Prostate specific antigen bounce after intensity-modulated radiation therapy in an Asian population

Yu Gung Tn＊,Weer Lu Km On,Hong Hong Hung, Terence Tn Wee Kit

aDepartment of Urology,Singapore General Hospital,Singapore

bDepartment of Radiotherapy,National Cancer Centre Singapore,Singapore

ASIAN FOCUS

Prostate specific antigen bounce after intensity-modulated radiation therapy in an Asian population

Yu Guang Tana＊,Weber Lau Kam Ona,Hong Hong Huanga, Terence Tan Wee Kiatb

aDepartment of Urology,Singapore General Hospital,Singapore

bDepartment of Radiotherapy,National Cancer Centre Singapore,Singapore

Prostate specific

antigen;

Prostate specific

antigen bounce;

Prostate cancer;

Intensity modulated

radiation therapy

Objective:Serum prostate specific antigen(PSA)is commonly used to evaluate treatment response after definitive radiation therapy(RT).However,PSA levels can temporarily rise without a clear reason,termed“PSA bounce”,and often engender great anxiety for both patients and physicians.The present study aimed to determine the prevalence and factors that predict“PSA bounce”after intensity-modulated radiation therapy(IMRT),and the relevance to biochemical failure and cancer recurrence in an Asian population.

Methods:We retrospectively reviewed 206 patients who received IMRT for prostate cancer from 2004 to 2012 in the National Cancer Centre Singapore.These patients were followed up with regular PSA monitoring.We defined“PSA bounce”as a rise of 0.1 ng/mL,followed by two consecutive falls.Patients with biochemical failure(PSA nadir+2 ng/mL)were further evaluated for cancer recurrence.

Results:Sixty-one patients(29.6%)experienced“PSA bounce”,at a median time of 16 months and lasted for 12 months.Age remained the most consistent predictor of the incidence,duration and extent of“PSA bounce”.Other contributory factors included baseline PSA,Gleason score and PSA nadir.Hormonal therapy and prostate volume did not affect this phenomenon. Sixteen patients(7.8%)developed biochemical recurrence,at median time of 32 months,of which 11 were confirmed to have metastatic disease.The median follow-up time was 71 months.

Conclusion:A younger age predicts PSA bounce incidence,duration and magnitude.The extent of bounce appears to be lower in Asian population.The interval to occurrence and extent of PSA elevation separates PSA bounce from disease recurrence.

?2016 Editorial Office of Asian Journal of Urology.Production and hosting by Elsevier B.V.This is an open access article under the CC BY-NC-ND license(http://creativecommons.org/ licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/).

1.Introduction

Serum prostate speci fic antigen(PSA)is a sensitive measure of treatment outcome for prostate cancer[1].Although undetectable levels can be expected after a few weeks for patients undergoing radical prostatectomy,it can take 2-5 years to achieve a nadir PSA level with radiation therapy(RT), owing to the slower process of tumor-cell killing[2].More importantly,it is not uncommon for the PSA levels to rise temporarily,a phenomenon known as“PSA bounce”[3,4], first described by Wallner and colleagues in 1997[5].While the exact etiology remains unknown,it is hypothesized to be the result of prostate cell membrane instability,bacterial and radiation prostatitis[6].Although the relevance to biochemical failure remains controversial,these fluctuations can engender much anxiety amongst the physicians and patients.

The present study is the first to examine PSA bounce after intensity modulated radiation therapy(IMRT)in an Asian population.In particular,we reviewed the factors associated with this phenomenon,in order to stratify the patient pro file that will most likely present with a PSA bounce.We also looked at the relevance to biochemical failure and synthesized an approach to help physicians differentiate between the two entities.

2.Patients and methods

We retrospectively reviewed 206 consecutive p atients that received IMRT for prostate cancer from 2004 to 2012 at the National Cancer Centre Singapore.Data were obtained from review of casenotes,cancer registry and electronic records with IRB approval from the Singhealth Ethics Committee. None of the patients had nodal or metastatic spread prior to treatment.A variety of factors were recorded,including the patients profile,cancer staging and risk group,the concomitant use of androgen deprivation,the onset, magnitude and duration of PSA bounce and the time to biochemical failure.External radiotherapy was delivered via IMRT,planning for at least 90%of the planning target volume to receive the prescribed dose(of 70 to 74 Gy).

Given the retrospective nature of this study,follow-ups were not consistently standardized.However,in our institution’s follow-up protocol,we recommended quarterly for the first 2 years post-operatively,semiannually for the subsequent 3 years and yearly follow-ups onwards.PSA level and digital rectal examination were done routinely at follow-ups.We defined PSA bounce as a rise of 0.1 ng/mL, followed by two consecutive falls.Biochemical failure was defined according to the Phoenix criteria,a rise of 2 ng/mL above nadir.

Patients with biochemical failure were all further evaluated with imaging and bone scan to detect any disease recurrence.

Statistical analyses were performed using SPSS statistics version 21.0(IBM,New York,USA).Uni-and multi-variate Cox proportional hazard and linear/logistics regression models were used to stratify and evaluate individual factor’s contribution.The clinical significance of the results is taken as p value of＜0.05,corresponding to＞95%conf idence interval.

3.Results

The patient profile and disease characteristics are summarized in Table 1.A total of 206 patients were recruited, with the median age of 68.5 years old(range:48.0-85.0 years).Median prostate volume was 31.0 mL(range 10.0-97.0 mL).Transrectal ultrasound biopsy was the most common method of diagnosis.Risk stratification was based on the D’Amico classification:25 patients(12.1%)low risk, 69(33.5%)intermediate risk,and 112(54.4%)high risk.

All patients received IMRT ranging from 70 to 74 Gy.One hundred and eight-five patients(89.8%)received concomitant hormonal therapy.The median time to PSA nadir was 7 months and the median PSA nadir value was 0.03 ng/mL, partly due to the significant proportion of patients who had adjuvant hormonal therapy in our study group.

Sixty-one patients(29.6%)experienced the PSA bounce phenomenon,at a median time of 16 months(range 6-36 months),with a median magnitude of 0.35 ng/mL(range 0.1-4.2 ng/mL)and for a median duration of 12 months (range 5-38 months)(Table 2).Age was a significant consistent predictor of PSA bounce.When stratified, younger patients(aged＜65 years)were associated with 3 times higher likelihood to experience bounce(p=0.001), for a longer duration(p=0.022)and with greater magnitude,although not statistically significant(p=0.113).Other significant factors associated with PSA bounce included a lower baseline PSA(p=0.010),lower Gleason score(p=0.010),low risk prostate cancer(p=0.01)and higher nadir PSA levels post-treatment(p=0.020),after adjusting for confounders on multivariate analysis (Table 3).On the other hand,hormonal therapy and pretreatment prostate volume did not affect the occurrence of PSA bounce.

Table 1Patient demographics.

The median follow-up time was 71 months(range 32-116 months).Sixteen(7.8%)patients developed biochemical recurrence,at a median time of 32 months post-radiation(range 12-59 months),of which 11(5.3%) were subsequently confirmed to have clinical disease recurrence,at a median time of 36 months(range 16-63 months)(Table 2).Of these,nine had systemic metastatic and two had local recurrences.Four of these 16 patients had previous PSA bounce.PSA bounce did not seem to predict a biochemical recurrence or clinical disease recurrence.

Table 2PSA bounce prevalence and statstics.

Table 3Factors associated with PSA bounce.

4.Discussion

The PSA bounce phenomenon had been known for some time[7].Caloglu and Ciezki[1],in their review article of 11 large case series,detailed that 30%-40%of successfully treated men would experience a benign PSA bounce, although the exact range could vary from 15%-84%, attributed to the several definitions used to describe this occurrence[8].The PSA bounces were previously defined as an increase in≥0.1 ng/mL,followed by a subsequent decrease[6];an increase of≥0.2 ng/mL,followed by a decline[9,10];minimal increase of 0.4 ng/mL over a 6-month period;and a rise of≥35%over the previous value [7].Similarly,in our study,the PSA bounce was observed in 29.6%of our patients.We adopted a lower threshold of PSA rise of≥0.1 ng/mL,followed by two subsequent falls,as we believed that any small increment would nonetheless create much anxiety for our patients.Fig.1 shows the extent of PSA bounce in our study.

Our median time to a transient elevation of PSA of 16 months and a median duration lasting 12 months were consistent with the literature[11,12].However,the median magnitude of PSA bounce of 0.35 ng/mL appeared to be much lower compared to our Western counterparts,which typically ranged from 0.1 to 1.0 ng/mL[1].This concurred with the observation by Satoh et al.[13],in their multi-institutional pooled analysis of 388 Japanese patients,which they attributed the lower magnitude to the limited follow-up duration. Given the long follow-up period in our study,we believe that there maybe a different mechanism explaining the difference in PSA bounces between the Asian and Western population, which required further exploration and studies.

Amongst the various factors(Table 3),age remained the single most consistent predictor of PSA bounce.Similarly,in our study,patients aged＜65 years old were thrice more likely to develop a PSA bounce(p=0.001).Stock et al.[7]also reflected 1.5 times more likelihood in the younger patients.

While the exact mechanisms between age and PSA bounce remained unknown,several hypotheses had been discussed.Firstly,younger patients would have more reactive epithelial cells that would affect this phenomenon [7].These patients would be more susceptible to postradiation prostatitis and cell membrane instability[6]. Similarly,we also identified a higher nadir in patients with PSA bounce(0.22 vs.0.08 mL,p=0.02)on multivariate analysis,which may suggest a greater number of posttreatment epithelial cells corresponding to a greater degree of inflammation,resulting in a PSA elevation,asconcurred by Merrick et al.[14].Although pre-treatment prostate volume did not seem to correspond with this event,we believed that a post-radiation prostate volume would have given us a better understanding of the relationship with PSA bounce.

Figure 1Extent of PSA bounce.PSA,prostate specific antigen.

Secondly,younger patients have more androgen production,which may stimulate a PSA rise.In the same vein, we would have expected concomitant hormonal therapy to influence the bounce phenomenon.Discussion regarding PSA kinetics in androgen deprivation therapy(ADT)patients undergoing radiotherapy remained divided[15].Pickles[16] commented that the effects of ADT could delay the onset and lower the magnitude of PSA bounce,but these findings was not replicated in our study and other large series [17,18].Neither was hormonal therapy confounding other factors in predicting PSA bounce on multivariate analyses.

More importantly,age also influenced the duration and magnitude of PSA bounce,as previously observed by Critz et al.[12].Younger patients not only had a significantly greater incidence of PSA bounce,but also a longer duration (14.5 vs.10.6 months,p=0.022)and higher magnitude (0.66 vs.0.39 ng/mL)of the phenomenon,although the latter was not of statistical significance(p=0.113).

Cancer grading and staging appeared to influence on the PSA bounce phenomenon.Patients who experienced the transient elevation of PSA tended to have a lower Gleason score(35.5%of patients with Gleason 6-7 compared to 17.9% of patients with Gleason 8-10,p=0.01)and lower initial PSA levels(16.49 vs.34.17 ng/mL,p=0.01).As such,the stratified low risk group(D’Amico classification)was most susceptible to the bounce(p=0.01).The higher propensity for low risk prostate cancer group to develop PSA bounce was similarly reflected in several larger studies[19,20].

Sixteen patients(7.8%)developed biochemical recurrence,defined according to the Phoenix criteria.The relationship between PSA bounce and biochemical recurrence remained undefined.Some studies had suggested a protective effect of PSA bounce on subsequent biochemical recurrence[10,11,17]while others[2,6,7,9]did not reveal any prognostic relevance.

More importantly,the main concern was the likelihood that the PSA bounce could be an early indicator of disease recurrence.Under-investigation would risk disease progression,while over-investigation could engender unnecessary anxiety and strain healthcare resources.Given the low recurrence rate in our population,there were limited data to evaluate the prognostic effect of PSA bounce on disease recurrence.However,the interval to the onset of PSA rise remained the single most distinguishing factor that separated the two entities.In our study,the median time to PSA bounce was 16 months(range 6-36 months),which was significantly shorter than the time to disease recurrence of 36 months (range 16-63 months)(Fig.2).By the end of 24 months, 86.9%of PSA bounce phenomenon would have occurred.This observation was reflected in several articles[2,6,10,11], which re-emphasized the discriminatory intervals to onset of PSA elevation.Critz et al.[12]commented on a similar distinction that the median time to cancer recurrence was 30 months compared to PSA bounce of 18 months.However, there remains a considerable overlap between the two observations,with three patients developing disease recurrence within 2 years of IMRT treatment.

Figure 2Time to PSA bounce and disease recurrence.PSA, prostate specific antigen.

Apart from the interval to occurrence,we identified the magnitude of PSA elevation as another possible discriminatory characteristic.The median PSA rise in the bounce group was 0.35,compared to 5.3 in those with disease recurrence.Given the magnitude of PSA bounce is much lower in an Asian population than the Western counterparts,we find greater reason to stick to the Phoenix criteria,and continue watchful waiting until significant rise (nadir+2 ng/mL)warrants further investigations.

Lastly,we revisited our cancer registry database and briefly evaluated patients who underwent brachytherapy (BT)during the time period of this study.All 77 patients, except one patient,who underwent125I prostate brachytherapy,had low risk prostate cancer,compared to the 12.1%who underwent IMRT in our study.Following BT,there was a higher proportion of patient(65%)who experienced PSA bounce,at a shorter median time of 9 months,and higher median magnitude of 0.50 ng/mL.Pinkawa et al. [21]also noted similar findings of greater proportion and higher magnitude of PSA bounce after BT compared to external beam radiation therapy.He postulated that BT could have induced a greater local inflammatory response that explained the differences.

5.Conclusion

To conclude,we believe that PSA bounce remains a significant phenomenon in the Asian population,although the magnitude of bounce appears to be much lower.Age remains the single most consistent predictor of PSA bounce, its duration and magnitude.Lastly,there remains a clear distinction between PSA bounce and subsequent biochemical failure or disease recurrence.The interval to occurrence and extent of PSA elevation separates these entities.

Conflicts of interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

[1]Caloglu M,Ciezki J.Prostate-specific antigen bounce after prostate brachytherapy:review of a confusing phenomenon. Urology 2009;74:1183-90.

[2]Crook J,Gillian C,Yeung I,Austen L,McLean M,Lockwood G. PSA kinetics and PSA bounce following permanent seedprostate brachytherapy.Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 2007;69: 426-33.

[3]Rosser CJ,Kuban DA,Levy LB,Chichakli R,Pollack A,Lee AK. Prostate specific antigen bounce phenomenon after external beam radiation for clinically localized prostate cancer.J Urol 2002;168:2001-5.

[4]Horwitz EM,Levy LB,Kuban DA.The biochemical and clinical significance of the post-treatment PSA bounce for prostate cancer treated with external beam radiation therapy alone:a multi-institutional pooled analysis.Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 2004;60:S235.

[5]Wallner K,Blasko J,Dattoli MJ.Evaluating cancer status.In: Wallner K,Blasko J,Dattoli MJ,editors.Prostate brachytherapy made complicated,vol.14.Seattle:SmartMedicine Publishing;1997.p.11-5.

[6]Critz FA,Williams WH,Benton JB,Levinson AK,Holladay CT, Holladay DA.Prostate specific antigen bounce after radioactive seed implantation followed by external beam radiation for prostate cancer.J Urol 2000;163:1085-9.

[7]Stock RG,Stone NN,Cesaretti JA.Prostate-specific antigen bounce after prostate seed implantation for localized prostate cancer:descriptions and implications.Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 2003;56:448-53.

[8]Abel L,Zeroski D,Brammer S,Butler W,Wallner KE, Merrick GS.PSA spike after brachytherapy for localized prostate cancer.Urol Nurs 2007;27:507-10.

[9]Cavanagh W,Blasko JC,Grimm PD,Sylvester JE.Transient elevation of serum prostate-specific antigen following(125) I/(103)Pd brachytherapy for localized prostate cancer.Semin Urol Oncol 2000;18:160-5.

[10]Ciezki JP,Reddy CA,Garcia J,Angermeier K,Ulchaker J, Mahadevan A,et al.PSA kinetics after prostate brachytherapy:PSA bounce phenomenon and its implications for PSA doubling time.Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 2006;64:512-7.

[11]Mitchell DM,Swindell R,Elliott T,Wylie JP,Taylor CM, Logue JP.Analysis of prostatespecific antigen bounce after I(125)permanent seed implant for localised prostate cancer. Radiother Oncol 2008;88:102-7.

[12]Critz FA,Williams WH,Levinson AK,Benton JB,Schnell FJ, Holladay CT,et al.Prostate specific antigen bounce after simultaneous irradiation for prostate cancer:the relationship to patient age.J Urol 2003;170:1864-7.

[13]Satoh T,Ishiyama H,Matsumoto K,Tsumura H,Kitano M, Hayakawa K,et al.Prostate-specific antigen‘bounce’after permanent I-implant brachytherapy in Japanese men:a multiinstitutional pooled analysis.BJU Int 2008;103:1064-8.

[14]Merrick GS,Butler WM,Wallner KE,Galbreath RW,Anderson RL. Prostate-specific antigen spikes after permanent prostate brachytherapy.Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 2002;54:450-6.

[15]Toledano A,Chauveinc L,Flam T,Thiounn N,Solignac S, Timbert M,et al.PSA bounce after permanent implant prostate brachytherapy may mimic a biochemical failure:a study of 295 patients with a minimum 3-year follow up.Brachytherapy 2006;5:122-6.

[16]Pickles T.Prostate-speci fic antigen(PSA)bounce and other fluctuations:which biochemical relapse de finition is least prone to PSA false calls?an analysis of 2030 men treated for prostate cancer with external beam or brachytherapy with or without adjuvant androgen deprivation therapy.Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 2006;64:1355-9.

[17]Patel C,Elshaikh MA,Angermeier K,Ulchaker J,Klein EA, Chehade N,et al.PSA bounce predicts early success in patients with permanent iodine-125 prostate implant.Urology 2004;63:110-3.

[18]Zietmann AL,Christodouleas JP,Shipley WU.PSA bounces after neoadjuvant androgen deprivation and external beam radiation:impact on definitions of failure.Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 2005;62:714-8.

[19]Waters A,Delouya G,Donath D,Lambert C,Larrive′e S,Zorn KC, et al.Risk factors following radiotherapy:outcomes from a multi-modal therapy analysis.Can J Urol 2014;21:7548-53.

[20]Chira C,Taussky D,Gruszczynski N,Meissner A,Larrive′e S, Carrier JF,et al.Unusually high prostate-specific antigen bounce after prostate brachytherapy:searching for etiologic factors.Brachytherapy 2013;6:603-7.

[21]Pinkawa M,Piroth MD,Holy R,Fischedick K,Schaar S, Borchers H,et al.Prostate-specific antigen kinetics following external-beam radiotherapy and temporary(Ir-192)or permanent(I-125)brachytherapy for prostate cancer.Radiother Oncol 2010;96:25-9.

Received 19 August 2015;received in revised form 30 November 2015;accepted 8 December 2015

Available online 13 January 2016

＊Corresponding author.

E-mail address:yuguangtan90@gmail.com(Y.G.Tan).

Peer review under responsibility of Second Military Medical University.

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ajur.2015.12.001

2214-3882/?2016 Editorial Office of Asian Journal of Urology.Production and hosting by Elsevier B.V.This is an open access article under the CC BY-NC-ND license(http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/).