Downgrading from Biopsy Grade Group 4 Prostate Cancer in Patients Undergoing Radical Prostatectomy for High or Very High Risk Prostate Cancer.

PURPOSE: We examined rates of Grade Group 4 downgrading at radical prostatectomy among men diagnosed with high and very high risk prostate cancer at biopsy. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A pooled cohort of 1,776 patients from 3 tertiary referral centers who underwent radical prostatectomy for National Comprehensive Cancer Network® high risk (prostate specific antigen greater than 20 ng/ml, or Grade Group 4-5, or clinical stage T3 or greater) or very high risk (primary Gleason pattern 5, or more than 4 biopsy cores with Grade Group 4-5, or 2 or more high risk features) disease from 2005 to 2015 were reviewed. Overall 893 patients with Grade Group 4 disease at biopsy were identified and 726 patients were available for analysis. Multivariable logistic regression models were fit to determine factors associated with downgrading to Grade Group 3 or less at radical prostatectomy. RESULTS: Overall 333 (45%) cases were downgraded to Grade Group 3 or less at radical prostatectomy. Of these cases 198 (27%) had concordant Grade Group 4 biopsy and radical prostatectomy pathology and 195 (27%) were upgraded at radical prostatectomy to Grade Group 5. Of high risk cases with biopsy Grade Group 4 disease 49% had any downgrading vs 29% of very high risk cases (p <0.0001). Downgrading to Grade Group 2 or less occurred in 16% (98 of 604) of high risk and 7% (8 of 122) of very high risk cases (p <0.01). Downgraded cases had a lower prostate specific antigen, fewer positive biopsy cores and lower clinical stage (p <0.01). On multivariable analysis fewer positive biopsy cores were significantly associated with downgrading at radical prostatectomy (p <0.01). CONCLUSIONS: In this cohort of patients with high risk/very high risk prostate cancer, downgrading from biopsy Grade Group 4 at radical prostatectomy occurred less frequently than in other published reports. Any downgrading was significantly less common in very high risk compared to high risk patients, and downgrading to Grade Group 2 or less occurred in a minority of cases in high risk and very high risk patients.

Radical prostatectomy or radiotherapy for high- and very high-risk prostate cancer: a multidisciplinary prostate cancer clinic experience of patients eligible for either treatment.

OBJECTIVE: To compare radical prostatectomy (RP) vs radiotherapy (RT) with androgen-deprivation therapy (ADT) in the setting of patients with high-risk and very high-risk (VHR) prostate cancer who were deemed eligible for either therapy and made a treatment choice after consultation in a multidisciplinary prostate cancer clinic (MDPCC), and to compare the MDPCC patients' outcomes to a matched Surveillance, Epidemiology and End Results (SEER) cohort. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Prospectively collected, retrospective study comparing patients who underwent RP (231 patients) vs RT+ADT (73) from 2004 to 2013. Biochemical recurrence (BCR), local recurrence, distant metastasis failure, and overall survival (OS) were calculated for each treatment group overall and according to National Comprehensive Cancer Network risk strata. A propensity score matched comparison with a SEER cohort was performed for OS. RESULTS: There was no difference in local recurrence (hazard ratio [HR] 2.7, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.0-7.9; P = 0.06), distant metastasis failure (HR 2.5, 95% CI 0.8-7.8; P = 0.1) and OS (HR 1.35, 95% CI 0.4-4.8; P = 0.6) between patients undergoing RP vs RT+ADT. Patients treated via the MDPCC survived on average 16.9 months (95% CI 13.1-20.8) longer than those in the matched SEER cohort. CONCLUSIONS: Long-term outcomes appear similar amongst patients with high-risk and VHR prostate cancer deemed eligible for either RP or RT, and treated after consultation in a MDPCC. Outcomes of the MDPCC patients were superior to those of the matched SEER cohort.

Does time from diagnosis to treatment of high- or very-high-risk prostate cancer affect outcome?

OBJECTIVE: To determine whether time from diagnosis to treatment impacted outcomes in a multicentre cohort of high- and very-high-risk (VHR) patients with prostate cancer undergoing radical prostatectomy (RP). PATIENTS AND METHODS: In all, 1392 patients from three tertiary centres who underwent RP for either high-risk or VHR disease, from 2005 to 2015, were identified. The cohort was divided into tertiles based on time from diagnostic biopsy to RP. Cumulative incidence of biochemical recurrence (BCR), metastasis, and prostate cancer-specific mortality (PCSM) were calculated for each tertile. The Kaplan-Meier method was used to evaluate for differences in all-cause mortality (ACM) amongst tertiles. Competing risks regression models, as well as Cox proportional hazards regression models, were fitted to assess the association between time-to-event outcomes and patient characteristics. RESULTS: The median (interquartile range [IQR]) time from biopsy to RP was 68 (50-94) days. The median (IQR) follow-up was 31 (12.1-55.7) months. The cumulative incidence of BCR (P = 0.14), metastasis (P = 0.15), and PCSM (P = 0.69) did not differ amongst time-to-treatment tertiles of VHR patients. Also, Kaplan-Meier estimates of ACM (P = 0.53) did not differ amongst time-to-treatment tertiles. Similarly, BCR, metastasis, PCSM, and ACM did not significantly differ amongst time-to-treatment tertiles in multivariable modelling. CONCLUSION: In this pooled meta-dataset of patients with high-risk or VHR prostate cancer, time from diagnosis to RP did not appear to significantly contribute to differences in clinical outcomes. This finding supports the safety of enrollment of such patients into neoadjuvant clinical trials.

Surgeon-led prostate cancer lymph node staging: pathological outcomes stratified by robot-assisted dissection templates and patient selection.

OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the perioperative, pathological, and oncological outcomes from surgeon-led pathological staging of pelvic lymph node (LN) metastases at the time of robot-assisted radical prostatectomy (RARP). PATIENTS AND METHODS: Over the 6-year period of 2006-2012, three distinct pelvic LN dissection (PLND) strategies were used in chronological order at a single cancer referral hospital. Strategies were characterised by both an omission of PLND (pNx) vs inclusion decision threshold, and standard vs extended templates for patients selected for PLND. The three cohorts included: (i) omission vs standard template (04/2006-10/2007), for dominant Gleason score 4-5 or a prostate-specific antigen (PSA) level of >10 ng/mL; (ii) omission/standard vs extended template (11/2007-12/2010), for dominant Gleason score 4-5, PSA level of >10 ng/mL, any single core >7 mm, or >3 ipsilateral positive cores; and (iii) extended template with minimal exceptions (01/2011-08/2012). Standard outcomes data compared included: Clavien-Dindo complication rates, LN metrics (yield, percentage positive), and biochemical recurrence (BCR). A novel metric comprised 'pNx regret': the rate of pNx patients upgraded/upstaged. Exploratory analyses included selection criteria for reduced PLND templates, i.e. low-yield subsets. RESULTS: Standard PLND yielded 8-10 LNs and a positive-LN yield of 2.2-6.2%. The addition of an extended PLND (E-PLND) significantly increased the yield to 14-20 LNs and the positive-LN yield to 17.4-18.4% (both P < 0.001). E-PLND had the highest impact on the percentage of positive LNs (%pN1) for high-risk disease (9.3 vs 32.8%, P = 0.002), modest for intermediate risk (4.2 vs 10.9%, P = 0.003), and minimal impact on low risk disease (4.1 vs 0%, P = 0.401). The combined strategies of setting a very low threshold for E-PLND and sending separate LN packets increased the LN yields (18 vs 24, P < 0.001), but did not significantly change the observed %pN1 rates by clinical risk group (P = 0.975). Efforts to reduce the need for E-PLND included omission by clinical criteria, but resulting in 'pNx regret' in 16-19%. A third of patients with unilateral disease and positive LNs were found to have contralateral disease. A subset of men with minimal biopsy volume Gleason score 4 + 3 had pN1 rates after E-PLND of three of 14 (21%) compared to minimal biopsy volume Gleason score 3 + 4 pN1 rates after E-PLND of 0 of 31. E-PLND takes about twice as long to perform but with no statistically significant difference in complications (5.0 vs 6.0%, P = 0.511). The 5-year BCR rates were higher for E-PLND, given the selection criteria, but not different for overall survival. CONCLUSIONS: The net benefit of E-PLND remains uncertain, and therapeutic impact will probably require a randomised trial, given the strong selection criteria. E-PLND contributes to oncological staging in a significant number of high- and intermediate-risk patients, and should be bilateral. Immediate concerns include longer operative times, but no higher complication rates.

Baseline and longitudinal plasma caveolin-1 level as a biomarker in active surveillance for early-stage prostate cancer.

OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the role of caveolin-1 (Cav-1) as a predictor of disease reclassification (DR) in men with early prostate cancer undergoing active surveillance (AS). PATIENTS AND METHODS: We analysed archived plasma samples prospectively collected from patients with early prostate cancer in a single-institution AS study. Of 825 patients enrolled, 542 had ≥1 year of follow-up. Baseline and longitudinal plasma Cav-1 levels were measured using an enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay. Tumour volume or Gleason grade increases were criteria for DR. Logistic regression analyses were used to assess associations between clinicopathological characteristics and reclassification risk. RESULTS: In 542 patients, 480 (88.6%) had stage cT1c disease, 542 (100.0%) had a median prostate-specific antigen level of 4.1 ng/mL, and 531 (98.0%) had a median Cancer of the Prostate Risk Assessment score of 1. In all, 473 (87.3%) had a Gleason score of 3+3. After a median of 3.1 years of follow-up, disease was reclassified in 163 patients (30.1%). The mean baseline Cav-1 level was 2.2 ± 8.5 ng/mL and the median 0.2 ng/mL (range, 0-85.5 ng/mL). In univariate analysis, baseline Cav-1 was a significant predictor for risk of DR (odds ratio [OR] 1.82, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.24-2.65; P = 0.002). In multivariate analysis, with adjustments for age, tumour length, group risk stratification and number of positive cores, reclassification risk associated with Cav-1 remained significant (OR 1.91, 95% CI 1.28-2.84; P = 0.001). CONCLUSION: Baseline plasma Cav-1 level was an independent predictor of disease classification. New methods for refining AS and intervention may result.

Therapeutic Consequences of Omitting a Pelvic Lymph Node Dissection at Radical Prostatectomy when Grade and/or Stage Increase.

OBJECTIVE: To analyze the effect on biochemical recurrence (BCR) of omitting PLND in subsequently upgraded/upstaged patients (pNx regret). Using nomograms, patients with low to intermediate-risk prostate cancer can be selected to omit a pelvic lymph node dissection (PLND) at the time of a radical prostatectomy (RP). However, some patients will experience upgraded pathology and/or stage. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We searched a prospectively maintained single institution/multi-surgeon cohort of patients treated by RP and >5-year follow-up. From 2006-2012, 1026 (521 pNx and 505 pN0/1) eligible patients with biopsy Gleason Score ≤3+4 and cT1c-cT2 undergoing RARP were included in the study. RESULTS: Gleason upgrading from ≤3+4 to >3+4 and/or pT3-4 occurred in 17% of pNx and 32% of pN0/N1 (p<0.001). BCR occurred in 5% of the pNx, and 7% of the PLND group. Five-year BCR free survival was higher in the pNx group (94.7% vs. 91%, P = .048). BCR occurred in 3% in the non-pNx regret and 18% in the pNx regret patients. However, with propensity score matching with pNx regret and pN0/N1 patients, 5-year BCR free survival rates were similar (81% vs 77%, P = .466). CONCLUSIONS: Low to favorable intermediate-risk patients who PLND was omitted and experienced upgrading or upstaging (pNx regret), have a higher predicted BCR. However, when matched to a similar cohort with pN0/N1, the BCR did not differ. Omission of a PLND does not appear to alter the rates of BCR compared to PLND inclusion.

Prediction of Organ-confined Disease in High- and Very-high-risk Prostate Cancer Patients Staged with Magnetic Resonance Imaging: Implications for Clinical Trial Design.

BACKGROUND: High-risk (HR) prostate cancer (PCa) is a heterogeneous disease leading to difficulties in designing appropriate inclusion criteria for clinical trials. OBJECTIVE: To describe clinical predictors of organ-confined disease in HR or very-high-risk (VHR) PCa patients staged with multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging with endorectal coil (mp-MRI-ER). DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: We reviewed 366 HR/VHR PCa patients who had preoperative mp-MRI-ER, and underwent radical prostatectomy and extended pelvic lymph node dissection between 2006 and 2015. INTERVENTION: Radical prostatectomy with preoperative mp-MRI-ER. OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS AND STATISTICAL ANALYSIS: We used multivariable logistic regression modeling to assess for associations with ≤ pT2N0 stage and multivariable cox modeling to assess for associations with biochemical failure. RESULTS AND LIMITATIONS: Of 366 patients, 132 had ≤ pT2N0 disease. For the entire cohort, negative staging mp-MRI-ER (odds ratio [OR] 1.73, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.06-2.83, p = 0.03), lower prostate-specific antigen (PSA; OR 0.98, 95% CI 0.97-1.00, p = 0.02), and fewer cores of Gleason ≥8 cancer (OR 0.86, 95% CI 0.79-0.93, p = 0.0002) were associated with ≤pT2N0 disease. In HR patients only, negative mp-MRI-ER (OR 3.41, 95% CI 1.73-6.72, p = 0.0004) and fewer than four cores of Gleason ≥8 disease (OR 3.38, 95% CI 1.20-9.56, p = 0.02) were still associated with ≤pT2N0 disease. Lack of non-organ-confined disease on MRI was associated with superior biochemical recurrence-free survival (p = 0.02). Limitations of this study include lack of a central review or quality control of the MRI reporting. CONCLUSIONS: In HR PCa, negative staging mp-MRI-ER, fewer positive cores of Gleason >8, and lower PSA were significant predictors of pathologic organ-confined disease. Improved prediction of organ-confined disease in HR patients may allow for their inclusion into studies evaluating treatments from which they would otherwise be excluded based solely on their HR status. PATIENT SUMMARY: In patients with high-risk prostate cancer, prostate magnetic resonance imaging along with other clinical parameters may help determine which patients are likely to have disease confined to the prostate and thus be eligible for clinical trials that they otherwise might be excluded from based on their high-risk status alone.

Ductal Prostate Cancers Demonstrate Poor Outcomes with Conventional Therapies.

BACKGROUND: Ductal prostate adenocarcinoma (DAC) is a rare, aggressive, histologic variant of prostate cancer that is treated with conventional therapies, similar to high-risk prostate adenocarcinoma (PAC). OBJECTIVE: To assess the outcomes of men undergoing definitive therapy for DAC or high-risk PAC and to explore the effects of androgen deprivation therapy (ADT) in improving the outcomes of DAC. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: A single-center retrospective review of all patients with cT1-4/N0-1 DAC from 2005 to 2018 was performed. Those undergoing radical prostatectomy (RP) or radiotherapy (RTx) for DAC were compared with cohorts of high-risk PAC patients. OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS AND STATISTICAL ANALYSIS: Metastasis-free survival (MFS) and overall survival (OS) rates were analyzed using Kaplan-Meier and Cox regression models. RESULTS AND LIMITATIONS: A total of 228 men with DAC were identified; 163 underwent RP, 34 underwent RTx, and 31 had neoadjuvant therapy prior to RP. In this study, 163 DAC patients and 155 PAC patients undergoing RP were compared. Similarly, 34 DAC patients and 74 PAC patients undergoing RTx were compared. DAC patients undergoing RP or RTx had worse 5-yr MFS (75% vs 95% and 62% vs 93%, respectively, p < 0.001) and 5-yr OS (88% vs 97% and 82% vs 100%, respectively, p < 0.05) compared with PAC patients. In the 76 men who received adjuvant/salvage ADT after RP, DAC also had worse MFS and OS than PAC (p < 0.01). A genomic analysis revealed that 10/11 (91%) DACs treated with ADT had intrinsic upregulation of androgen-resistant pathways. Further, none of the DAC patients (0/15) who received only neoadjuvant ADT prior to RP had any pathologic downgrading. The retrospective nature was a limitation. CONCLUSIONS: Men undergoing RP or RTx for DAC had worse outcomes than PAC patients, regardless of the treatment modality. Upregulation of several intrinsic resistance pathways in DAC rendered ADT less effective. Further evaluation of the underlying biology of DAC with clinical trials is needed. PATIENT SUMMARY: This study demonstrated worse outcomes among patients with ductal adenocarcinoma of the prostate than among high-grade prostate adenocarcinoma patients, regardless of the treatment modality.

Prostate cancer upgrading or downgrading of biopsy Gleason scores at radical prostatectomy: prediction of "regression to the mean" using routine clinical features with correlating biochemical relapse rates.

Recommendations for managing clinically localized prostate cancer are structured around clinical risk criteria, with prostate biopsy (PB) Gleason score (GS) being the most important factor. Biopsy to radical prostatectomy (RP) specimen upgrading/downgrading is well described, and is often the rationale for costly imaging or genomic studies. We present simple, no-cost analyses of clinical parameters to predict which GS 6 and GS 8 patients will change to GS 7 at prostatectomy. From May 2006 to December 2012, 1590 patients underwent robot-assisted radical prostatectomy (RARP). After exclusions, we identified a GS 6 cohort of 374 patients and a GS 8 cohort of 91 patients. During this era, >1000 additional patients were enrolled in an active surveillance (AS) program. For GS 6, 265 (70.9%) of 374 patients were upgraded, and the cohort included 183 (48.9%) patients eligible for AS by the Prostate Cancer Research International Active Surveillance Study (PRIAS) standards, of which 57.9% were upgraded. PB features that predicted a >90% chance of upgrading included ≥ 7 cores positive, maximum foci length ≥ 8 mm in any core, and total tumor involvement ≥ 30%. For GS 8, downgrading occurred in 46 (50.5%), which was significantly higher for single core versus multiple cores (80.4% vs 19.6%, P = 0.011). Biochemical recurrence (BCR) occurred in 3.4% of GS 6 upgraded versus 0% nonupgraded, and in GS 8, 19.6% downgraded versus 42.2% nondowngraded. In counseling men with clinically localized prostate cancer, the odds of GS change should be presented, and certain men with high-volume GS 6 or low-volume GS 8 can be counseled with GS 7-based recommendations.

A decade of robot-assisted radical prostatectomy training: Time-based metrics and qualitative grading for fellows and residents.

OBJECTIVES: As modern urology residency and fellowship training in robot-assisted surgery evolves toward standardized curricula (didactics, dry/wet-laboratory exercises, and surgical assistance), additional tools are needed to evaluate on-console performance. At the start of our robotics program in 2006, we set-up a time- and quality-based evaluation program and aim to consolidate this data into a simple set of metrics for self-evaluation. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Using our index procedure of robot-assisted radical prostatectomy (RARP), we prospectively collected data on 2,215 cases over 10 years from 6 faculty surgeons and 94 trainees (43 urologic oncology fellows and 51 urology residents). The steps of the operation were divided into 11 consistent steps, and the metrics included time to completion and quality using a 6-level grading system. Time metrics were consolidated into quartiles for benchmarking. RESULTS: The median times for trainees to complete each step were 15% to 120% higher than those of the staff (P<0.001). Each step can be presented with quartile-based time metrics by pooled trainee and staff results. Steps performed by trainees were carefully chosen for a high success rate, and on our Likert-like scale were graded 4 to 5 in more than 95% of cases. There were no grade 0 (very poor) cases, and grades 1 (multiple technical errors) and 2 (could not be completed but without safety issues) were rare (<1%). CONCLUSIONS: RARP training can be evaluated with a time-based metric that allows a quartile-based comparison to a large experience of trainees and staff. As a trainee progress through a rotation, these benchmarks can assist in prioritizing the need for more attention to a basic step vs. progression to more advanced steps.

Positive margin length and highest Gleason grade of tumor at the margin predict for biochemical recurrence after radical prostatectomy in patients with organ-confined prostate cancer.

BACKGROUND: To evaluate the pathologic features after radical prostatectomy to determine if the length of positive surgical margin (PSM) and the highest Gleason grade within the tumor at the PSM could risk stratify patients for biochemical recurrence (BCR). METHODS: We performed a retrospective, matched, cohort study to identify patients with pathologically organ-confined (pT2) tumors and negative nodes (pN0/Nx), receiving no adjuvant therapy. Specimens underwent single pathologist review. BCR-free survival was estimated using the Kaplan-Meier method and compared between subgroups using two-sided log-rank test. Using Classification and Regression Tree analysis (CART), we identified an optimal cutoff for the PSM length which differentiated risk for BCR. Cox proportional hazards regression models were fit to assess the association between variables and BCR-free survival. RESULTS: Two-hundred PSM patients were matched to 200 patients with negative surgical margins (NSM). Median follow-up was 64 months. 5 year BCR-free survival was 90% (95% CI 84-97%) in the NSM group and 70% (95% CI 63-79%) in the PSM group. There was an increased risk of BCR with any PSM. Multivariable analysis demonstrated an association with length of PSM ( > 1 mm vs. ≤ 1 mm, HR 2.29; 95% CI 1.2-4.5) and having a highest Gleason grade of the cancer focus at the margin ≥ 4 (HR 6.8; 95% CI 1.6-29). CONCLUSIONS: We demonstrated that patients with pathologic T2 tumors with PSM > 1 mm or a Gleason grade of tumor focus at the margin ≥ 4 are at elevated risk for BCR. However, this study suggests that patients with pT2 tumors with positive surgical margins have a relatively low risk of biochemical recurrence and adjuvant radiation may be over treating this sub population. The subsets at greatest risk for BCR may benefit from more frequent PSA monitoring to direct salvage therapies.

Radical Prostatectomy in Metastatic Castration-resistant Prostate Cancer: Feasibility, Safety, and Quality of Life Outcomes.

Ongoing prospective studies are evaluating treatment of the primary tumor in men with de novo metastatic prostate cancer (PCa). One potential benefit is prevention of morbidity from local progression. Thus, local therapy may be best applied selectively to men with local progression once resistance to first-line therapies has occurred. Here, we gather support for the hypothesis that radical prostatectomy (RP) is safe and preserves quality of life (QOL) when applied in men with metastatic castration-resistant PCa (mCRPC). We analyzed 14 patients who underwent RP in the setting of mCRPC from 2008 to 2016. Median time from mCRPC to RP was 5.1 mo (interquartile range [IQR] 1.4-12.0). Median preoperative and <3 mo postoperative Expanded Prostate Cancer Index Composite urinary function QOL scores were 84 (IQR 70-95) and 78 (IQR 62-81), respectively. There were one Clavien Grade III, three Grade II, and one Grade I complications postoperatively. In these patients with mCRPC, RP was feasible with limited minor complications. PATIENT SUMMARY: We report on a select group of men with metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer who had prostatectomy. Prostatectomy is highly investigational in this setting and should not be used outside of a clinical trial other than for symptom relief.

Neoadjuvant Systemic Therapy Before Radical Prostatectomy in High-Risk Prostate Cancer Does Not Increase Surgical Morbidity: Contemporary Results Using the Clavien System.

BACKGROUND: Multimodality therapies for men with high- and very high-risk prostate cancer, including neoadjuvant systemic therapy followed by subsequent radical prostatectomy (RP) are being increasingly explored despite the lack of adequate morbidity data. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We analyzed the data from 215 consecutive patients with high- and very high-risk prostate cancer who were previously untreated or had received neoadjuvant systemic therapy. All patients underwent RP with extended pelvic lymph node dissection from 2006 to 2010 at a single tertiary care academic center. All complications within 90 days of surgery were defined and categorized by a 5-grade and 10-domain modification of the Clavien system. Univariable and multivariable logistic regression analyses were used to identify preoperative predictors for complications. RESULTS: Of the 215 patients, 29% experienced a complication of any grade ≤ 90 days after surgery; 6% experienced grade ≥ 3, with no significant difference between either cohort (P = .50). On multivariate analysis, open RP (odds ratio [OR], 2.08; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.11-3.90; P = .02) and preoperative hemoglobin (OR, 1.98; 95% CI, 1.05-3.72; P = .03) were independent predictors of the occurrence of any grade complication. For major complications (Clavien ≥ 3), a Charlson comorbidity index of 6 to 7 versus 3 to 5 (OR, 5.45; 95% CI, 1.57-18.98; P = .008) and the most recent year of surgery (OR, 4.73; 95% CI, 1.36-16.39; P = .01) were significant predictors on multivariable analysis. CONCLUSION: The use of neoadjuvant systemic therapy did not appear to increase the risk of perioperative complications. These findings support current clinical trials, which might elucidate the oncologic benefit of this multimodality approach.