Dataset Information

Effect of Preoperative Risk Group Stratification on Oncologic Outcomes of Patients with Adverse Pathologic Findings at Radical Prostatectomy.

ABSTRACT:

Background

Current National Comprehensive Cancer Network guidelines recommend postoperative radiation therapy based only on adverse pathologic findings (APFs), irrespective of preoperative risk group. We assessed whether a model incorporating both the preoperative risk group and APFs could predict long-term oncologic outcomes better than a model based on APFs alone.

Methods

We retrospectively reviewed 4,404 men who underwent radical prostatectomy (RP) at our institution between 1992 and 2014. After excluding patients receiving neoadjuvant therapy or with incomplete pathological or follow-up data, 3,092 men were included in the final analysis. APFs were defined as extraprostatic extension (EPE), seminal vesicle invasion (SVI), or a positive surgical margin (PSM). The adequacy of model fit to the data was compared using the likelihood-ratio test between the models with and without risk groups, and model discrimination was compared with the concordance index (c-index) for predicting biochemical recurrence (BCR) and prostate cancer-specific mortality (PCSM). We performed multivariate Cox proportional hazard model and competing risk regression analyses to identify predictors of BCR and PCSM in the total patient group and each of the risk groups.

Results

Adding risk groups to the model containing only APFs significantly improved the fit to the data (likelihood-ratio test, p <0.001) and the c-index increased from 0.693 to 0.732 for BCR and from 0.707 to 0.747 for PCSM. A RP Gleason score (GS) ?8 and a PSM were independently associated with BCR in the total patient group and also each risk group. However, only a GS ?8 and SVI were associated with PCSM in the total patient group (GS ?8: hazard ratio [HR] 5.39 and SVI: HR 3.36) and the high-risk group (GS ?8: HR 6.31 and SVI: HR 4.05).

Conclusion

The postoperative estimation of oncologic outcomes in men with APFs at RP was improved by considering preoperative risk group stratification. Although a PSM was an independent predictor for BCR, only a RP GS ?8 and SVI were associated with PCSM in the total patient and high-risk groups.

SUBMITTER: Jang WS

PROVIDER: S-EPMC5055349 | biostudies-literature | 2016

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Effect of Preoperative Risk Group Stratification on Oncologic Outcomes of Patients with Adverse Pathologic Findings at Radical Prostatectomy.

Jang Won Sik WS Kim Lawrence H C LH Yoon Cheol Yong CY Rha Koon Ho KH Choi Young Deuk YD Hong Sung Joon SJ Ham Won Sik WS

PloS one 20161007 10

<h4>Background</h4>Current National Comprehensive Cancer Network guidelines recommend postoperative radiation therapy based only on adverse pathologic findings (APFs), irrespective of preoperative risk group. We assessed whether a model incorporating both the preoperative risk group and APFs could predict long-term oncologic outcomes better than a model based on APFs alone.<h4>Methods</h4>We retrospectively reviewed 4,404 men who underwent radical prostatectomy (RP) at our institution between 19 ...[more]

PMID: 27716842

Similar Datasets

Project description:ImportanceActive surveillance is recommended for patients with very low-risk (VLR) and low-risk (LR) prostate cancer. Despite controversy, recent clinical guidelines state surveillance may be considered for men with low-volume intermediate-risk (LVIR) disease.ObjectiveTo compare rates of adverse pathologic findings among VLR, LR, and LVIR men electing immediate radical prostatectomy and evaluate criteria to define if a favorable intermediate-risk group minimizing risk exists.Design, setting, and participantsThis was a cohort study of men (2005-July 2016) with clinically localized VLR (1264 patients), LR (4849 patients), and LVIR (608 patients) (1-2 cores, Gleason 3?+?4?=?7, prostate-specific antigen [PSA] level <20 ng/mL) prostate cancer undergoing radical prostatectomy evaluated retrospectively at Johns Hopkins Hospital.InterventionsRadical prostatectomy.Main outcomes and measuresThe proportions of men found to have at least Gleason 4?+?3?=?7 disease and other adverse pathologic features were compared by risk group. Log-binomial regression calculated relative risk (RR) of adverse pathologic findings in the LVIR cohort compared with VLR and LR cohorts. Analyses were repeated in subgroups of the LVIR population who otherwise met criteria for VLR (T1c, PSA density [PSAD] <0.15 ng/mL/cm3, ?50% cancer in any core) and LR (?T2a, PSA level <10 ng/mL) disease. Rates of adverse pathologic findings within the LVIR group were calculated based on various clinical thresholds, and univariable and multivariable logistic regression analyses were performed to identify predictors of adverse pathologic findings.ResultsThe rate of adverse pathologic findings was significantly higher for LVIR disease (150 of 608 patients [24.7%]; RR, 4.50; 95% CI, 3.73-5.43; P?<?.001) compared with LR disease (280 of 4849 [5.8%]), and LVIR disease (RR, 5.14; 95% CI, 3.84-6.89; P?<?.001) compared with men with VLR disease (60 of 1264 [4.7%]). Restriction of LVIR men to additional criteria did not significantly affect results. There were no preoperative clinical or pathologic criteria that could identify a subgroup of the LVIR population with rates of adverse pathologic findings comparable with those of the VLR and LR cohorts. PSAD was a significant predictor of adverse pathologic findings, but Gleason score had the largest effect (odds ratio, 4.30 (95% CI, 3.40-5.44; P?<?.001).Conclusions and relevanceNearly 25% of men (150 of 608) electing immediate radical prostatectomy with low-volume, Gleason 3?+?4 prostate cancer on biopsy are found to harbor adverse surgical pathologic findings. These data do not support the presence of a "favorable" subgroup among included patients and could have important implications for active surveillance in similar patients with Gleason 3?+?4?=?7 prostate cancer.

Project description:Background: Patients undergoing surgery for prostate cancer who have adverse pathological findings experience high rates of recurrence. While there are data supporting adjuvant radiotherapy compared to a wait-and-watch strategy to reduce recurrence rates, there are no randomized controlled trials comparing adjuvant radiotherapy with the other standard of care, salvage radiotherapy (radiotherapy administered at the time of recurrence). Methods: We constructed a health state transition (Markov) model employing two-dimensional Monte Carlo simulation using a lifetime horizon to compare the quality-adjusted survival associated with postoperative strategies using adjuvant or salvage radiotherapy. Prior to analysis, we calibrated and validated our model using the results of previous randomized controlled trials. We considered clinically important oncological health states from immediately postoperative to prostate cancer-specific death, commonly described complications from prostate cancer treatment, and other causes of mortality. Transition probabilities and utilities for disease states were derived from a literature search of MEDLINE and expert consensus. Results: Salvage radiotherapy was associated with an increased quality-adjusted life expectancy (QALE) (58.3 months) as compared with adjuvant radiotherapy (53.7 months), a difference of 4.6 months (standard deviation 8.8). Salvage radiotherapy had higher QALE in 53% of hypothetical cohorts. There was a minimal difference in overall life expectancy (-0.1 months). Examining recurrence rates, our model showed validity when compared with available randomized controlled data. Conclusions: A salvage radiotherapy strategy appears to provide improved QALE for patients with adverse pathological findings following radical prostatectomy, compared with adjuvant radiotherapy. As these findings reflect, population averages, specific patient and tumor factors, and patient preferences remain central for individualized management.

Project description:BackgroundPartial ablation of the prostate using high-intensity focussed ultrasound (HIFU-PA) is a treatment option for localised prostate cancer. When local recurrence occurs, salvage robot-assisted radical prostatectomy is a treatment option for selected patients, but there is a paucity of data on the peri-operative safety, functional and oncologic outcomes of sRARP.. The objective of this study was therefore to describe peri-operative safety, functional and early oncologic outcomes following salvage robot-assisted radical prostatectomy (sRARP) for local recurrence after HIFU-PA.MethodsRetrospective analysis of a prospective database of 53 consecutive men who underwent sRARP after HIFU-PA from 2012 to 2018. Continence and erectile-function were reported pre-HIFU, pre-sRARP, 3-months post-sRARP and 12-months post-sRARP. Complications, PSMs and need for subsequent ADT/radiotherapy were assessed.Results45 men were suitable for inclusion and had sufficient data for analyses. Median duration from HIFU to sRARP was 30.0 months and median follow-up post-sRARP was 17.7 months. Median age, PSA and ISUP group were 63.0 yrs., 7.2 ng/mL and 2; 88.9% were cT2. Median operative-console time, blood loss and hospital stay were 140 min, 200 ml and 1 day respectively. Clavien-Dindo grade 1, 2 and 3 complications < 90 days occurred in 8.9, 6.7 and 2.2%; late (>90d) complications occurred in 13.2%. At sRARP pathology, ISUP 3-5 occurred in 51.1%, pT3a/b in 64.5%, and PSMs in 44.4% (37.5% for pT2, 48.3% for pT3). Of men with > 3-months follow-up after sRARP, 26.3% underwent adjuvant radiotherapy/ADT for residual disease or adverse pathologic features; 5.3% experienced BCR requiring salvage ADT/radiotherapy. Freedom from ADT/radiotherapy was 66.7% at 12-months. Pad-free rates were 100% pre-HIFU, 95.3% post-HIFU, 29.4% 3-months post-sRARP, and 65.5% 12-months post-sRARP. Median IIEF-5 scores pre-HIFU, post-HIFU, 3- and 12-months post-sRARP were 23.5, 16, 5 and 5, respectively. Potency rates were 81.8, 65.5, 0 and 0%, respectively. Bilateral/unilateral nerve sparing were feasible in 7%/22%.ConclusionSalvage RARP was safe with acceptable but sub-optimal continence and poor sexual-function and poor oncologic outcomes. One in three men required additional treatment within 12-months. This information may aid men and urologists with treatment selection and counselling regarding primary HIFU-PA vs primary RARP and when considering salvage RARP.

Dataset Information

Effect of Preoperative Risk Group Stratification on Oncologic Outcomes of Patients with Adverse Pathologic Findings at Radical Prostatectomy.

Background

Methods

Results

Conclusion

Publications

Effect of Preoperative Risk Group Stratification on Oncologic Outcomes of Patients with Adverse Pathologic Findings at Radical Prostatectomy.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets