Lachica, Jhiedon Florentino, M. Czarina Acelajado, Othman Ouenes, Jerome P. Richie, Trever Burgon

Published in: BMC Urology | Issue 1/2017

Login to get access

Abstract

Background

Of the more than 1.1 million men diagnosed worldwide annually with prostate cancer, the majority have indolent tumors. Distinguishing between aggressive and indolent cancer is an important clinical challenge. The current approaches for assessing tumor aggressiveness are recognized as insufficient. A validated protein-based assay has been shown to predict tumor aggressiveness from prostate biopsy. The main objective of this study was to measure the clinical utility of this new assay in the management of early-stage prostate cancer.

Methods

One hundred twenty nine board-certified urologists were asked to participate in a randomized, two-arm experiment. We collected data over 2 rounds using simulated clinical cases administered via an online platform. The cases were all newly diagnosed Gleason 3 + 3 or 3 + 4 prostate camcer patients. Urologists in the intervention arm received a 15-min webinar on this protein-based assay and given assay test results for their simulated patients in round 2. Each case had a preferred recommendation of either active surveillance or active treatment. The measured outcome was rate of preferred recommendation, defined as urologists who recommended the proper treatment course. Analyses were done using difference-in-difference estimations.

Results

Using multinomial logistical regression, urologists who were given the assay results were significantly more likely to choose the preferred recommendation (active surveillance or active treatment) compared to controls (p = 0.004). These urologists were also significantly more likely to involve their patients in the treatment decision compared to controls (p = 0.001).

Conclusions

By providing additional information to inform the physician’s treatment plan, a protein-based assay shows demonstrable clinical utility confirmed through a rigorous randomized controlled study design and regression analyses to test for effects.
Literature
1.
go back to reference Ferlay J, Soerjomataram I, Ervik M, et al. GLOBOCAN 2012 v 1.1. Cancer Incidence and Mortality Worldwide: IARC CancerBase No.11 Lyon, France. International Agency for Research on Cancer; 2014. Ferlay J, Soerjomataram I, Ervik M, et al. GLOBOCAN 2012 v 1.1. Cancer Incidence and Mortality Worldwide: IARC CancerBase No.11 Lyon, France. International Agency for Research on Cancer; 2014.
2.
go back to reference Center MM, Jemal A, Lortet-Tieulen J, et al. International variation in prostate cancer incidence and mortality rates. Eur Urol. 2012;61:1079–92.CrossRefPubMed Center MM, Jemal A, Lortet-Tieulen J, et al. International variation in prostate cancer incidence and mortality rates. Eur Urol. 2012;61:1079–92.CrossRefPubMed
4.
go back to reference Nguyen PL, Gu X, Lipsitz SR, et al. Cost implications of the rapid adoption of newer technologies for treating prostate cancer. J Clin Onc. 2011;29:1517–24.CrossRef Nguyen PL, Gu X, Lipsitz SR, et al. Cost implications of the rapid adoption of newer technologies for treating prostate cancer. J Clin Onc. 2011;29:1517–24.CrossRef
5.
go back to reference Cooperberg MR, Carroll PR. Trends in management for patients with localized prostate cancer, 1990-2013. JAMA. 2015;314:80–2.CrossRefPubMed Cooperberg MR, Carroll PR. Trends in management for patients with localized prostate cancer, 1990-2013. JAMA. 2015;314:80–2.CrossRefPubMed
6.
go back to reference Mohler JL, Kantoff PW, Armstrong AJ, et al. Prostate cancer, version 2.2014. J Natl Compr Cancer Netw. 2014;12:686–718.CrossRef Mohler JL, Kantoff PW, Armstrong AJ, et al. Prostate cancer, version 2.2014. J Natl Compr Cancer Netw. 2014;12:686–718.CrossRef
7.
go back to reference Heidenreich A, Bastian PJ, Bellmunt J, et al. EAU guidelines on prostate cancer. Part 1:screening, diagnosis, and local treatment with curative intent - update 2013. Eur Urol. 2014;65:124–37.CrossRefPubMed Heidenreich A, Bastian PJ, Bellmunt J, et al. EAU guidelines on prostate cancer. Part 1:screening, diagnosis, and local treatment with curative intent - update 2013. Eur Urol. 2014;65:124–37.CrossRefPubMed
8.
go back to reference Hayes JH, Ollendorf DA, Pearson SD, et al. Active surveillance compared with initial treatment for men with low-risk prostate cancer: a decision analysis. JAMA. 2010;304:2373–80.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral Hayes JH, Ollendorf DA, Pearson SD, et al. Active surveillance compared with initial treatment for men with low-risk prostate cancer: a decision analysis. JAMA. 2010;304:2373–80.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
9.
go back to reference Overholser S, Nielsen M, Torkko K, et al. Active surveillance is an appropriate management strategy for a proportion of men diagnosed with prostate cancer by prostate specific antigen testing. J Urol. 2015;194:680–4.CrossRefPubMed Overholser S, Nielsen M, Torkko K, et al. Active surveillance is an appropriate management strategy for a proportion of men diagnosed with prostate cancer by prostate specific antigen testing. J Urol. 2015;194:680–4.CrossRefPubMed
10.
go back to reference Chamie K, Williams SB, Hu JC. Population-based assessment of determining treatments for prostate cancer. JAMA Onc. 2015;1:60–7.CrossRef Chamie K, Williams SB, Hu JC. Population-based assessment of determining treatments for prostate cancer. JAMA Onc. 2015;1:60–7.CrossRef
11.
go back to reference Aizer AA, Paly JJ, Zietman AL, et al. Multidisciplinary care and pursuit of active surveillance in low-risk prostate cancer. J Clin Onc. 2012;30:3071–6.CrossRef Aizer AA, Paly JJ, Zietman AL, et al. Multidisciplinary care and pursuit of active surveillance in low-risk prostate cancer. J Clin Onc. 2012;30:3071–6.CrossRef
12.
go back to reference Loeb S, Carter HB, Berndt SI, et al. Is repeat prostate biopsy associated with a greater risk of hospitalization? Data from SEER-Medicare. J Urol. 2013;189:867.CrossRefPubMed Loeb S, Carter HB, Berndt SI, et al. Is repeat prostate biopsy associated with a greater risk of hospitalization? Data from SEER-Medicare. J Urol. 2013;189:867.CrossRefPubMed
13.
go back to reference Xu J, Dailey RK, Eggly S, et al. Men's perspectives on selecting their prostate cancer treatment. J Nat Med Assoc. 2011;103:468–78.CrossRef Xu J, Dailey RK, Eggly S, et al. Men's perspectives on selecting their prostate cancer treatment. J Nat Med Assoc. 2011;103:468–78.CrossRef
14.
go back to reference Tosoian JJ, Carter HB, Lepor A, Loeb S. Active surveillance for prostate cancer: current evidence and contemporary state of practice. Nat Rev Urol. 2016;13:205–15.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral Tosoian JJ, Carter HB, Lepor A, Loeb S. Active surveillance for prostate cancer: current evidence and contemporary state of practice. Nat Rev Urol. 2016;13:205–15.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
15.
go back to reference Filson CP, Schroeck FR, Ye Z, et al. Variation in use of active surveillance among men undergoing expectant treatment for early stage prostate cancer. J Urol. 2004;192:75–81.CrossRef Filson CP, Schroeck FR, Ye Z, et al. Variation in use of active surveillance among men undergoing expectant treatment for early stage prostate cancer. J Urol. 2004;192:75–81.CrossRef
16.
go back to reference Blume-Jensen P, Berman DM, Rimm DL, et al. Development and clinical validation of an in situ biopsy-based multimarker assay for risk stratification in prostate cancer. Clin Canc Res. 2015;21:2591–600.CrossRef Blume-Jensen P, Berman DM, Rimm DL, et al. Development and clinical validation of an in situ biopsy-based multimarker assay for risk stratification in prostate cancer. Clin Canc Res. 2015;21:2591–600.CrossRef
17.
go back to reference Peabody JW, Luck J, Glassman P, et al. Comparison of vignettes, standardized patients, and chart abstraction: a prospective validation study of 3 methods for measuring quality. JAMA. 2000;283:1715–22.CrossRefPubMed Peabody JW, Luck J, Glassman P, et al. Comparison of vignettes, standardized patients, and chart abstraction: a prospective validation study of 3 methods for measuring quality. JAMA. 2000;283:1715–22.CrossRefPubMed
18.
go back to reference Peabody JW, Luck J, Glassman P, et al. Measuring the quality of physician practice by using clinical vignettes: a prospective validation study. Ann Int Med. 2004;141:771–80.CrossRefPubMed Peabody JW, Luck J, Glassman P, et al. Measuring the quality of physician practice by using clinical vignettes: a prospective validation study. Ann Int Med. 2004;141:771–80.CrossRefPubMed
19.
Metadata
Title
Impact of a protein-based assay that predicts prostate cancer aggressiveness on urologists’ recommendations for active treatment or active surveillance: a randomized clinical utility trial
Authors
John W. Peabody
Lisa M. DeMaria
Diana Tamondong-Lachica
Jhiedon Florentino
M. Czarina Acelajado
Othman Ouenes
Jerome P. Richie
Trever Burgon
Publication date
01-12-2017
Publisher
BioMed Central
Published in
BMC Urology / Issue 1/2017
Electronic ISSN: 1471-2490
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1186/s12894-017-0243-1

Other articles of this Issue 1/2017

BMC Urology 1/2017 Go to the issue