Dataset Information

A novel prognostic model for Japanese patients with newly diagnosed bone-metastatic hormone-naive prostate cancer.

ABSTRACT:

Objectives

To evaluate the prognosis of newly diagnosed patients with metastatic hormone-naïve prostate cancer (mHNPC) and develop a novel prognostic model based on ChemoHormonal Therapy Versus Androgen Ablation Randomized Trial for Extensive Disease in Prostate Cancer (CHAARTED) risk classifications.

Patients and methods

We retrospectively analyzed the data of 578 newly diagnosed mHNPC patients initially treated with androgen deprivation therapy. We evaluated three clinical factors, namely, CHAARTED risk classifications (high-volume disease [HVD] vs low-volume disease [LVD]), Gleason scores (GS, 9-10 vs ≤8), and hemoglobin (Hb, ≤13.0 g/dL vs >13.0 g/dL), for their prognostic potential in predicting time to castration-resistant prostate cancer (TTC) and overall survival (OS) of mHNPC patients by multivariate analysis. Moreover, we developed a novel prognostic model that consisted of significant prognostic factors.

Results

Of the entire cohort, the median TTC and OS values were 18.3 and 67.5 months, respectively. HVD, GS 9-10, and Hb ≤13.0 g/dL were independent poor prognostic factors for both TTC and OS. We developed a novel prognostic model which could stratify mHNPC patients into four risk groups according to the numbers of poor prognostic factors: group 1, LVD with low-risk (LVD patients without GS 9-10 and Hb ≤13.0 g/dL); group 2, LVD with high-risk (LVD patients with GS 9-10, Hb ≤13.0 g/dL, or both); group 3, HVD with low-risk (HVD patients without GS 9-10 with or without Hb ≤13.0 g/dL); and group 4, HVD with high-risk (HVD patients with GS 9-10 with or without Hb ≤13.0 g/dL). The median TTC and OS of groups 1, 2, 3, and 4 were 124.8, 36.4, 17.9, and 11.2 months, and 117.2, 94.2, 67.9, and 46.2 months, respectively. A significant difference in TCC and OS was found between all groups.

Conclusion

We developed a prognostic model for mHNPC patients that consisted of CHAARTED risk classifications, GS, and Hb. Our prognostic model could significantly stratify the prognosis of patients with LVD and HVD into two groups each. This model might be a good reference for shared decision making between patients and physicians on the initial treatment for mHNPC.

SUBMITTER: Miyoshi Y

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8988841 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundBone metastasis has been suggested to be a significant impactor on the prognosis of newly diagnosed de novo metastatic hormone-sensitive prostate cancer (mHSPC), and some risk stratification models have been proposed on the basis of this hypothesis. However, the effectiveness of these risk stratification criteria has not been fully evaluated in China. This study aimed to evaluate the effectiveness of the risk stratification models in China.MethodsA total of 140 patients who were newly diagnosed with metastatic prostate cancer followed by primary androgen deprivation-based therapy from January 2008 to June 2021 at our institution were enrolled in this study. The patients were divided into different groups on the basis of high- and low-volume disease (H/LVD) criteria, high-and low-risk disease (H/LRD) criteria, extremity bone metastasis criteria (EBM), and extent of disease (EOD) criteria. The area under the receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve (AUC) and decision curve analysis (DCA) were used to compare the validity and net benefit of these models. Using the Cox proportional hazards model, we performed univariable and multivariable analyses of the factors influencing overall survival (OS) and the time of progression to metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer (CRPC).ResultsThe median patient age was 72 years. Most patients had a Gleason score ≥8 (102 cases, 72.9%) and clinical T stage >2 (75 cases, 53.6%). The median follow-up time was 25 months (range, 2-95 months). Ninety-two patients progressed to CRPC and fifty-seven patients died during the follow-up. The AUC of OS and CRPC showed that the EOD model had higher validity than the other risk stratification models. DCA shows that the net benefit of the EOD model on OS was better than that of the other risk stratification models. As for CRPC, the net benefit of the EOD model was second only to that of the H/LRD model when the threshold was <0.5; however, when the threshold was >0.5, the EOD model outperformed the other models. The effectiveness of EOD as an independent prognostic variable was verified through univariable and multivariable analyses.ConclusionThe EOD model yields reasonable risk stratification for use in Chinese mHSPC patients, providing further evidence supporting its role in clinical decision-making.

Project description:ImportanceProstate radiotherapy (RT) improves survival in men with low-burden metastatic prostate cancer. However, owing to the dichotomized nature of metastatic burden criteria, it is not clear how this benefit varies with bone metastasis counts and metastatic site.ObjectiveTo evaluate the association of bone metastasis count and location with survival benefit from prostate RT.Design, setting, and participantsThis exploratory analysis of treatment outcomes based on metastatic site and extent as determined by conventional imaging (computed tomography/magnetic resonance imaging and bone scan) evaluated patients with newly diagnosed metastatic prostate cancer randomized within the STAMPEDE trial's metastasis M1 RT comparison. The association of baseline bone metastasis counts with overall survival (OS) and failure-free survival (FFS) was assessed using a multivariable fractional polynomial interaction procedure. Further analysis was conducted in subgroups.InterventionsPatients were randomized to receive either standard of care (androgen deprivation therapy with or without docetaxel) or standard of care and prostate RT.Main outcomes and measuresThe primary outcomes were OS and FFS.ResultsA total of 1939 of 2061 men were included (median [interquartile range] age, 68 [63-73] years); 1732 (89%) had bone metastases. Bone metastasis counts were associated with OS and FFS benefit from prostate RT. Survival benefit decreased continuously as the number of bone metastases increased, with benefit most pronounced up to 3 bone metastases. A plot of estimated treatment effect indicated that the upper 95% CI crossed the line of equivalence (hazard ratio [HR], 1) above 3 bone metastases without a detectable change point. Further analysis based on subgroups showed that the magnitude of benefit from the addition of prostate RT was greater in patients with low metastatic burden with only nonregional lymph nodes (M1a) or 3 or fewer bone metastases without visceral metastasis (HR for OS, 0.62; 95% CI, 0.46-0.83; HR for FFS, 0.57; 95% CI, 0.47-0.70) than among patients with 4 or more bone metastases or any visceral/other metastasis (HR for OS, 1.08; 95% CI, 0.91-1.28; interaction P?=?.003; HR for FFS, 0.87; 95% CI, 0.76-0.99; interaction P?=?.002).Conclusions and relevanceIn this exploratory analysis of a randomized clinical trial, bone metastasis count and metastasis location based on conventional imaging were associated with OS and FFS benefit from prostate RT in M1 disease.Trial registrationClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT00268476; ISRCTN.com Identifier: ISRCTN78818544.

Project description:BackgroundThe CHAARTED and LATITUDE trials demonstrated a prolonged overall survival (OS) for metastatic hormone-naïve prostate cancer (mHNPC) patients who receive up-front docetaxel or abiraterone acetate. These studies used their own risk criteria: CHAARTED trial defines high- and low-volume diseases and LATITUDE trial targeting a high-risk disease. The present study explored whether or not the CHAARTED and LATITUDE criteria were useful for predicting the outcome in Japanese bone mHNPC patients, including elderly patients (≥70 years).MethodsA total of 532 mHNPC patients diagnosed from 2004 to 2014 in multithird referral cancer centers were enrolled in this study. All patients had bone metastasis and received combined androgen blockade treatment as an initial hormonal therapy.ResultsThe number of patients with CHAARTED low-volume and high-volume diseases was 178 (33.5%) and 354 (66.5%), respectively. On the contrary, the number of patients with LATITUDE low-risk and high-risk diseases was 157 (29.5%) and 375 (70.5%), respectively. A total of 307 (57.7%) patients were defined as having both CHAARTED high-volume and LATITUDE high-risk disease. The median castration-resistant prostate cancer- (CRPC-) free survival was 12.5 months for the CHAARTED high volume, 56.9 months for the CHAARTED low volume, 13.6 months for the LATITUDE high risk, and 37.3 months for the LATITUDE low risk, respectively. The OS was 50.1 months in patients with CHAARTED high-volume disease, 95.1 months in patients with CHAARTED low-volume disease, 54.0 months in patients with LATITUDE high-risk disease, and 92.7 months in patients with LATITUDE low-risk disease, respectively. This trend was also observed in elderly (≥70 years old) patients.ConclusionsThe patients with CHAARTED high-volume disease or LATITUDE high-risk disease showed a shorter CRPC-free survival and a shorter OS than those in the CHAARTED low-volume disease group or in the LATITUDE low-risk group among Asian Japanese bone metastatic HNPC patients.

Project description:ImportanceProstate radiation therapy (PRT) is a treatment option in men with low-volume metastatic prostate cancer based on the results of the Systemic Therapy in Advancing or Metastatic Prostate Cancer: Evaluation of Drug Efficacy Arm H (STAMPEDE-H) trial. However, the cost-effectiveness of this treatment remains unaddressed.ObjectiveTo assess the cost-effectiveness of PRT when added to androgen deprivation therapy (ADT) for men with low-volume metastatic hormone-sensitive prostate cancer (mHSPC).Design, setting, and participantsThis economic evaluation used microsimulation modeling to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of adding PRT to ADT. A simulated cohort of 10 000 individuals with low-volume mHSPC was created. Data from men with low-volume mHSPC were extracted and analyzed from January 18, 2019, through July 4, 2020. Transition probabilities were extracted from the STAMPEDE-H study. Health states included stable disease, progression, second progression, and death. Individual grade 2 or higher genitourinary and gastrointestinal toxic events associated with PRT were tracked. Univariable deterministic and probabilistic sensitivity analyses explored uncertainty with regard to the model assumptions. Health state utility estimates were based on the published literature.ExposuresThe combination of PRT and ADT using regimens of 20 fractions and 6 weekly fractions.Main outcomes and measuresOutcomes included net quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs), costs in US dollars, and incremental cost-effectiveness ratios. A strategy was classified as dominant if it was associated with higher QALYs at lower costs than the alternative and dominated if it was associated with fewer QALYs at higher costs than the alternative.ResultsFor the base case scenario of men 68 years of age with low-volume mHSPC, the modeled outcomes were similar to the target clinical data for overall survival, failure-free survival, and rates of PRT-related toxic effects. The addition of PRT was a dominant strategy compared with ADT alone, with a gain of 0.16 QALYs (95% CI, 0.15-0.17 QALYs) and a reduction in net costs by $19 472 (95% CI, $23 096-$37 362) at 37 months of follow-up and a gain of 0.81 QALYs (95% CI, 0.73-0.89 QALYs) and savings of $30 229 (95% CI, $23 096-$37 362) with lifetime follow-up.Conclusions and relevanceIn the economic evaluation, PRT was a dominant treatment strategy compared with ADT alone. These findings suggest that addition of PRT to ADT is a cost-effective treatment for men with low-volume mHSPC.

Project description:BackgroundSeveral studies showed that androgen deprivation therapy (ADT) plus local treatment of prostate could improve metastatic prostate cancer (mPCa) patients' survival. To date there are few studies analyzed the value of prostate cryoablation in mPCa. The objective of our analysis is to evaluate the oncological results and clinical value of prostate cryoablation combined with ADT compared with ADT alone in newly diagnosed mPCa patients.MethodsNewly diagnosed mPCa patients undergoing cryoablation plus ADT (group A) between January 2011 and November 2018 were identified. Patients receiving ADT alone (group B) were selected from the same institutional prostate cancer database by propensity score matching based on clinical characteristics. Oncological results and clinical value in symptom control and primary lesion treatment were compared.ResultsFifty-four patients were included in each group. Prostate cryoablation was well tolerated. The median follow-up time was 40 (27-53) and 39 (31-54) months in group A and group B, respectively. Patients in group A had a lower median prostate-specific antigen (PSA) nadir (0.025 ng/mL vs. 0.230 ng/mL, p = 0.001), longer median failure-free survival (FFS) (39 months vs. 21 months, p = 0.005), and median metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer (mCRPC)-free survival (39 months vs. 21 months, p = 0.007). No difference in cancer-specific survival and overall survival was found between the two groups. Multivariate Cox analysis showed combination therapy reduced the risk of FFS by 45.8% (HR = 0.542 [95% CI 0.329-0.893]; p = 0.016). Patients in group A had better clinical relief of urinary symptoms (79.1 vs. 59.1%, p = 0.044) and required less treatment of primary lesions for symptomatic relief (13.0 vs. 31.5%, p = 0.021).ConclusionsProstate cryoablation plus ADT decreases PSA nadir, prolongs FFS and mCRPC-free survival, relieves urinary symptoms and reduces the need for treating primary lesions in newly diagnosed mPCa patients compared to ADT alone.