|
Post Therapy
PSA Doubling Time Of <3 Months Is A Surrogate For Prostate Cancer
Specific Mortality (Nov 2003)
It is intuitively known that a rapid post
primary treatment rise in PSA is an adverse predictor for survival.
However, quantification and refinement of this relationship was the
subject of a study by D'Amico et. al. in the September 17, 2003 issue of
the JNCI: "Surrogate End Point for Prostate Cancer-Specific Mortality
After Radical Prostatectomy or Radiation Therapy." The analysis was
performed on the combined CAPSURE and CPDR data bases involving 8669 men
with localizedor locally advanced, non-metastatic disease. 5918 were
treated with RP and 2751 with radiation. PSA was evaluated q 3 months
for 2 years, q 6 months for 3 more years, and then annually. The median
follow-up for the 1451 treatment failures was 4 years. The minimum PSA
level for calculating the PSA-DT (doubling time) was >.2 ng/mL (the
biochemical failure point) and doubling time was based on at least 3 PSA
measurements with a requirement that each increase was > .2 ng/mL. In
order to establish a common PSA starting point for DT estimation between
the two types of treatments, in calculating the PSA-DT for radiation
patients the post treatment nadir PSA value ("typically less than 1.0 ng/mL
within 2 years after radiation therapy") was subtracted from any
subsequent measured PSA. For example if the nadir had been 6 ng/mL and a
subsequent measured PSA was .9 ng/mL, .3 (a "failure" since it exceeds
.2) would be entered in the DT calculation for that data point. Their
conclusion: the cohort with a < 3 month PSA-DT after PSA failure had a
nearly 20-fold increased risk of prostate cancer-specific mortality
compared to the > 3 month cohort, and "the median survival after PSA-defined
recurrence in such patients is only 6 years." By validating our
intuitive concern in this matter, the authors provide a strong rationale
for the early institution of additional therapy in this high risk group.
Bottom Line: A
post treatment PSA doubling time of <3 months argues for preventive
intervention.«
Back to Article List |