Dataset Information

No detrimental effect of a positive family history on postoperative upgrading and upstaging in men with low risk and favourable intermediate-risk prostate cancer: implications for active surveillance.

ABSTRACT:

Purpose

To assess whether a first-degree family history or a fatal family history of prostate cancer (PCa) are associated with postoperative upgrading and upstaging among men with low risk and favourable intermediate-risk (FIR) PCa and to provide guidance on clinical decision making for active surveillance (AS) in this patient population.

Methods

Participants in the German Familial Prostate Cancer database diagnosed from 1994 to 2019 with (1) low risk (clinical T1c-T2a, biopsy Gleason Grade Group (GGG) 1, PSA < 10 ng/ml), (2) Gleason 6 FIR (clinical T1c-T2a, GGG 1, PSA 10-20 ng/ml), and (3) Gleason 3 + 4 FIR (clinical T1c-T2a, GGG 2, PSA < 10 ng/ml) PCa who were subsequently treated with radical prostatectomy (RP) were analysed for upgrading, defined as postoperative GGG 3 tumour or upstaging, defined as pT3-pT4 or pN1 disease at RP. Logistic regression analysis was used to assess whether PCa family history was associated with postoperative upgrading or upstaging.

Results

Among 4091 men who underwent RP, mean age at surgery was 64.4 (SD 6.7) years, 24.7% reported a family history, and 3.4% a fatal family history. Neither family history nor fatal family history were associated with upgrading or upstaging at low risk, Gleason 6 FIR, and Gleason 3 + 4 FIR PCa patients.

Conclusion

Results from the current study indicated no detrimental effect of family history on postoperative upgrading or upstaging. Therefore, a positive family history or fatal family history of PCa in FIR PCa patients should not be a reason to refrain from AS in men otherwise suitable.

SUBMITTER: Herkommer K

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8332649 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:Initial management of intermediate-risk prostate cancer is evolving, with no clear recommendation for treatment. Data on utilization of active surveillance for patients with newly diagnosed intermediate-risk prostate cancer may help clarify emerging trends. To further characterize US national trends of initial management of intermediate-risk prostate cancer. This cohort study included patients with intermediate-risk prostate cancer diagnosed from January 1, 2010, to December 31, 2020. Eligible patients were diagnosed in US hospitals included in the National Cancer Database; National Comprehensive Cancer Network risk stratification guidelines were used to characterize as favorable vs unfavorable intermediate risk. Analysis was performed in September 2023. Active surveillance vs intervention with surgery and/or radiation or no treatment. Temporal trends in demographic, clinical, and socioeconomic factors among men with intermediate-risk prostate cancer and their association with the use of active surveillance; further subgroup analysis was conducted for those with favorable vs unfavorable intermediate risk classification. In total, 289 584 men diagnosed with intermediate-risk prostate cancer were identified from 2010 to 2020 (46 147 Black [15.9%], 230 071 White [79.5%]). Among patients, 153 726 (53.1%) underwent prostatectomy, 107 152 (37.0%) underwent radiotherapy, and 15 847 (5.5%) underwent active surveillance as initial treatment strategy. Overall, active surveillance quadrupled from 418 of 21 457 patients (2.0%) in 2010 to 2428 of 28 192 patients (8.6%) in 2020 for the entire cohort (P < .001). Active surveillance increased from 317 of 12 858 patients (2.4%) in 2010 to 2020 of 12 902 patients (13.5%) in 2020 in men with favorable intermediate-risk prostate cancer (P < .001). In the unfavorable intermediate-risk cohort, active surveillance increased from 101 of 8181 patients (1.2%) in 2010 to 408 of 12 861 patients (3.1%) in 2020 (P < .001). On multivariable analysis, use of active surveillance was associated with increased age (age 70-80 years vs <50 years: odds ratio [OR], 3.09; 95% CI, 2.66-3.59), lower Gleason score (3 + 3 vs 3 + 4: OR, 3.45; 95% CI, 3.25-3.66), early T stage (T2c vs T1a through T2a: OR, 0.35; 95% CI, 0.32-0.38), treatment at an academic center (community vs academic center: OR, 0.72; 95% CI, 0.67-0.78), higher level of education (communities with 21% or higher population without high school vs less than 7%: OR, 0.73; 95% CI, 0.67-0.79), insurance type (Medicare or other governmental service vs private: OR, 1.11; 95% CI, 1.07-1.16), proximity to treatment facility (greater than 120 miles vs less than 60 miles: OR, 0.75; 95% CI, 0.68-0.84), facility location (South Atlantic vs New England: OR, 0.54; 95% CI, 0.46-0.53), and lower income (less than $38 000 vs $63 000 or greater: OR, 1.22; 95% CI, 1.14-1.31). These findings highlight increasing implementation of active surveillance in the initial management of intermediate risk prostate cancer. Prospective data with improved risk stratification incorporating genomics and digital pathology artificial intelligence as well as novel surveillance strategies may continue to better delineate optimal treatment recommendations in this patient population.