Outcomes of very high-risk prostate cancer after radical prostatectomy: Validation study from 3 centers

被引:41
作者
Sundi, Debasish [1 ]
Tosoian, Jeffrey J. [2 ]
Nyame, Yaw A. [3 ]
Alam, Ridwan [2 ]
Achim, Mary [4 ]
Reichard, Chad A. [4 ]
Li, Jianbo [3 ]
Wilkins, Lamont [3 ]
Schwen, Zeyad [2 ]
Han, Misop [2 ]
Davis, John W. [4 ]
Klein, Eric A. [3 ]
Schaeffer, Edward M. [5 ]
Stephenson, Andrew J. [3 ]
Ross, Ashley E. [6 ]
Chapin, Brian F. [4 ]
机构
[1] Ohio State Univ, Dept Urol, Columbus, OH 43210 USA
[2] Johns Hopkins Med Inst, Brady Urol Inst, Baltimore, MD 21205 USA
[3] Cleveland Clin, Glickman Urol Inst, Cleveland, OH 44106 USA
[4] Univ Texas MD Anderson Canc Ctr, Dept Urol, 1515 Holcombe Blvd, Houston, TX 77054 USA
[5] Northwestern Univ, Dept Urol, Feinberg Sch Med, Chicago, IL 60611 USA
[6] Texas Oncol, Dallas, TX USA
关键词
cancer-specific mortality; high-risk localized prostate cancer; metastasis; prostate cancer; risk stratification; ONCOLOGICAL OUTCOMES; SYSTEM;
D O I
10.1002/cncr.31833
中图分类号
R73 [肿瘤学];
学科分类号
100214 ;
摘要
Background Among men with localized high-risk prostate cancer (PCa), patients who meet very high-risk (VHR) criteria have been shown to experience worse outcomes after radical prostatectomy (RP) in a previous study. Variations of VHR criteria have been suggested to be prognostic in other single-center cohorts, but multicenter outcomes validating VHR criteria have not been described. This study was designed to validate VHR criteria for identifying which PCa patients are at greatest risk for cancer progression. Methods Patients with high-risk PCa undergoing RP (2005-2015) at 3 tertiary centers were pooled. The outcomes of men with VHR PCa were compared with the outcomes of those who did not meet VHR criteria. The high-risk criteria were a clinical stage of T3 to T4, a prostate-specific antigen level > 20 ng/mL, or a biopsy Gleason grade sum of 8 to 10. The VHR criteria were multiple high-risk features, >4 biopsy cores with a Gleason grade sum of 8 to 10, or primary Gleason grade pattern 5. Biochemical recurrence, metastasis (METS), and cancer-specific mortality (CSM) were assessed with competing risks regressions. Overall mortality was assessed with Cox survival models. Results Among 1981 patients with high-risk PCa, men with VHR PCa (n = 602) had adverse pathologic outcomes: 37% versus 25% for positive margins and 37% versus 15% for positive lymph nodes (P < .001 for both comparisons). Patients with VHR PCa also had higher adjusted hazard ratios for METS (2.78; 95% confidence interval [CI], 2.08-3.72), CSM (6.77; 95% CI, 2.91-15.7), and overall mortality (2.44; 95% CI, 1.56-3.80; P < .001 for all comparisons). Conclusions In a validation study of patients who underwent treatment for high-risk PCa, VHR criteria were strongly associated with adverse pathologic and oncologic outcomes.
引用
收藏
页码:391 / 397
页数:7
相关论文
共 22 条
  • [1] High-risk prostate cancer in the United States, 1990-2007
    Cooperberg, Matthew R.
    Cowan, Janet
    Broering, Jeannette M.
    Carroll, Peter R.
    [J]. WORLD JOURNAL OF UROLOGY, 2008, 26 (03) : 211 - 218
  • [2] Biochemical outcome after radical prostatectomy, external beam radiation therapy, or interstitial radiation therapy for clinically localized prostate cancer
    D'Amico, AV
    Whittington, R
    Malkowicz, SB
    Schultz, D
    Blank, K
    Broderick, GA
    Tomaszewski, JE
    Renshaw, AA
    Kaplan, I
    Beard, CJ
    Wein, A
    [J]. JAMA-JOURNAL OF THE AMERICAN MEDICAL ASSOCIATION, 1998, 280 (11): : 969 - 974
  • [3] Oncological Outcomes After Radical Prostatectomy for High-Risk Prostate Cancer Based on New Gleason Grouping System: A Validation Study From University of Southern California With 3,755 Cases
    Djaladat, Hooman
    Amini, Erfan
    Xu, Weichen
    Cai, Jie
    Daneshmand, Siamak
    Lieskovsky, Gary
    [J]. PROSTATE, 2017, 77 (07) : 743 - 748
  • [4] The 2005 International Society of Urological Pathology (ISUP) Consensus Conference on Gleason Grading of Prostatic Carcinoma
    Epstein, JI
    Allsbrook, WC
    Amin, MB
    Egevad, LL
    Bastacky, S
    Beltrán, AL
    Berner, A
    Billis, A
    Boccon-Gibod, L
    Cheng, L
    Civantos, F
    Cohen, C
    Cohen, MB
    Datta, M
    Davis, C
    Delahunt, B
    Delprado, W
    Eble, JN
    Foster, CS
    Furusato, M
    Gaudin, PB
    Grignon, DJ
    Humphrey, PA
    Iczkowski, KA
    Jones, EC
    Lucia, S
    McCue, PA
    Nazeer, T
    Oliva, E
    Pan, CC
    Pizov, G
    Reuter, V
    Samaratunga, H
    Sebo, T
    Sesterhenn, I
    Shevchuk, M
    Srigley, JR
    Suzigan, S
    Takahashi, H
    Tamboli, P
    Tan, PH
    Têtu, B
    Tickoo, S
    Tomaszewski, JE
    Troncoso, P
    Tsuzuki, T
    True, LD
    van der Kwast, T
    Wheeler, TM
    Wojno, KJ
    [J]. AMERICAN JOURNAL OF SURGICAL PATHOLOGY, 2005, 29 (09) : 1228 - 1242
  • [5] A Contemporary Prostate Cancer Grading System: A Validated Alternative to the Gleason Score
    Epstein, Jonathan I.
    Zelefsky, Michael J.
    Sjoberg, Daniel D.
    Nelson, Joel B.
    Egevad, Lars
    Magi-Galluzzi, Cristina
    Vickers, Andrew J.
    Parwani, Anil V.
    Reuter, Victor E.
    Fine, Samson W.
    Eastham, James A.
    Wiklund, Peter
    Han, Misop
    Reddy, Chandana A.
    Ciezki, Jay P.
    Nyberg, Tommy
    Klein, Eric A.
    [J]. EUROPEAN UROLOGY, 2016, 69 (03) : 428 - 435
  • [6] New Prostate Cancer Grading System Predicts Long-term Survival Following Surgery for Gleason Score 8-10 Prostate Cancer
    Ham, Won Sik
    Chalfin, Heather J.
    Feng, Zhaoyong
    Trock, Bruce J.
    Epstein, Jonathan I.
    Cheung, Carling
    Humphreys, Elizabeth
    Partin, Alan W.
    Han, Misop
    [J]. EUROPEAN UROLOGY, 2017, 71 (06) : 907 - 912
  • [7] Stratification of High-risk Prostate Cancer into Prognostic Categories: A European Multi-institutional Study
    Joniau, Steven
    Briganti, Alberto
    Gontero, Paolo
    Gandaglia, Giorgio
    Tosco, Lorenzo
    Fieuws, Steffen
    Tombal, Bertrand
    Marchioro, Giansilvio
    Walz, Jochen
    Kneitz, Burkhard
    Bader, Pia
    Frohneberg, Detlef
    Tizzani, Alessandro
    Graefen, Markus
    van Cangh, Paul
    Karnes, R. Jeffrey
    Montorsi, Francesco
    Van Poppel, Hein
    Spahn, Martin
    [J]. EUROPEAN UROLOGY, 2015, 67 (01) : 157 - 164
  • [8] Preoperative and Postoperative Nomograms Incorporating Surgeon Experience for Clinically Localized Prostate Cancer
    Kattan, Michael W.
    Vickers, Andrew J.
    Yu, Changhong
    Bianco, Fernando J.
    Cronin, Angel M.
    Eastham, James A.
    Klein, Eric A.
    Reuther, Alwyn M.
    Pontes, Jose Edson
    Scardino, Peter T.
    [J]. CANCER, 2009, 115 (05) : 1005 - 1010
  • [9] Kaushik D, 2016, INT BRAZ J UROL, V42, P1091, DOI [10.1590/s1677-5538.ibju.2016.0290, 10.1590/S1677-5538.IBJU.2016.0290]
  • [10] What Are the Outcomes of Radical Prostatectomy for High-risk Prostate Cancer?
    Loeb, Stacy
    Schaeffer, Edward M.
    Trock, Bruce J.
    Epstein, Jonathan I.
    Humphreys, Elizabeth B.
    Walsh, Patrick C.
    [J]. UROLOGY, 2010, 76 (03) : 710 - 714