Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
. 2015 Jan 5;7(1):e238.
doi: 10.7759/cureus.238. eCollection 2015 Jan.

Prognostic Factors for Prostate Cancer Endpoints Following Biochemical Failure: A Review of the Literature

Affiliations

Prognostic Factors for Prostate Cancer Endpoints Following Biochemical Failure: A Review of the Literature

Tim Nguyen et al. Cureus. .

Abstract

Purpose: In the setting of biochemical failure (BCF) following primary treatment for prostate cancer, additional discrimination between clinically significant and non-clinically significant biochemical recurrence is critical in defining robust surrogate endpoints for prostate cancer and guiding salvage management decisions. We reviewed the literature to determine which prognostic factors are most significant for predicting prostate cancer-specific survival (PCSS), metastases-free survival (MFS), and/or overall survival (OS) after BCF.

Materials and methods: A search of PubMed from 1980 to 2013 yielded 999 studies that examined prognostic factors predictive for PCSS, MFS, and/or OS in prostate cancer patients with BCF following primary treatment. Eligibility criteria for inclusion were: 1) examined a prostate cancer population in the setting of BCF without overt clinical relapse following primary treatment with radical prostatectomy or radiotherapy; 2) based analyses on patient parameters obtained prior to the initiation of salvage therapies; and 3) determined clinical prognostic factors that were significant prognostic measures for at least one of three clinically relevant endpoints: OS, PCS, or MFS.

Results: Nineteen eligible studies reported on 8,040 patients that experienced BCF from 1981-2013. The initial primary therapy was variable: radical prostatectomy alone (n=8), radiotherapy alone (n=4), radiotherapy/radical prostatectomy ± adjuvant therapy (n=5), and multiple treatment arms (n=2). There was also heterogeneity in which outcomes were assessed: PCSS (n=14), MFS (n=7), and OS (n=5). The prognostic factors most commonly found to be significant on multivariate analyses were PSA doubling time (PSADT), time to biochemical failure (TTBF), pathological Gleason score (pGS), and age.

Conclusions: Risk stratification in prostate cancer post-BCF is challenging because of limited predictive modeling that can determine which patients will optimally benefit from salvage therapy. Our systematic literature review has identified PSADT, TTBF, pGS, and age as the leading prognostic factors for the prediction of PCSS, MFS, and OS after BCF. We plan to leverage the Canadian ProCaRS database to perform predictive modeling using the putative findings in the present study in order to propose potential evidence-based surrogate endpoints for prostate cancer in the setting of BCF.

Keywords: biochemical failure; biochemical recurrence; clinical endpoints; clinical outcomes; predictor; prognostic factor; prostate cancer; psa; survival.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

The authors have declared that no competing interests exist.

Figures

Figure 1
Figure 1. Search Strategy
Figure 2
Figure 2. Increasing Age
Number of studies showing age as a significant predictor for PCM, DM, and ACM on multivariate analyses. One study (not represented in the figure) found younger age to be associated with worse PCM and ACM
Figure 3
Figure 3. TNM Staging
Number of studies showing TNM staging as a significant predictor for PCM, DM, and ACM on multivariate analyses.
Figure 4
Figure 4. Gleason Score
Number of studies showing GS as a significant predictor for PCM, DM, and ACM on multivariate analyses.
Figure 5
Figure 5. PSA Doubling Time
Number of studies showing PSADT as a significant predictor for PCM, DM, and ACM on multivariate analyses.
Figure 6
Figure 6. Time to Biochemical Failure
Number of studies showing TTBF as a significant predictor for PCM, DM, and ACM on multivariate analyses.
Figure 7
Figure 7. Initial PSA
Number of studies showing iPSA as a significant predictor for PCM, DM, and ACM on multivariate analyses.

References

    1. Prostate cancer statistics. [Aug;2014 ];http://www.cancer.ca/en/cancer-information/cancer-type/prostate/statisti... 2014
    1. Risk of prostate cancer-specific mortality following biochemical recurrence after radical prostatectomy. Freedland SJ, Humphreys EB, Mangold LA, et al. JAMA. 2005;294:433–439. - PubMed
    1. Carroll P, Albertsen PC, Greene K, et al. PSA testing for pretreatment staging and posttreatment management of prostate cancer: 2013 Revision of 2009 best practice statement. AUA Education & Research Inc.: https://www.auanet.org/common/pdf/education/clinical-guidance/Prostate-S... 2013. PSA testing for pretreatment staging and posttreatment management of prostate cancer: 2013 Revision of 2009 best practice statement.
    1. Defining biochemical failure following radiotherapy with or without hormone therapy in men with clinically localized prostate cancer: recommendations of the RTOG-ASTRO Phoenix Consensus Conference. Roach M 3rd, Hanks G, Thames H Jr, et al. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2006;65:965–974. - PubMed
    1. Consensus statement: guidelines for PSA following radiation therapy. American Society for Therapeutic Radiology and Oncology Consensus Panel. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 1997;37:1035–1041. - PubMed

LinkOut - more resources