PSA dynamics: Enhancing predictive models in prostate cancer follow-up.

L Lydia Ekama (Department of Radiation Oncology, Mayo Clinic in Rochester, Rochester, MN) M Mariana Borras Osorio (Department of Radiation Oncology, Mayo Clinic Rochester, Rochester, MN) M Mohammad Javad Namazi (Department of Radiation Oncology, Mayo Clinic in Rochester, Rochester, MN) A Aaron W Bogan (Quantitative Health Science Research, Mayo Clinic in Arizona, Phoenix, AZ) B Bryce Comstock (Mayo Clinic College of Medicine and Science, Rochester, MN) B Benjamin Kamdem Talom (Department of Radiation Oncology, Mayo Clinic in Rochester, Rochester, MN) T Taylor Weiskittel (Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN) D Dalton Griner (Department of Radiation Oncology, Mayo Clinic in Rochester, Rochester, MN) B Brian Davis (Edmond Fire Department, Edmond, Oklahoma, United States) B Brad J. Stish (Department of Radiation Oncology, Mayo Clinic in Rochester, Rochester, MN) C Chunhee Richard Choo (Department of Radiation Oncology, Mayo Clinic in Rochester, Rochester, MN) R Ryan Phillips (Mayo Clinic Rochester, Rochester, MN) T Thomas Michael Pisansky (Department of Radiation Oncology, Mayo Clinic in Rochester, Rochester, MN) D Daniel Ebner (Department of Radiation Oncology, Mayo Clinic in Rochester, Rochester, MN) D David M. Routman (Mayo Clinic Rochester, Rochester, MN) M Mark Raymond Waddle (Department of Radiation Oncology, Mayo Clinic Rochester, Rochester, MN)

Abstract

424 Background: Advances in prostate cancer (PC) care have led to a 98% 10-year survival rate. Prostate Specific Antigen (PSA) is the primary method of follow-up after definitive radiotherapy (RT), with benign PSA ‘bounce’ occurring in up to 30% of patients, causing uncertainty and anxiety. Distinguishing between PSA bounce and biochemical recurrence (BCR) remains challenging. The Phoenix Criteria is the standard definition of BCR since 2006, defined as PSA nadir + 2 ng/dl, but does not consider patient specific information. Our study aims to explore factors associated with bounce and BCR and develop a predictive tool to differentiate between these two events. Methods: PC patients who received RT at our institution between 2006 and 2022 were identified, including only patients with a PSA increase during follow-up. Exclusion criteria included palliative RT, prostatectomy, or insufficient follow-up information. Patients’ clinical data was collected, and PSA increase was classified as bounce or BCR. Variables were compared using Kruskal Wallis or Chi-square. Multivariate logistic regression was performed in the subset of patients with absolute PSA value >2 (n= 581). Results: Of 1783 patients reviewed due to PSA rise after treatment, 694 met the inclusion criteria. There were 213 (30.7%) with PSA bounce and 481 (69.3%) with recurrence. Prior to meeting the Phoenix Criteria, 20 (4.2%) had biopsy-proven recurrence and 18 (3.7%) imaging-proven recurrence. The median delta PSA was 0.8 ng/mL for bounce vs 5 ng/mL for recurrence (p<0.001). The median time from treatment to event was 14.4 months for bounce vs 45.3 months for BCR (p<0.001). Recurrence was significantly associated (p<0.001) with older age at diagnosis, N1 stage, higher risk category, Gleason score, and higher baseline PSA. In the subgroup of patients without ADT, recurrence was associated with a lower median first PSA post-RT (1.9 vs. 2.4, p=0.046) and a lower median nadir before event (0.6 vs. 1.8, p<0.001). Multivariate logistic regression achieved an accuracy of 0.94, with a sensitivity of 0.83, specificity of 0.98, and an area under the curve (AUC) of 0.97. Conclusions: Our results highlight significant differences in clinical factors between bounce and recurrence in post-RT patients. The multivariate logistic regression differentiated the events with 94% accuracy for patients with a rising PSA value >2 subgroup. We highlight the possible improvement that could be accomplished by personalizing a PSA threshold for recurrence versus the Phoenix definition. This tool offers patients and providers a highly specific tool to differentiate between PSA recurrence and bounce, and may reduce stress and unnecessary testing, or help diagnosis recurrence faster. Next steps include prospective validation of the model to assess the impact on clinical practice costs, patient experience, and cancer outcomes.

Article Details

Volume / Issue Vol. 43, Issue 5_suppl
Published February 10, 2025
Pages 424-424
ISSN 0732-183X
Publisher Lippincott Williams & Wilkins

Journal Info

Journal of Clinical Oncology

Lippincott Williams & Wilkins

ISSN: 0732-183X Health Sciences

Authors (16)

L

Lydia Ekama

Department of Radiation Oncology, Mayo Clinic in Rochester, Rochester, MN

M

Mariana Borras Osorio

Department of Radiation Oncology, Mayo Clinic Rochester, Rochester, MN

M

Mohammad Javad Namazi

Department of Radiation Oncology, Mayo Clinic in Rochester, Rochester, MN

A

Aaron W Bogan

Quantitative Health Science Research, Mayo Clinic in Arizona, Phoenix, AZ

B

Bryce Comstock

Mayo Clinic College of Medicine and Science, Rochester, MN

B

Benjamin Kamdem Talom

Department of Radiation Oncology, Mayo Clinic in Rochester, Rochester, MN

T

Taylor Weiskittel

Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN

D

Dalton Griner

Department of Radiation Oncology, Mayo Clinic in Rochester, Rochester, MN

B

Brian Davis

Edmond Fire Department, Edmond, Oklahoma, United States

B

Brad J. Stish

Department of Radiation Oncology, Mayo Clinic in Rochester, Rochester, MN

C

Chunhee Richard Choo

Department of Radiation Oncology, Mayo Clinic in Rochester, Rochester, MN

R

Ryan Phillips

Mayo Clinic Rochester, Rochester, MN

T

Thomas Michael Pisansky

Department of Radiation Oncology, Mayo Clinic in Rochester, Rochester, MN

D

Daniel Ebner

Department of Radiation Oncology, Mayo Clinic in Rochester, Rochester, MN

D

David M. Routman

Mayo Clinic Rochester, Rochester, MN

M

Mark Raymond Waddle

Department of Radiation Oncology, Mayo Clinic Rochester, Rochester, MN