Personalized Decision Making for Biopsies in Prostate Cancer Active Surveillance Programs

Anirudh Tomer, Dimitris Rizopoulos, Daan Nieboer, Frank-Jan Drost, Monique J. Roobol and Ewout W. Steyerberg
Additional contact information
Anirudh Tomer: Department of Biostatistics, Erasmus University Medical Center, Rotterdam, Zuid-Holland, the Netherlands
Dimitris Rizopoulos: Department of Biostatistics, Erasmus University Medical Center, Rotterdam, Zuid-Holland, the Netherlands
Daan Nieboer: Department of Public Health, Erasmus University Medical Center, Rotterdam, Zuid-Holland, the Netherlands
Frank-Jan Drost: Department of Urology, Erasmus University Medical Center, Rotterdam, Zuid-Holland, the Netherlands
Monique J. Roobol: Department of Urology, Erasmus University Medical Center, Rotterdam, Zuid-Holland, the Netherlands
Ewout W. Steyerberg: Department of Public Health, Erasmus University Medical Center, Rotterdam, Zuid-Holland, the Netherlands

Medical Decision Making, 2019, vol. 39, issue 5, 499-508

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 used patient data of the world’s largest active surveillance program (Prostate Cancer Research International Active Surveillance; PRIAS). It enrolled 5270 patients, had 866 cancer progressions, and an average of 9 prostate-specific antigen (PSA) and 5 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 6 biopsies (median: 4, interquartile range [IQR]: 2–5) compared with 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.

Keywords: active surveillance; biopsy; joint models; personalized medical decisions; prostate cancer (search for similar items in EconPapers)
Date: 2019
References: View complete reference list from CitEc
Citations:

Downloads: (external link)
https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/0272989X19861963 (text/html)

Related works:
This item may be available elsewhere in EconPapers: Search for items with the same title.

Export reference: BibTeX RIS (EndNote, ProCite, RefMan) HTML/Text

Persistent link: https://EconPapers.repec.org/RePEc:sae:medema:v:39:y:2019:i:5:p:499-508

DOI: 10.1177/0272989X19861963

Access Statistics for this article

More articles in Medical Decision Making
Bibliographic data for series maintained by SAGE Publications ().