Cargando…

The ProtecT trial: analysis of the patient cohort, baseline risk stratification and disease progression

OBJECTIVE: To test the hypothesis that the baseline clinico‐pathological features of the men with localized prostate cancer (PCa) included in the ProtecT (Prostate Testing for Cancer and Treatment) trial who progressed (n = 198) at a 10‐year median follow‐up were different from those of men with sta...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Bryant, Richard J., Oxley, Jon, Young, Grace J., Lane, Janet A., Metcalfe, Chris, Davis, Michael, Turner, Emma L., Martin, Richard M., Goepel, John R., Varma, Murali, Griffiths, David F., Grigor, Ken, Mayer, Nick, Warren, Anne Y., Bhattarai, Selina, Dormer, John, Mason, Malcolm, Staffurth, John, Walsh, Eleanor, Rosario, Derek J., Catto, James W.F., Neal, David E., Donovan, Jenny L., Hamdy, Freddie C.
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: John Wiley and Sons Inc. 2020
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7187290/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/31900963
http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/bju.14987
_version_ 1783527144229437440
author Bryant, Richard J.
Oxley, Jon
Young, Grace J.
Lane, Janet A.
Metcalfe, Chris
Davis, Michael
Turner, Emma L.
Martin, Richard M.
Goepel, John R.
Varma, Murali
Griffiths, David F.
Grigor, Ken
Mayer, Nick
Warren, Anne Y.
Bhattarai, Selina
Dormer, John
Mason, Malcolm
Staffurth, John
Walsh, Eleanor
Rosario, Derek J.
Catto, James W.F.
Neal, David E.
Donovan, Jenny L.
Hamdy, Freddie C.
author_facet Bryant, Richard J.
Oxley, Jon
Young, Grace J.
Lane, Janet A.
Metcalfe, Chris
Davis, Michael
Turner, Emma L.
Martin, Richard M.
Goepel, John R.
Varma, Murali
Griffiths, David F.
Grigor, Ken
Mayer, Nick
Warren, Anne Y.
Bhattarai, Selina
Dormer, John
Mason, Malcolm
Staffurth, John
Walsh, Eleanor
Rosario, Derek J.
Catto, James W.F.
Neal, David E.
Donovan, Jenny L.
Hamdy, Freddie C.
author_sort Bryant, Richard J.
collection PubMed
description OBJECTIVE: To test the hypothesis that the baseline clinico‐pathological features of the men with localized prostate cancer (PCa) included in the ProtecT (Prostate Testing for Cancer and Treatment) trial who progressed (n = 198) at a 10‐year median follow‐up were different from those of men with stable disease (n = 1409). PATIENTS AND METHODS: We stratified the study participants at baseline according to risk of progression using clinical disease stage, pathological grade and PSA level, using Cox proportional hazard models. RESULTS: The findings showed that 34% of participants (n = 505) had intermediate‐ or high‐risk PCa, and 66% (n = 973) had low‐risk PCa. Of 198 participants who progressed, 101 (51%) had baseline International Society of Urological Pathology Grade Group 1, 59 (30%) Grade Group 2, and 38 (19%) Grade Group 3 PCa, compared with 79%, 17% and 5%, respectively, for 1409 participants without progression (P < 0.001). In participants with progression, 38% and 62% had baseline low‐ and intermediate‐/high‐risk disease, compared with 69% and 31% of participants with stable disease (P < 0.001). Treatment received, age (65–69 vs 50–64 years), PSA level, Grade Group, clinical stage, risk group, number of positive cores, tumour length and perineural invasion were associated with time to progression (P ≤ 0.005). Men progressing after surgery (n = 19) were more likely to have a higher Grade Group and pathological stage at surgery, larger tumours, lymph node involvement and positive margins. CONCLUSIONS: We demonstrate that one‐third of the ProtecT cohort consists of people with intermediate‐/high‐risk disease, and the outcomes data at an average of 10 years' follow‐up are generalizable beyond men with low‐risk PCa.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-7187290
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2020
publisher John Wiley and Sons Inc.
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-71872902020-04-28 The ProtecT trial: analysis of the patient cohort, baseline risk stratification and disease progression Bryant, Richard J. Oxley, Jon Young, Grace J. Lane, Janet A. Metcalfe, Chris Davis, Michael Turner, Emma L. Martin, Richard M. Goepel, John R. Varma, Murali Griffiths, David F. Grigor, Ken Mayer, Nick Warren, Anne Y. Bhattarai, Selina Dormer, John Mason, Malcolm Staffurth, John Walsh, Eleanor Rosario, Derek J. Catto, James W.F. Neal, David E. Donovan, Jenny L. Hamdy, Freddie C. BJU Int Trial OBJECTIVE: To test the hypothesis that the baseline clinico‐pathological features of the men with localized prostate cancer (PCa) included in the ProtecT (Prostate Testing for Cancer and Treatment) trial who progressed (n = 198) at a 10‐year median follow‐up were different from those of men with stable disease (n = 1409). PATIENTS AND METHODS: We stratified the study participants at baseline according to risk of progression using clinical disease stage, pathological grade and PSA level, using Cox proportional hazard models. RESULTS: The findings showed that 34% of participants (n = 505) had intermediate‐ or high‐risk PCa, and 66% (n = 973) had low‐risk PCa. Of 198 participants who progressed, 101 (51%) had baseline International Society of Urological Pathology Grade Group 1, 59 (30%) Grade Group 2, and 38 (19%) Grade Group 3 PCa, compared with 79%, 17% and 5%, respectively, for 1409 participants without progression (P < 0.001). In participants with progression, 38% and 62% had baseline low‐ and intermediate‐/high‐risk disease, compared with 69% and 31% of participants with stable disease (P < 0.001). Treatment received, age (65–69 vs 50–64 years), PSA level, Grade Group, clinical stage, risk group, number of positive cores, tumour length and perineural invasion were associated with time to progression (P ≤ 0.005). Men progressing after surgery (n = 19) were more likely to have a higher Grade Group and pathological stage at surgery, larger tumours, lymph node involvement and positive margins. CONCLUSIONS: We demonstrate that one‐third of the ProtecT cohort consists of people with intermediate‐/high‐risk disease, and the outcomes data at an average of 10 years' follow‐up are generalizable beyond men with low‐risk PCa. John Wiley and Sons Inc. 2020-02-12 2020-04 /pmc/articles/PMC7187290/ /pubmed/31900963 http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/bju.14987 Text en © 2020 Crown copyright. BJU International published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd on behalf of BJU International. This is an open access article under the terms of the http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/ License, which permits use, distribution and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited and is not used for commercial purposes.
spellingShingle Trial
Bryant, Richard J.
Oxley, Jon
Young, Grace J.
Lane, Janet A.
Metcalfe, Chris
Davis, Michael
Turner, Emma L.
Martin, Richard M.
Goepel, John R.
Varma, Murali
Griffiths, David F.
Grigor, Ken
Mayer, Nick
Warren, Anne Y.
Bhattarai, Selina
Dormer, John
Mason, Malcolm
Staffurth, John
Walsh, Eleanor
Rosario, Derek J.
Catto, James W.F.
Neal, David E.
Donovan, Jenny L.
Hamdy, Freddie C.
The ProtecT trial: analysis of the patient cohort, baseline risk stratification and disease progression
title The ProtecT trial: analysis of the patient cohort, baseline risk stratification and disease progression
title_full The ProtecT trial: analysis of the patient cohort, baseline risk stratification and disease progression
title_fullStr The ProtecT trial: analysis of the patient cohort, baseline risk stratification and disease progression
title_full_unstemmed The ProtecT trial: analysis of the patient cohort, baseline risk stratification and disease progression
title_short The ProtecT trial: analysis of the patient cohort, baseline risk stratification and disease progression
title_sort protect trial: analysis of the patient cohort, baseline risk stratification and disease progression
topic Trial
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7187290/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/31900963
http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/bju.14987
work_keys_str_mv AT bryantrichardj theprotecttrialanalysisofthepatientcohortbaselineriskstratificationanddiseaseprogression
AT oxleyjon theprotecttrialanalysisofthepatientcohortbaselineriskstratificationanddiseaseprogression
AT younggracej theprotecttrialanalysisofthepatientcohortbaselineriskstratificationanddiseaseprogression
AT lanejaneta theprotecttrialanalysisofthepatientcohortbaselineriskstratificationanddiseaseprogression
AT metcalfechris theprotecttrialanalysisofthepatientcohortbaselineriskstratificationanddiseaseprogression
AT davismichael theprotecttrialanalysisofthepatientcohortbaselineriskstratificationanddiseaseprogression
AT turneremmal theprotecttrialanalysisofthepatientcohortbaselineriskstratificationanddiseaseprogression
AT martinrichardm theprotecttrialanalysisofthepatientcohortbaselineriskstratificationanddiseaseprogression
AT goepeljohnr theprotecttrialanalysisofthepatientcohortbaselineriskstratificationanddiseaseprogression
AT varmamurali theprotecttrialanalysisofthepatientcohortbaselineriskstratificationanddiseaseprogression
AT griffithsdavidf theprotecttrialanalysisofthepatientcohortbaselineriskstratificationanddiseaseprogression
AT grigorken theprotecttrialanalysisofthepatientcohortbaselineriskstratificationanddiseaseprogression
AT mayernick theprotecttrialanalysisofthepatientcohortbaselineriskstratificationanddiseaseprogression
AT warrenanney theprotecttrialanalysisofthepatientcohortbaselineriskstratificationanddiseaseprogression
AT bhattaraiselina theprotecttrialanalysisofthepatientcohortbaselineriskstratificationanddiseaseprogression
AT dormerjohn theprotecttrialanalysisofthepatientcohortbaselineriskstratificationanddiseaseprogression
AT masonmalcolm theprotecttrialanalysisofthepatientcohortbaselineriskstratificationanddiseaseprogression
AT staffurthjohn theprotecttrialanalysisofthepatientcohortbaselineriskstratificationanddiseaseprogression
AT walsheleanor theprotecttrialanalysisofthepatientcohortbaselineriskstratificationanddiseaseprogression
AT rosarioderekj theprotecttrialanalysisofthepatientcohortbaselineriskstratificationanddiseaseprogression
AT cattojameswf theprotecttrialanalysisofthepatientcohortbaselineriskstratificationanddiseaseprogression
AT nealdavide theprotecttrialanalysisofthepatientcohortbaselineriskstratificationanddiseaseprogression
AT donovanjennyl theprotecttrialanalysisofthepatientcohortbaselineriskstratificationanddiseaseprogression
AT hamdyfreddiec theprotecttrialanalysisofthepatientcohortbaselineriskstratificationanddiseaseprogression
AT theprotecttrialanalysisofthepatientcohortbaselineriskstratificationanddiseaseprogression
AT bryantrichardj protecttrialanalysisofthepatientcohortbaselineriskstratificationanddiseaseprogression
AT oxleyjon protecttrialanalysisofthepatientcohortbaselineriskstratificationanddiseaseprogression
AT younggracej protecttrialanalysisofthepatientcohortbaselineriskstratificationanddiseaseprogression
AT lanejaneta protecttrialanalysisofthepatientcohortbaselineriskstratificationanddiseaseprogression
AT metcalfechris protecttrialanalysisofthepatientcohortbaselineriskstratificationanddiseaseprogression
AT davismichael protecttrialanalysisofthepatientcohortbaselineriskstratificationanddiseaseprogression
AT turneremmal protecttrialanalysisofthepatientcohortbaselineriskstratificationanddiseaseprogression
AT martinrichardm protecttrialanalysisofthepatientcohortbaselineriskstratificationanddiseaseprogression
AT goepeljohnr protecttrialanalysisofthepatientcohortbaselineriskstratificationanddiseaseprogression
AT varmamurali protecttrialanalysisofthepatientcohortbaselineriskstratificationanddiseaseprogression
AT griffithsdavidf protecttrialanalysisofthepatientcohortbaselineriskstratificationanddiseaseprogression
AT grigorken protecttrialanalysisofthepatientcohortbaselineriskstratificationanddiseaseprogression
AT mayernick protecttrialanalysisofthepatientcohortbaselineriskstratificationanddiseaseprogression
AT warrenanney protecttrialanalysisofthepatientcohortbaselineriskstratificationanddiseaseprogression
AT bhattaraiselina protecttrialanalysisofthepatientcohortbaselineriskstratificationanddiseaseprogression
AT dormerjohn protecttrialanalysisofthepatientcohortbaselineriskstratificationanddiseaseprogression
AT masonmalcolm protecttrialanalysisofthepatientcohortbaselineriskstratificationanddiseaseprogression
AT staffurthjohn protecttrialanalysisofthepatientcohortbaselineriskstratificationanddiseaseprogression
AT walsheleanor protecttrialanalysisofthepatientcohortbaselineriskstratificationanddiseaseprogression
AT rosarioderekj protecttrialanalysisofthepatientcohortbaselineriskstratificationanddiseaseprogression
AT cattojameswf protecttrialanalysisofthepatientcohortbaselineriskstratificationanddiseaseprogression
AT nealdavide protecttrialanalysisofthepatientcohortbaselineriskstratificationanddiseaseprogression
AT donovanjennyl protecttrialanalysisofthepatientcohortbaselineriskstratificationanddiseaseprogression
AT hamdyfreddiec protecttrialanalysisofthepatientcohortbaselineriskstratificationanddiseaseprogression
AT protecttrialanalysisofthepatientcohortbaselineriskstratificationanddiseaseprogression