Patterns of care at the end of life: a retrospective study of Italian patients with advanced breast cancer.

OBJECTIVES: To better understand the type of care offered to Italian patients with advanced breast cancer at the End-of-Life (EoL), we conducted a retrospective observational study. EoL was defined as the period of six months before death. METHODS: One hundred and twenty-one patients with advanced breast cancer (ABC) treated at IRCCS San Martino Policlinic Hospital who died between 2017 and 2021 were included. Data about patient, disease, and treatment characteristics from breast cancer diagnosis to death, along with information about comorbidities, medications, imaging, specialist evaluations, hospitalization, palliative care and home care, hospice admissions, and site of death were collected. RESULTS: 98.3% of the patients received at least one line of active treatment at EoL; 52.8% were hospitalized during the selected period. Palliative (13.9%), psychological (7.4%), and nutritional evaluations (8.2%) were underutilized. Palliative home care was provided to 52% of the patients. Most of the patients died at home (66.1%) and fewer than one out of five (18.2%) died at the hospital. Among the patients who died at home, 27.3% had no palliative support. CONCLUSIONS: Our findings indicate that palliative care in EoL breast cancer patients is still inadequate. Only a minority of patients had psychological and nutritional support While low nutritional support may be explained by the fact that typical symptoms of ABC do not involve the gastrointestinal tract, the lack of psychological support suggests that significant barriers still exist. Data on the site of death are encouraging, indicating that EoL management is increasingly home centered in Italy.

Intermediate clinical endpoints in early-stage breast cancer: an analysis of individual patient data from the Gruppo Italiano Mammella and Mammella Intergruppo trials.

Background: Intermediate clinical endpoints (ICEs) are frequently used as primary endpoint in randomised trials (RCTs). We aim to assess whether changes in different ICEs can be used to predict changes in overall survival (OS) in adjuvant breast cancer trials. Methods: Individual patient level data from adjuvant phase III RCTs conducted by the Gruppo Italiano Mammella (GIM) and Mammella Intergruppo (MIG) study groups were used. ICEs were computed according to STEEP criteria. Using a two-stage meta-analytic model, we assessed the surrogacy of each ICE at both the outcome (i.e., OS and ICE are correlated irrespective of treatment) and trial (i.e., treatment effects on ICE and treatment effect on OS are correlated) levels. The following ICEs were considered as potential surrogate endpoints of OS: disease-free survival (DFS), distant disease-free survival (DDFS), distant relapse-free survival (DRFS), recurrence-free survival (RFS), recurrence-free interval (RFI), distant recurrence-free interval (DRFI), breast cancer-free interval (BCFI), and invasive breast cancer-free survival (IBCFS). The estimates of the degree of correlation were obtained by copula models and weighted linear regression. Kendall's τ and R2 ≥ 0.70 were considered as indicators of a clinically relevant surrogacy. Findings: Among the 12,397 patients enrolled from November 1992 to July 2012 in six RCTs, median age at enrolment was 57 years (interquartile range (IQR) 49-65). After a median follow-up of 10.3 years (IQR 6.4-14.5), 2131 (17.2%) OS events were observed, with 1390 (65.2%) attributed to breast cancer. At the outcome-level, Kendall's τ ranged from 0.69 for BCFI to 0.84 for DRFS. For DFS, DDFS, DRFS, RFS, RFI, DRFI, BCFI, and IBCFS endpoints, over 95% of the 8-year OS variability was attributable to the variation of the 5-year ICE. At the trial-level, treatment effects for the different ICEs and OS were strongly correlated, with the highest correlation for RFS and DRFS and the lowest for BCFI. Interpretation: Our results provide evidence supporting the use of DFS, DDFS, DRFS, RFS, RFI, DRFI, and IBCFS as primary endpoint in breast cancer adjuvant trials. Funding: This analysis was supported by the Italian Association for Cancer Research ("Associazione Italiana per la Ricerca sul Cancro", AIRC; IG 2017/20760) and by Italian Ministry of Health-5 × 1000 funds (years 2021-2022).

SARS-CoV-2 omicron (B.1.1.529)-related COVID-19 sequelae in vaccinated and unvaccinated patients with cancer: results from the OnCovid registry.

BACKGROUND: COVID-19 sequelae can affect about 15% of patients with cancer who survive the acute phase of SARS-CoV-2 infection and can substantially impair their survival and continuity of oncological care. We aimed to investigate whether previous immunisation affects long-term sequelae in the context of evolving variants of concern of SARS-CoV-2. METHODS: OnCovid is an active registry that includes patients aged 18 years or older from 37 institutions across Belgium, France, Germany, Italy, Spain, and the UK with a laboratory-confirmed diagnosis of COVID-19 and a history of solid or haematological malignancy, either active or in remission, followed up from COVID-19 diagnosis until death. We evaluated the prevalence of COVID-19 sequelae in patients who survived COVID-19 and underwent a formal clinical reassessment, categorising infection according to the date of diagnosis as the omicron (B.1.1.529) phase from Dec 15, 2021, to Jan 31, 2022; the alpha (B.1.1.7)-delta (B.1.617.2) phase from Dec 1, 2020, to Dec 14, 2021; and the pre-vaccination phase from Feb 27 to Nov 30, 2020. The prevalence of overall COVID-19 sequelae was compared according to SARS-CoV-2 immunisation status and in relation to post-COVID-19 survival and resumption of systemic anticancer therapy. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT04393974. FINDINGS: At the follow-up update on June 20, 2022, 1909 eligible patients, evaluated after a median of 39 days (IQR 24-68) from COVID-19 diagnosis, were included (964 [50·7%] of 1902 patients with sex data were female and 938 [49·3%] were male). Overall, 317 (16·6%; 95% CI 14·8-18·5) of 1909 patients had at least one sequela from COVID-19 at the first oncological reassessment. The prevalence of COVID-19 sequelae was highest in the pre-vaccination phase (191 [19·1%; 95% CI 16·4-22·0] of 1000 patients). The prevalence was similar in the alpha-delta phase (110 [16·8%; 13·8-20·3] of 653 patients, p=0·24), but significantly lower in the omicron phase (16 [6·2%; 3·5-10·2] of 256 patients, p<0·0001). In the alpha-delta phase, 84 (18·3%; 95% CI 14·6-22·7) of 458 unvaccinated patients and three (9·4%; 1·9-27·3) of 32 unvaccinated patients in the omicron phase had sequelae. Patients who received a booster and those who received two vaccine doses had a significantly lower prevalence of overall COVID-19 sequelae than unvaccinated or partially vaccinated patients (ten [7·4%; 95% CI 3·5-13·5] of 136 boosted patients, 18 [9·8%; 5·8-15·5] of 183 patients who had two vaccine doses vs 277 [18·5%; 16·5-20·9] of 1489 unvaccinated patients, p=0·0001), respiratory sequelae (six [4·4%; 1·6-9·6], 11 [6·0%; 3·0-10·7] vs 148 [9·9%; 8·4-11·6], p=0·030), and prolonged fatigue (three [2·2%; 0·1-6·4], ten [5·4%; 2·6-10·0] vs 115 [7·7%; 6·3-9·3], p=0·037). INTERPRETATION: Unvaccinated patients with cancer remain highly vulnerable to COVID-19 sequelae irrespective of viral strain. This study confirms the role of previous SARS-CoV-2 immunisation as an effective measure to protect patients from COVID-19 sequelae, disruption of therapy, and ensuing mortality. FUNDING: UK National Institute for Health and Care Research Imperial Biomedical Research Centre and the Cancer Treatment and Research Trust.

Choosing the appropriate pharmacotherapy for breast cancer during pregnancy: what needs to be considered?

INTRODUCTION: Breast cancer is the most commonly diagnosed malignancy during pregnancy. Breast cancer during pregnancy is a challenging clinical condition requiring proper and timely multidisciplinary management. AREAS COVERED: This review focuses on the management of breast cancer during pregnancy with a focus about the current state-of-the-art on the feasibility and safety of pharmacotherapy approaches in this setting. EXPERT OPINION: Multidisciplinary care is key for a proper diagnostic-therapeutic management of breast cancer during pregnancy. Engaging patients and their caregivers in the decision-making process is essential and psychological support should be provided. The treatment of patients with breast cancer during pregnancy should follow the same recommendations as those for breast cancer in young women outside pregnancy but taking into account the gestational age at the time of treatment.Anthracycline-, cyclophosphamide-, and taxane-based regimens can be safely administered during the second and third trimesters with standard protocols, preferring weekly regimens whenever possible. Endocrine therapy, immune checkpoint inhibitors, and targeted agents are contraindicated throughout pregnancy, also due to the very limited data available to guide their administration in this setting. During treatment, careful fetal growth monitoring is mandatory, and even after delivery proper health monitoring for the children exposed in utero to chemotherapy should be continued.

The evolving scenario of cancer care provision across the COVID-19 pandemic in Europe.

PURPOSE OF REVIEW: Over the past 2 years, the COVID-19 pandemic has had short-term and long-term effects on the delivery of cancer care. Some European countries faced an unprecedented widespread crisis during the first year of the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic, only being able afterwards to gradually recover, thanks to the improvement in preventive measures, changes in public health and reactive processes in cancer care and a better understanding of the ongoing heath emergency. RECENT FINDINGS: The development of SARS-CoV-2 vaccines and COVID-19 specific treatments, the growing testing and tracking capability to limit virus diffusion, and research efforts to better define areas of action have all greatly limited the negative impact of the health emergency on routine cancer care.The need to protect those more vulnerable and to ensure continuity of care for oncology patients has been balanced across the pandemic, with the aim to guarantee an optimal standard of care. SUMMARY: This article aims to provide an overview on the evolving scenario of cancer care throughout the COVID-19 pandemic in Europe, focusing on the particular features that characterized the pandemic course as well as the main differences that were observed across it.

Vaccination against SARS-CoV-2 protects from morbidity, mortality and sequelae from COVID19 in patients with cancer.

BACKGROUND: Although SARS-CoV-2 vaccines immunogenicity in patients with cancer has been investigated, whether they can significantly improve the severity of COVID-19 in this specific population is undefined. METHODS: Capitalizing on OnCovid (NCT04393974) registry data we reported COVID-19 mortality and proxies of COVID-19 morbidity, including post-COVID-19 outcomes, according to the vaccination status of the included patients. RESULTS: 2090 eligible patients diagnosed with COVID-19 between 02/2020 and 11/2021 were included, of whom 1930 (92.3%) unvaccinated, 91 (4.4%) fully vaccinated and 69 (3.3%) partially vaccinated. With the exception of a higher prevalence of patients from the UK (p = 0.0003) and receiving systemic anticancer therapy at COVID-19 diagnosis (p = 0.0082) among fully vaccinated patients, no demographics/oncological features were associated with vaccination status. The 14-days case fatality rate (CFR) (5.5% vs 20.7%, p = 0.0004) and the 28-days CFR (13.2% vs 27.4%, p = 0.0028) demonstrated a significant improvement for fully vaccinated patients in comparison with unvaccinated patients. The receipt of prior full vaccination was also associated with reduced symptomatic COVID-19 (79.1% vs 88.5%, p = 0.0070), need of COVID-19 oriented therapy (34.9% vs 63.2%, p < 0.0001), complications from COVID-19 (28.6% vs 39.4%, p = 0.0379), hospitalizations due to COVID-19 (42.2% vs 52.5%, p = 0.0007) and oxygen therapy requirement (35.7% vs 52%, p = 0.0036). Following Inverse Probability Treatment Weighting (IPTW) procedure no statistically significant difference according to the vaccination status was confirmed; however, all COVID-19 related outcomes were concordantly in favour of full vaccination. Among the 1228 (58.8%) patients who underwent a formal reassessment at participating centres after COVID-19 resolution, fully vaccinated patients experienced less sequelae than unvaccinated patients (6.7% vs 17.2%, p = 0.0320). CONCLUSIONS: This analysis provides initial evidence in support of the beneficial effect of SARS-CoV-2 vaccines against morbidity and mortality from COVID-19 in patients with cancer.

Outcomes of the SARS-CoV-2 omicron (B.1.1.529) variant outbreak among vaccinated and unvaccinated patients with cancer in Europe: results from the retrospective, multicentre, OnCovid registry study.

BACKGROUND: The omicron (B.1.1.529) variant of SARS-CoV-2 is highly transmissible and escapes vaccine-induced immunity. We aimed to describe outcomes due to COVID-19 during the omicron outbreak compared with the prevaccination period and alpha (B.1.1.7) and delta (B.1.617.2) waves in patients with cancer in Europe. METHODS: In this retrospective analysis of the multicentre OnCovid Registry study, we recruited patients aged 18 years or older with laboratory-confirmed diagnosis of SARS-CoV-2, who had a history of solid or haematological malignancy that was either active or in remission. Patient were recruited from 37 oncology centres from UK, Italy, Spain, France, Belgium, and Germany. Participants were followed up from COVID-19 diagnosis until death or loss to follow-up, while being treated as per standard of care. For this analysis, we excluded data from centres that did not actively enter new data after March 1, 2021 (in France, Germany, and Belgium). We compared measures of COVID-19 morbidity, which were complications from COVID-19, hospitalisation due to COVID-19, and requirement of supplemental oxygen and COVID-19-specific therapies, and COVID-19 mortality across three time periods designated as the prevaccination (Feb 27 to Nov 30, 2020), alpha-delta (Dec 1, 2020, to Dec 14, 2021), and omicron (Dec 15, 2021, to Jan 31, 2022) phases. We assessed all-cause case-fatality rates at 14 days and 28 days after diagnosis of COVID-19 overall and in unvaccinated and fully vaccinated patients and in those who received a booster dose, after adjusting for country of origin, sex, age, comorbidities, tumour type, stage, and status, and receipt of systemic anti-cancer therapy. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT04393974, and is ongoing. FINDINGS: As of Feb 4, 2022 (database lock), the registry included 3820 patients who had been diagnosed with COVID-19 between Feb 27, 2020, and Jan 31, 2022. 3473 patients were eligible for inclusion (1640 [47·4%] were women and 1822 [52·6%] were men, with a median age of 68 years [IQR 57-77]). 2033 (58·5%) of 3473 were diagnosed during the prevaccination phase, 1075 (31·0%) during the alpha-delta phase, and 365 (10·5%) during the omicron phase. Among patients diagnosed during the omicron phase, 113 (33·3%) of 339 were fully vaccinated and 165 (48·7%) were boosted, whereas among those diagnosed during the alpha-delta phase, 152 (16·6%) of 915 were fully vaccinated and 21 (2·3%) were boosted. Compared with patients diagnosed during the prevaccination period, those who were diagnosed during the omicron phase had lower case-fatality rates at 14 days (adjusted odds ratio [OR] 0·32 [95% CI 0·19-0·61) and 28 days (0·34 [0·16-0·79]), complications due to COVID-19 (0·26 [0·17-0·46]), and hospitalisation due to COVID-19 (0·17 [0·09-0·32]), and had less requirements for COVID-19-specific therapy (0·22 [0·15-0·34]) and oxygen therapy (0·24 [0·14-0·43]) than did those diagnosed during the alpha-delta phase. Unvaccinated patients diagnosed during the omicron phase had similar crude case-fatality rates at 14 days (ten [25%] of 40 patients vs 114 [17%] of 656) and at 28 days (11 [27%] of 40 vs 184 [28%] of 656) and similar rates of hospitalisation due to COVID-19 (18 [43%] of 42 vs 266 [41%] of 652) and complications from COVID-19 (13 [31%] of 42 vs 237 [36%] of 659) as those diagnosed during the alpha-delta phase. INTERPRETATION: Despite time-dependent improvements in outcomes reported in the omicron phase compared with the earlier phases of the pandemic, patients with cancer remain highly susceptible to SARS-CoV-2 if they are not vaccinated against SARS-CoV-2. Our findings support universal vaccination of patients with cancer as a protective measure against morbidity and mortality from COVID-19. FUNDING: National Institute for Health and Care Research Imperial Biomedical Research Centre and the Cancer Treatment and Research Trust.

Update on Pregnancy Following Breast Cancer Diagnosis and Treatment.

ABSTRACT: Survivorship has become a crucial component in breast cancer care. For women who have not completed their family planning, conceiving at the end of anticancer treatments should not be discouraged but might be challenging. Oncofertility counseling should be offered at the time of diagnosis to all patients, in order to inform them about the potential treatment-induced gonadotoxicity as well as the available strategies for fertility preservation, thus allowing to increase the chances of a future pregnancy. This article reports an updated overview on the current state of the art on pregnancy in women with prior breast cancer diagnosis and treatment, with a main focus on the issues faced by patients with history of hormone receptor-positive disease and BRCA carriers.

Pregnancy After Breast Cancer: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

PURPOSE: Many patients and physicians remain concerned about the potential detrimental effects of pregnancy after breast cancer (BC) in terms of reproductive outcomes and maternal safety. This systematic review and meta-analysis aimed at providing updated evidence on these topics. METHODS: A systematic literature review was conducted to identify studies including patients with a pregnancy after BC (PROSPERO number CRD42020158324). Likelihood of pregnancy after BC, their reproductive outcomes, and maternal safety were assessed. Pooled relative risks, odds ratios (ORs), and hazard ratios (HRs) with 95% CIs were calculated using random effects models. RESULTS: Of 6,462 identified records, 39 were included involving 8,093,401 women from the general population and 112,840 patients with BC of whom 7,505 had a pregnancy after diagnosis. BC survivors were significantly less likely to have a subsequent pregnancy compared with the general population (relative risk, 0.40; 95% CI, 0.32 to 0.49). Risks of caesarean section (OR, 1.14; 95% CI, 1.04 to 1.25), low birth weight (OR, 1.50; 95% CI, 1.31 to 1.73), preterm birth (OR, 1.45; 95% CI, 1.11 to 1.88), and small for gestational age (OR, 1.16; 95% CI, 1.01 to 1.33) were significantly higher in BC survivors, particularly in those with previous chemotherapy exposure, compared with the general population. No significantly increased risk of congenital abnormalities or other reproductive complications were observed. Compared to patients with BC without subsequent pregnancy, those with a pregnancy had better disease-free survival (HR, 0.66; 95% CI, 0.49 to 0.89) and overall survival (HR, 0.56; 95% CI, 0.45 to 0.68). Similar results were observed after correcting for potential confounders and irrespective of patient, tumor, and treatment characteristics, pregnancy outcome, and timing of pregnancy. CONCLUSION: These results provide reassuring evidence on the safety of conceiving in BC survivors. Patients' pregnancy desire should be considered a crucial component of their survivorship care plan.

Comparing the Gonadotoxicity of Multiple Breast Cancer Regimens: Important Understanding for Managing Breast Cancer in Pre-Menopausal Women.

Over the last several decades, improvements in breast cancer treatment have contributed to increased cure rates for women diagnosed with this malignancy. Consequently, great importance should be paid to the long-term side effects of systemic therapies. For young women (defined as per guideline ≤40 years at diagnosis) who undergo chemotherapy, one of the most impactful side effects on their quality of life is premature ovarian insufficiency (POI) leading to fertility-related problems and the side effects of early menopause. Regimens, type, and doses of chemotherapy, as well as the age of patients and their ovarian reserve at the time of treatment are major risk factors for treatment-induced POI. For these reasons, childbearing desire and preservation of ovarian function and/or fertility should be discussed with all premenopausal patients before planning the treatments. This manuscript summarizes the available fertility preservation techniques in breast cancer patients, the risk of treatment-induced POI with different anticancer treatments, and the possible procedures to prevent it. A special focus is paid to the role of oncofertility counseling, as a central part of the visit in this setting, during which the patient should receive all the information about the potential consequences of the disease and of the proposed treatment on her future life.

Evidence-based approaches for the management of side-effects of adjuvant endocrine therapy in patients with breast cancer.

The growing availability of more effective therapies has contributed to an increased survival of patients with breast cancer. In hormone receptor-positive early disease, increased survival is strongly correlated with the use of adjuvant endocrine therapy, but this therapy can cause side-effects that have major consequences in terms of treatment adherence and patients' quality of life. In premenopausal breast cancer survivors, these side-effects might be even more prominent due to the abrupt suppression of oestrogen associated with the most intense endocrine therapies. An important ambition of cancer care in the 21st century is to recover pre-cancer quality of life and emotional and social functions, which is only possible through the mitigation of the side-effects of anticancer treatments. This Review presents a comprehensive summary of the efficacy and safety data of the available interventions (hormonal and non-hormonal pharmacological strategies, non-pharmacological approaches, and complementary and alternative medicine) to control selected side-effects associated with adjuvant endocrine therapy (hot flashes, sexual dysfunction, weight gain, musculoskeletal symptoms, and fatigue), providing updated, evidence-based approaches for their management.

Gender-specific aspects related to type of fertility preservation strategies and access to fertility care.

Survivorship is an area of paramount importance to be addressed as early as possible after cancer diagnosis by all health care providers. On this regard, cancer care in young patients often poses several age-related considerations among which fertility and pregnancy-related issues have a crucial role. According to the available guidelines on the topic, all patients with cancer diagnosed during their reproductive years should be provided a proper oncofertility counselling before starting anticancer treatments. This is an important step in order to inform patients about the potential treatment-induced gonadotoxicity and the available strategies for fertility preservation so that they can be referred as early as possible to fertility specialists if potentially interested in these options.In this manuscript, we aim to provide an up to date overview on the available efficacy and safety data with the main strategies for fertility preservation in male and female cancer patients in order to help optimising the oncofertility counselling performed by healthcare providers involved in cancer care and dealing with young patients. In male patients with cancer, sperm cryopreservation is the standard technique for fertility preservation. Oocyte/embryo cryopreservation, ovarian tissue cryopreservation and temporary ovarian suppression with luteinising hormone-releasing hormone agonists during chemotherapy are the main options in female patients with cancer.A multidisciplinary management building a strong network between fertility and oncology/haematology units is crucial to properly address fertility care in all young patients with cancer, at both diagnosis and during oncologic follow-up. Discussing fertility and pregnancy-related issues with young patients with cancer has to be considered mandatory nowadays keeping in mind that returning to a normal life (including the possibility to have a family and to live with as few side effects as possible) should be considered an important ambition in cancer care in the 21st century .

Burning Questions in the Oncofertility Counseling of Young Breast Cancer Patients.

The improved prognosis of breast cancer patients makes survivorship issues an area of crucial importance. In this regard, an increased attention is needed toward the development of potential anticancer treatment-related long-term side-effects, including gonadal failure and infertility in young women. Therefore, fertility preservation and family planning are crucial issues to be addressed in all young women of reproductive age with newly diagnosed cancer. Despite a growing availability of data on the efficacy and safety of fertility preservation options and the fact that conceiving after prior history of breast cancer has become more accepted over time, there are still several gray zones in this field so that many physicians remain uncomfortable to deal with these topics. The purpose of this review is to answer some of the most controversial questions frequently asked by patients during their oncofertility counseling, in order to provide a detailed and up-to-date overview on the evidence available in this field to physicians involved in the care of young women with breast cancer.

Current State of the Art in the Adjuvant Systemic Treatment of Premenopausal Patients With Early Breast Cancer.

Breast cancer is the most frequent malignancy diagnosed in premenopausal women. In this age group, breast tumors tend to be diagnosed at more advanced stages and to harbor more aggressive biological features. In addition, specific age-related issues including genetic counseling, fertility preservation, impact on social and couple relationships, working life, and management of long-term side effects should be considered highly relevant when managing early breast cancer in premenopausal women. Therefore, the care of these patients is particularly complex and a multidisciplinary approach is mandatory. The present review summarizes the current state of art in the adjuvant systemic treatment of premenopausal women with early breast cancer focusing on the optimal chemotherapy, endocrine therapy, and targeted therapy approaches in this specific patient population.

Overexpression of Periostin in Tumor Biopsy Samples Is Associated With Prostate Cancer Phenotype and Clinical Outcome.

BACKGROUND: Overexpression of periostin (POSTN) is associated with prostate cancer (PCa) aggressiveness. We investigated the prognostic significance of POSTN expression in tumor biopsy samples of patients with PCa. METHODS: We scored POSTN expression by immunohistochemistry analysis on 215 PCa biopsy samples using an anti-POSTN-specific antibody. A total immunoreactive score (T-IRS) was calculated by adding the POSTN staining scores of stromal and epithelial tumor cells. Prostate-specific antigen (PSA) progression/recurrence-free survival (PFS), radiographic progression/recurrence-free survival (rPFS), and overall survival (OS) were the study end points. RESULTS: A total of 143 patients received therapy with radical attempt, whereas 72 had locally advanced or metastatic disease and received hormone therapy alone. Median T-IRS was 9 and 12 (range, 0-20), respectively (P = .001). Overall, we found a weak positive correlation of T-IRS with prebiopsy PSA levels (r = 0.166, P = .016) and Gleason score (r = 0.266, P < .000). T-IRS ≥ 8 independently predicted for shorter PSA-PFS and OS (hazard ratio [HR] [95% confidence interval (CI)] ≥ 8 versus < 8: 1.50 [1.06-2.14], P = .024 and 1.92 [1.20-3.07], P = .007, respectively). In the subgroup analysis, the association between T-IRS and patient outcome was retained in patients who received therapy with radical attempt (HR [95% CI] ≥ 8 vs. < 8: rPFS: 2.06 [1.18-3.58], P = .01; OS: 2.36 [1.24-4.50], P = .009) and in those with low to intermediate Gleason scores (HR [95% CI] ≥ 8 vs. < 8: PSA-PFS: 1.65 [1.06-2.59], P = .028; rPFS: 2.09 [1.14-3.87], P = .018; OS: 2.57 [1.31-5.04], P = .006). CONCLUSION: POSTN T-IRS on PCa biopsy samples independently predicted the risk of recurrence, progression, and death in patients with localized disease and in those with low to intermediate Gleason scores.