ArticleBJU international2021
Personalised biopsy schedules based on risk of Gleason upgrading for patients with low-risk prostate cancer on active surveillance.
Article in BJU international, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 21 papers.
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.
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.
Who cites it
21 citing papers in PubMed, 27 citations in OpenAlex.
- Transcriptome profiling of prostatic tumours from ENACT trial patients with or without enzalutamide.BJU international · 2025Trial
- Modern active surveillance in low- and intermediate-risk prostate cancer without re-biopsy.Prostate cancer and prostatic diseases · 2026Review
- Active Surveillance for Low- and Favourable Intermediate-Risk Prostate Cancer: A Single-Centre Cohort Study on Discontinuation Rates and Quality-of-Life Outcomes.Journal of personalized medicine · 2026Article
- Predictive models for biopsy upgrading in active surveillance for prostate cancer: a scoping review.World journal of urology · 2026Article
- Review
- Optimizing personalized screening intervals for clinical biomarkers using extended joint models.Journal of applied statistics · 2026Article
- Personalized risk-adapted models in prostate cancer during active surveillance using MRI-a narrative review.European radiology · 2025Review
- Projected outcomes of reduced-biopsy management of Grade Group 1 prostate cancer: implications for relabeling.Journal of the National Cancer Institute · 2025Article
- A Personalized, Risk-Based Approach to Active Surveillance for Prostate Cancer with Takeaways from Broader Oncology Practices: A Mixed Methods Review.Journal of personalized medicine · 2025Review
- Personalized Dynamic Prediction Model for Biopsy Timing in Patients With Prostate Cancer During Active Surveillance.JAMA network open · 2025Article
- Clinical validation of a biopsy-based six-gene signature prognostic for aggressive prostate cancer.BJUI compass · 2025Article
- Review
- Risk of progression following a negative biopsy in prostate cancer active surveillance.Prostate cancer and prostatic diseases · 2023Article
- Active Surveillance for Prostate Cancer: Past, Current, and Future Trends.Journal of personalized medicine · 2023Review
- Prospective Implementation and Early Outcomes of a Risk-stratified Prostate Cancer Active Surveillance Follow-up Protocol.European urology open science · 2023Article
- Development and External Validation of the STRATified CANcer Surveillance (STRATCANS) Multivariable Model for Predicting Progression in Men with Newly Diagnosed Prostate Cancer Starting Active Surveillance.Journal of clinical medicine · 2022Article
- Impact of Prostate Health Index Results for Prediction of Biopsy Grade Reclassification During Active Surveillance.The Journal of urology · 2022Article
- Joint models for dynamic prediction in localised prostate cancer: a literature review.BMC medical research methodology · 2022Review
- Developing machine learning algorithms for dynamic estimation of progression during active surveillance for prostate cancer.NPJ digital medicine · 2022Article
- Comparison of outcomes of different biopsy schedules among men on active surveillance for prostate cancer: An analysis of the G.A.P.3 global consortium database.The Prostate · 2022Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors at 3 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
Abstract
objectiveTo develop a model and methodology for predicting the risk of Gleason upgrading in patients with prostate cancer on active surveillance (AS) and using the predicted risks to create risk-based personalised biopsy schedules as an alternative to one-size-fits-all schedules (e.g. annually). Furthermore, to assist patients and doctors in making shared decisions on biopsy schedules, by providing them quantitative estimates of the burden and benefit of opting for personalised vs any other schedule in AS. Lastly, to externally validate our model and implement it along with personalised schedules in a ready to use web-application. PATIENTS AND
methodsRepeat prostate-specific antigen (PSA) measurements, timing and results of previous biopsies, and age at baseline from the world's largest AS study, Prostate Cancer Research International Active Surveillance (PRIAS; 7813 patients, 1134 experienced upgrading). We fitted a Bayesian joint model for time-to-event and longitudinal data to this dataset. We then validated our model externally in the largest six AS cohorts of the Movember Foundation's third Global Action Plan (GAP3) database (>20 000 patients, 27 centres worldwide). Using the model predicted upgrading risks; we scheduled biopsies whenever a patient's upgrading risk was above a certain threshold. To assist patients/doctors in the choice of this threshold, and to compare the resulting personalised schedule with currently practiced schedules, along with the timing and the total number of biopsies (burden) planned, for each schedule we provided them with the time delay expected in detecting upgrading (shorter is better).
resultsThe cause-specific cumulative upgrading risk at the 5-year follow-up was 35% in PRIAS, and at most 50% in the GAP3 cohorts. In the PRIAS-based model, PSA velocity was a stronger predictor of upgrading (hazard ratio [HR] 2.47, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.93-2.99) than the PSA level (HR 0.99, 95% CI 0.89-1.11). Our model had a moderate area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (0.6-0.7) in the validation cohorts. The prediction error was moderate (0.1-0.2) in theGAP3 cohorts where the impact of the PSA level and velocity on upgrading risk was similar to PRIAS, but large (0.2-0.3) otherwise. Our model required re-calibration of baseline upgrading risk in the validation cohorts. We implemented the validated models and the methodology for personalised schedules in a web-application (http://tiny.cc/biopsy).
conclusionsWe successfully developed and validated a model for predicting upgrading risk, and providing risk-based personalised biopsy decisions in AS of prostate cancer. Personalised prostate biopsies are a novel alternative to fixed one-size-fits-all schedules, which may help to reduce unnecessary prostate biopsies, while maintaining cancer control. The model and schedules made available via a web-application enable shared decision-making on biopsy schedules by comparing fixed and personalised schedules on total biopsies and expected time delay in detecting upgrading.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.