Evidence map›Paper›PMID 27889277›Full record

Trial reportEuropean urology2017

Evaluating the Four Kallikrein Panel of the 4Kscore for Prediction of High-grade Prostate Cancer in Men in the Canary Prostate Active Surveillance Study.

Daniel W Lin, Lisa F Newcomb, Marshall D Brown, Daniel D Sjoberg, Yan Dong, James D Brooks, Peter R Carroll, Matthew Cooperberg, Atreya Dash, William J Ellis and 8 more

Open access · greenAbstract readClinical TrialComparative StudyMulticenter Study
In one paragraph

Trial report in European urology, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 51 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
51citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
10.0field-weighted citation impact, top 1% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

51 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 85 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Trial
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. Article
  8. Review
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Review
  12. Article
  13. Prostate cancer biomarkers: from early diagnosis to precision treatment.Clinical & translational oncology : official publication of the Federation of Spanish Oncology Societies and of the National Cancer Institute of Mexico · 2024
    Review
  14. Article
  15. Review
  16. Review
  17. Article
  18. Is Active Surveillance Too Active?Current urology reports · 2023
    Review
  19. Article
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

18 authors at 11 institutions in 2 countries.

Daniel W LinFred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center, Seattle, WA, USA; University of Washington, Seattle, WA, USA; Veterans Affairs Puget Sound Health Care System, Seattle, WA, USA. Electronic address: dlin@uw.edu.
Lisa F NewcombFred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center, Seattle, WA, USA; University of Washington, Seattle, WA, USA.
Marshall D BrownFred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center, Seattle, WA, USA.
Daniel D SjobergMemorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center, New York, NY, USA.
Yan DongOPKO Labs, Nashville, TN, USA.
James D BrooksStanford University, Stanford, CA, USA.
Peter R CarrollUniversity of California at San Francisco, San Francisco, CA, USA.
Matthew CooperbergUniversity of California at San Francisco, San Francisco, CA, USA.
Atreya DashVeterans Affairs Puget Sound Health Care System, Seattle, WA, USA.
William J EllisUniversity of Washington, Seattle, WA, USA.
Michael FabrizioEastern Virginia Medical School, Norfolk, VA, USA.
Martin E GleaveUniversity of British Columbia, Vancouver, Canada.
Todd M MorganUniversity of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI, USA.
Peter S NelsonFred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center, Seattle, WA, USA.
Ian M ThompsonUniversity of Texas Health Sciences Center at San Antonio, San Antonio, TX, USA.
Andrew A WagnerBeth Israel Deaconess Medical Center, Boston, MA, USA.
Yingye ZhengFred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center, Seattle, WA, USA.
Canary Prostate Active Surveillance Study Investigators
Fred Hutch Cancer Center · USUniversity of Washington · USBeth Israel Deaconess Medical Center · USEastern Virginia Medical School · USMemorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center · USOPKO Health (United States) · USStanford University · USThe University of Texas Health Science Center at San Antonio · USUniversity of British Columbia · CAUniversity of Michigan · USVA Puget Sound Health Care System · US

Funding

Prostate Cancer Biomarker and Imaging Validation Alliance: Emory University, University of Alabama Birmingham, and University of Texas SouthwesternU01CA113913 · NCI · EMORY UNIVERSITY · PI Martin G. Sanda · 2005 to 2026
$16.4M
Precision Medicine Approach to Prostate Cancer Active SurveillanceR01CA184712 · NCI · WEILL MEDICAL COLL OF CORNELL UNIV · PI LIN, DANIEL W., MOSQUERA, JUAN MIGUEL · 2014 to 2018
$3.5M
Statistical Methods for Prospective Evaluation of BiomarkersR01GM085047 · NIGMS · FRED HUTCHINSON CANCER RESEARCH CENTER · PI ZHENG, YINGYE · 2009 to 2017
$2.6M
NCI NIH HHS R01 CA184712NCI NIH HHS U01 CA113913NIGMS NIH HHS R01 GM085047
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundDiagnosis of Gleason 6 prostate cancer can leave uncertainty about the presence of undetected aggressive disease.

objectiveTo evaluate the utility of a four kallikrein (4K) panel in predicting the presence of high-grade cancer in men on active surveillance. DESIGN, SETTING, AND

participantsPlasma collected before the first and subsequent surveillance biopsies was assessed for 718 men prospectively enrolled in the multi-institutional Canary PASS trial. Biopsy data were split 2:1 into training and test sets. We developed statistical models that included clinical information and either the 4Kpanel or serum prostate-specific antigen (PSA). OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS AND STATISTICAL ANALYSIS: The endpoint was reclassification to Gleason ≥7. We used receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve analyses and area under the curve (AUC) to assess discriminatory capacity, and decision curve analysis (DCA) to report clinical net benefit. RESULTS AND LIMITATIONS: Significant predictors for reclassification were 4Kpanel (odds ratio [OR] 1.54, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.31-1.81) or PSA (OR 2.11, 95% CI 1.53-2.91), ≥20% cores positive (OR 2.10, 95% CI 1.33-3.32), two or more prior negative biopsies (OR 0.19, 95% CI 0.04-0.85), prostate volume (OR 0.47, 95% CI 0.31-0.70), and body mass index (OR 1.09, 95% CI 1.04-1.14). ROC curve analysis comparing 4K and base models indicated that the 4Kpanel improved accuracy for predicting reclassification (AUC 0.78 vs 0.74) at the first surveillance biopsy. Both models performed comparably for prediction of reclassification at subsequent biopsies (AUC 0.75 vs 0.76). In DCA, both models showed higher net benefit compared to biopsy-all and biopsy-none strategies. Limitations include the single cohort nature of the study and the small numbers; results should be validated in another cohort before clinical use.

conclusionsThe 4Kpanel provided incremental value over routine clinical information in predicting high-grade cancer in the first biopsy after diagnosis. The 4Kpanel did not add predictive value to the base model at subsequent surveillance biopsies. PATIENT SUMMARY: Active surveillance is a management strategy for many low-grade prostate cancers. Repeat biopsies monitor for previously undetected high-grade cancer. We show that a model with clinical variables, including a panel of four kallikreins, indicates the presence of high-grade cancer before a biopsy is performed.

Indexed as

Decision Support TechniquesWatchful WaitingAgedAlgorithmsArea Under CurveBiopsyHumansKallikreinsMaleMiddle AgedNeoplasm GradingNorth AmericaOdds RatioPredictive Value of TestsProspective StudiesProstate-Specific AntigenKallikreinsKLK2 protein, humanKLK3 protein, humanProstate-Specific AntigenActive surveillanceBiomarkerKallikreinProspective studiesProstatic neoplasms

Identifiers

PMID27889277
PMCPMC7327706
OpenAlexW2549502041

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceTDM
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.