Advertisement

Three-tiered Subclassification System of High-risk Prostate Cancer in Men Managed With Radical Prostatectomy: Implications for Treatment Decision-making

      Objective

      To inform treatment decisions for patients with high-risk prostate cancer (PCa), we determined rates of adverse pathologic factors and overall survival (OS) among subgroups of high-risk men.

      Methods

      Using the National Cancer Database, 89,450 patients with clinical N0M0 unfavorable intermediate-risk, favorable high-risk (cT1c, Gleason 6, prostate-specific antigen [PSA] > 20 ng/mL or cT1c, biopsy Gleason 8, PSA < 10 ng/mL), standard high-risk (all other cT3a, biopsy Gleason ≥ 8, or PSA > 20 ng/mL), or very high-risk (cT3b-T4 or biopsy primary Gleason pattern 5) PCa treated with radical prostatectomy were identified. Rates of adverse pathologic factors (positive surgical margins, T4 disease, or pathologic lymph node involvement) were compared across subgroups.

      Results

      Patients with unfavorable intermediate-risk (n = 31,381) and favorable high-risk (n = 10,296) disease had similar rates of adverse features (7.6% vs 8.2%, adjusted odds ratio 1.00, 95% confidence interval 0.92-1.08, P= .974). Patients with standard high-risk (n = 30,260) or very high-risk (n = 7513) disease were significantly more likely to have adverse pathologic factors (15.9% and 26.5%, P < .001 for both). Patients with unfavorable intermediate-risk and favorable high-risk disease had similar 5-year OS (95.7% vs 95.1%, adjusted hazard ratio 1.06, 95% confidence interval 0.92-1.21, P = .411) but better OS compared to standard and very high-risk patients (93.4% and 88.1%, respectively; P < .001).

      Conclusion

      Unfavorable intermediate-risk or favorable high-risk PCa patients had low rates of adverse pathologic factors and similar OS. In contrast, standard and very high-risk PCa patients had significantly higher rates of adverse pathologic factors and worse OS. This 3-tiered subclassification of high-risk disease may allow for improved treatment selection among patients considering surgery.
      To read this article in full you will need to make a payment

      Purchase one-time access:

      Academic & Personal: 24 hour online accessCorporate R&D Professionals: 24 hour online access
      One-time access price info
      • For academic or personal research use, select 'Academic and Personal'
      • For corporate R&D use, select 'Corporate R&D Professionals'

      Subscribe:

      Subscribe to Urology
      Already a print subscriber? Claim online access
      Already an online subscriber? Sign in
      Institutional Access: Sign in to ScienceDirect

      References

        • Spahn M
        • Joniau S
        • Gontero P
        • et al.
        Outcome predictors of radical prostatectomy in patients with prostate-specific antigen greater than 20 ng/ml: a European multi-institutional study of 712 patients.
        Eur Urol. 2010; 58: 1
        • Muralidhar V
        • Xiang M
        • Orio 3rd PF
        • et al.
        Brachytherapy boost and cancer-specific mortality in favorable high-risk versus other high-risk prostate cancer.
        J Contemp Brachytherapy. 2016; 8: 1-6
        • Joniau S
        • Briganti A
        • Gontero P
        • et al.
        Stratification of high-risk prostate cancer into prognostic categories: a European multi-institutional study.
        Eur Urol. 2015; 67: 157-164
        • Walz J
        • Joniau S
        • Chun FK
        • et al.
        Pathological results and rates of treatment failure in high-risk prostate cancer patients after radical prostatectomy.
        BJU Int. 2011; 107: 765-770
        • Hueting TA
        • Cornel EB
        • Somford DM
        • et al.
        External validation of models predicting the probability of lymph node involvement in prostate cancer patients.
        Eur Urol Oncol. 2018; 1: 411-417
        • Muralidhar V
        • Chen MH
        • Reznor G
        • et al.
        Definition and validation of ‘favorable high-risk prostate cancer’: implications for personalizing treatment of radiation-managed patients.
        Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2015; 93: 828-835
        • Bilimoria KY
        • Stewart AK
        • Winchester DP
        • Ko CY
        The national cancer data base: a powerful initiative to improve cancer care in the United States.
        Ann Surg Oncol. 2008; 15: 683-690
      1. National Comprehensive Cancer Network. (2018). Prostate cancer (version 3.2018). Retrieved from https://oncolife.com.ua/doc/nccn/Prostate_Cancer.pdf

        • Zumsteg ZS
        • Spratt DE
        • Pei I
        • et al.
        A new risk classification system for therapeutic decision making with intermediate-risk prostate cancer patients undergoing dose-escalated external-beam radiation therapy.
        Eur Urol. 2013; 64: 895-902
        • Schemper M
        • Smith TL.
        A note on quantifying follow-up in studies of failure time.
        Control Clin Trials. 1996; https://doi.org/10.1016/0197-2456(96)00075-X
        • Narang AK
        • Gergis C
        • Robertson SP
        • et al.
        Very high-risk localized prostate cancer: outcomes following definitive radiation.
        Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2016; 94: 254-262
        • Sundi D
        • Wang VM
        • Pierorazio PM
        • et al.
        Very-high-risk localized prostate cancer: definition and outcomes.
        Prostate Cancer Prostatic Dis. 2014; 17: 57-63
        • Morris WJ
        • Tyldesley S
        • Rodda S
        • et al.
        Androgen suppression combined with elective nodal and dose escalated radiation therapy (the ASCENDE-RT Trial): an analysis of survival endpoints for a randomized trial comparing a low-dose-rate brachytherapy boost to a dose-escalated external beam boost f.
        Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2017; https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijrobp.2016.11.026
        • Selnaes KM
        • Kruger-Stokke B
        • Elschot M
        • et al.
        (18)F-Fluciclovine PET/MRI for preoperative lymph node staging in high-risk prostate cancer patients.
        Eur Radiol. 2018; 28: 3151-3159
        • Maurer T
        • Eiber M
        • Schwaiger M
        • Gschwend JE
        Current use of PSMA-PET in prostate cancer management.
        Nat Rev Urol. 2016; 13: 226-235
        • Xu MJ
        • Kornberg Z
        • Gadzinski AJ
        • et al.
        Genomic risk predicts molecular imaging-detected metastatic nodal disease in prostate cancer.
        Eur Urol Oncol. 2019; 2: 685-690
        • Tward JD
        • Kokeny KE
        • Shrieve DC
        Radiation therapy for clinically node-positive prostate adenocarcinoma is correlated with improved overall and prostate cancer-specific survival.
        Pr Radiat Oncol. 2013; 3: 234-240
        • Rusthoven CG
        • Carlson JA
        • Waxweiler T V
        • et al.
        The impact of definitive local therapy for lymph node-positive prostate cancer: a population-based study.
        Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2014; 88: 1064-1073
        • Lin CC
        • Gray PJ
        • Jemal A
        • Efstathiou JA
        Androgen deprivation with or without radiation therapy for clinically node-positive prostate cancer.
        J Natl Cancer Inst. 2015; 107https://doi.org/10.1093/jnci/djv119
        • Ghavamian R
        • Bergstralh EJ
        • Blute ML
        • Slezak J
        • Zincke H
        Radical retropubic prostatectomy plus orchiectomy versus orchiectomy alone for pTxN+ prostate cancer: a matched comparison.
        J Urol. 1999; 161: 1223-1228
        • Engel J
        • Bastian PJ
        • Baur H
        • et al.
        Survival benefit of radical prostatectomy in lymph node-positive patients with prostate cancer.
        Eur Urol. 2010; 57: 754-761
        • Tosoian JJ
        • Chappidi M
        • Feng Z
        • et al.
        Prediction of pathological stage based on clinical stage, serum prostate-specific antigen, and biopsy Gleason score: partin tables in the contemporary era.
        BJU Int. 2017; 119: 676-683
        • Massengill JC
        • Sun L
        • Moul JW
        • et al.
        Pretreatment total testosterone level predicts pathological stage in patients with localized prostate cancer treated with radical prostatectomy.
        J Urol. 2003; 169: 1670-1675
        • Imamoto T
        • Suzuki H
        • Fukasawa S
        • et al.
        Pretreatment serum testosterone level as a predictive factor of pathological stage in localized prostate cancer patients treated with radical prostatectomy.
        Eur Urol. 2005; 47: 308-312
        • Nguyen PL
        • Chen MH
        • Hoffman KE
        • Katz MS
        • D'Amico AV
        Predicting the risk of pelvic node involvement among men with prostate cancer in the contemporary era.
        Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2009; 74: 104-109
        • Roach 3rd M
        • Marquez C
        • Yuo HS
        • et al.
        Predicting the risk of lymph node involvement using the pre-treatment prostate specific antigen and Gleason score in men with clinically localized prostate cancer.
        Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 1994; 28: 33-37
        • Yu JB
        • Makarov D V
        • Gross C
        A new formula for prostate cancer lymph node risk.
        Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2011; 80: 69-75
        • Nagao K
        • Matsuyama H
        • Matsumoto H
        • et al.
        Identification of curable high-risk prostate cancer using radical prostatectomy alone: who are the good candidates for undergoing radical prostatectomy among patients with high-risk prostate cancer?.
        Int J Clin Oncol. 2018; https://doi.org/10.1007/s10147-018-1272-9
        • Sineshaw HM
        • Gray PJ
        • Efstathiou JA
        • Jemal A
        Declining use of radiotherapy for adverse features after radical prostatectomy: results from the national cancer data base.
        Eur Urol. 2015; 68: 768-774
        • Kalbasi A
        • Swisher-McClure S
        • Mitra N
        • et al.
        Low rates of adjuvant radiation in patients with nonmetastatic prostate cancer with high-risk pathologic features.
        Cancer. 2014; 120: 3089-3096