The Clinical Cell-Cycle Risk (CCR) Score Is Associated With Metastasis After Radiation Therapy and Provides Guidance on When to Forgo Combined Androgen Deprivation Therapy With Dose-Escalated Radiation.

PURPOSE: The clinical cell-cycle risk (CCR) score, which combines the University of California, San Francisco's Cancer of the Prostate Risk Assessment (CAPRA) and the cell cycle progression (CCP) molecular score, has been validated to be prognostic of disease progression for men with prostate cancer. This study evaluated the ability of the CCR score to prognosticate the risk of metastasis in men receiving dose-escalated radiation therapy (RT) with or without androgen deprivation therapy (ADT). METHODS AND MATERIALS: This retrospective, multi-institutional cohort study included men with localized National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN) intermediate-, high-, and very high-risk prostate cancer (N = 741). Patients were treated with dose-escalated RT with or without ADT. The primary outcome was time to metastasis. RESULTS: The CCR score prognosticated metastasis with a hazard ratio (HR) per unit score of 2.22 (95% confidence interval [CI], 1.71-2.89; P < .001). The CCR score better prognosticated metastasis than NCCN risk group (CCR, P < .001; NCCN, P = .46), CAPRA score (CCR, P = .002; CAPRA, P = .59), or CCP score (CCR, P < .001; CCP, P = .59) alone. In bivariable analyses, CCR score remained highly prognostic when accounting for ADT versus no ADT (HR, 2.18; 95% CI, 1.61-2.96; P < .001), ADT duration as a continuous variable (HR, 2.11; 95% CI, 1.59-2.79; P < .001), or ADT given at or below the recommended duration for each NCCN risk group (HR, 2.19; 95% CI, 1.69-2.86; P < .001). Men with CCR scores below or above the multimodality threshold (CCR score, 2.112) had a 10-year risk of metastasis of 3.7% and 21.24%, respectively. Men with below-threshold scores receiving RT alone had a 10-year risk of metastasis of 3.7%, and for men receiving RT plus ADT, the 10-year risk of metastasis was also 3.7%. CONCLUSIONS: The CCR score accurately and precisely prognosticates metastasis and adds clinically actionable information relative to guideline-recommended therapies based on NCCN risk in men undergoing dose-escalated RT with or without ADT. For men with scores below the multimodality threshold, adding ADT may not significantly reduce their 10-year risk of metastasis.

Personalizing Localized Prostate Cancer: Validation of a Combined Clinical Cell-cycle Risk (CCR) Score Threshold for Prognosticating Benefit From Multimodality Therapy.

INTRODUCTION: The combined clinical cell-cycle risk (CCR) score is a validated model that combines the cell-cycle progression (CCP) score with the University of California San Francisco Cancer of the Prostate Risk Assessment (CAPRA) score. This score determines the risk of progressive disease for men with prostate cancer. Here, we further validate the prognostic ability of the CCR score and evaluate its ability to help determine which patients may safely forgo multimodality therapy. PATIENTS AND METHODS: We evaluated the CCR and a CCR-based multimodality threshold (2.112) in a retrospective, multi-institutional cohort of men with National Comprehensive Cancer Network intermediate- or high-risk localized disease (N = 718). These men received single or multimodality therapy (androgen deprivation with radiation [RT], or surgery with adjuvant RT or hormones). RESULTS: CCR score prognosticated metastasis for single-modality therapy, as a continuous variable (hazard ratio, 3.97; 95% confidence interval [CI], 2.61-6.06) and when dichotomized at the threshold (hazard ratio, 15.90; 95% CI, 5.43-46.52). The 10-year Kaplan-Meier risk for those receiving single-modality (RT or surgical) therapy with CCR scores below and above the threshold for single-modality treatment was 4.3% (95% CI, 1.0%-17.1%) and 20.4% (95% CI, 13.2%-30.7%), respectively. Using the threshold, 27% of men with newly diagnosed high-risk and 73% with unfavorable intermediate-risk disease could avoid multimodality therapy. CONCLUSIONS: Patients with CCR scores below the multimodality threshold (2.112) may safely forgo multimodality therapy. The CCR score can be used as a decision aid to counsel men whether or not single-modality therapy would be sufficient for their intermediate- or high-risk prostate cancer.

Radical Prostatectomy or Observation for Clinically Localized Prostate Cancer: Extended Follow-up of the Prostate Cancer Intervention Versus Observation Trial (PIVOT).

BACKGROUND: Very long-term mortality in men with early prostate cancer treated with surgery versus observation is uncertain. OBJECTIVE: To determine long-term effects of surgery versus observation on all-cause mortality for men with early prostate cancer. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: This study evaluated long-term follow-up of a randomized trial conducted at the US Department of Veterans Affairs and National Cancer Institute sites. The participants were men (n=731) ≤75yr of age with localized prostate cancer, prostate-specific antigen (PSA) <50ng/ml, life expectancy ≥10yr, and medically fit for surgery. INTERVENTION: Radical prostatectomy versus observation. OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS AND STATISTICAL ANALYSIS: All-cause mortality was assessed in the entire cohort and patient and tumor subgroups. Intention-to-treat analysis was conducted using Kaplan-Meier methods with log-rank tests and Cox proportional hazard models; cumulative mortality incidence, between-group differences, and relative risks were also assessed at predefined time periods. RESULTS AND LIMITATIONS: During 22.1yr (median follow-up for survivors=18.6yr; interquartile range: 16.6-20.0), 515 men died; 246 of 346 men (68%) were assigned to surgery versus 269 of 367 (73%) assigned to observation (hazard ratio 0.84 [95% confidence interval {CI}: 0.70-1.00]; p= 0.044 [absolute risk reduction = 5.7 percentage points, 95% CI: -0.89 to 12%]; relative risk: 0.92 [95% CI: 0.84-1.01]). The restricted mean survival in the surgical group was 13.6 yr (95% CI: 12.9-14.3) versus 12.6 yr (95% CI: 11.8-13.3) in the observation group; a mean of 1 life-year was gained with surgery. Results did not significantly vary by patient or tumor characteristics, although differences were larger favoring surgery among men aged <65 yr, of white race, and having better health status, fewer comorbidities, ≥34% positive prostate biopsy cores, and intermediate-risk disease. Results were not adjusted for multiple comparisons, and we could not assess outcomes other than all-cause mortality. CONCLUSIONS: Surgery was associated with small very long-term reductions in all-cause mortality and increases in years of life gained. Absolute effects did not vary markedly by patient characteristics. Absolute effects and mean survival were much smaller in men with low-risk disease, but were greater in men with intermediate-risk disease although not in men with high-risk disease. PATIENT SUMMARY: In this randomized study, we evaluated death from any cause in men with early prostate cancer treated with either surgery or observation. Overall, surgery may provide small very long-term reductions in death from any cause and increases in years of life gained. Absolute effects were much smaller in men with low-risk disease, but were greater in men with intermediate-risk disease although not in men with high-risk disease. Strategies are needed to identify men needing and benefitting from surgery while reducing ineffective treatment and overtreatment.

Extracapsular extension on MRI indicates a more aggressive cell cycle progression genotype of prostate cancer.

PURPOSE: To explore associations between magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) features of prostate cancer and expression levels of cell cycle genes, as assessed by the Prolaris® test. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Retrospective analysis of 118 PCa patients with genetic testing of biopsy specimen and prostate MRI from 08/2013 to 11/2015. Associations between the cell cycle risk (CCR) score and MRI features [i.e., PI-RADSv2 score, extracapsular extension (ECE), quantitative metrics] were analyzed with Fisher's exact test, nonparametric tests, and Spearman's correlation coefficient. In 41 patients (34.7%), test results were compared to unfavorable features on prostatectomy specimen (i.e., Gleason group ≥ 3, ECE, lymph node metastases). RESULTS: Fifty-four (45.8%), 60 (50.8%), and 4 (3.4%) patients had low-, intermediate-, and high-risk cancers according to American Urological Association scoring system. Patients with ECE on MRI had significantly higher mean CCR scores (reader 1: 3.9 vs. 3.2, p = 0.015; reader 2: 3.6 vs. 3.2, p = 0.045). PI-RADSv2 scores and quantitative MRI features were not associated with CCR scores. In the prostatectomy subset, ECE on MRI (p = < 0.001-0.001) and CCR scores (p = 0.049) were significantly associated with unfavorable histopathologic features. CONCLUSION: The phenotypic trait of ECE on MRI indicates a more aggressive genotype of prostate cancer.

Follow-up of Prostatectomy versus Observation for Early Prostate Cancer.

BACKGROUND: We previously found no significant differences in mortality between men who underwent surgery for localized prostate cancer and those who were treated with observation only. Uncertainty persists regarding nonfatal health outcomes and long-term mortality. METHODS: From November 1994 through January 2002, we randomly assigned 731 men with localized prostate cancer to radical prostatectomy or observation. We extended follow-up through August 2014 for our primary outcome, all-cause mortality, and the main secondary outcome, prostate-cancer mortality. We describe disease progression, treatments received, and patient-reported outcomes through January 2010 (original follow-up). RESULTS: During 19.5 years of follow-up (median, 12.7 years), death occurred in 223 of 364 men (61.3%) assigned to surgery and in 245 of 367 (66.8%) assigned to observation (absolute difference in risk, 5.5 percentage points; 95% confidence interval [CI], -1.5 to 12.4; hazard ratio, 0.84; 95% CI, 0.70 to 1.01; P=0.06). Death attributed to prostate cancer or treatment occurred in 27 men (7.4%) assigned to surgery and in 42 men (11.4%) assigned to observation (absolute difference in risk, 4.0 percentage points; 95% CI, -0.2 to 8.3; hazard ratio, 0.63; 95% CI, 0.39 to 1.02; P=0.06). Surgery may have been associated with lower all-cause mortality than observation among men with intermediate-risk disease (absolute difference, 14.5 percentage points; 95% CI, 2.8 to 25.6) but not among those with low-risk disease (absolute difference, 0.7 percentage points; 95% CI, -10.5 to 11.8) or high-risk disease (absolute difference, 2.3 percentage points; 95% CI, -11.5 to 16.1) (P=0.08 for interaction). Treatment for disease progression was less frequent with surgery than with observation (absolute difference, 26.2 percentage points; 95% CI, 19.0 to 32.9); treatment was primarily for asymptomatic, local, or biochemical (prostate-specific antigen) progression. Urinary incontinence and erectile and sexual dysfunction were each greater with surgery than with observation through 10 years. Disease-related or treatment-related limitations in activities of daily living were greater with surgery than with observation through 2 years. CONCLUSIONS: After nearly 20 years of follow-up among men with localized prostate cancer, surgery was not associated with significantly lower all-cause or prostate-cancer mortality than observation. Surgery was associated with a higher frequency of adverse events than observation but a lower frequency of treatment for disease progression, mostly for asymptomatic, local, or biochemical progression. (Funded by the Department of Veterans Affairs and others; PIVOT ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT00007644 .).

Impact of the Cell Cycle Progression Test on Physician and Patient Treatment Selection for Localized Prostate Cancer.

PURPOSE: The cell cycle progression test is a validated molecular assay that assesses prostate cancer specific disease progression and mortality risk when combined with clinicopathological parameters. We present the results from PROCEDE-1000, a large, prospective registry designed to evaluate the impact of the cell cycle progression test on shared treatment decision making for patients newly diagnosed with prostate cancer. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Untreated patients with newly diagnosed prostate adenocarcinoma were enrolled in the study and the cell cycle progression test was performed on the initial prostate biopsy tissue. A set of 4 sequential surveys tracked changes relative to initial therapy recommendations (before cell cycle progression) based on clinicopathological parameters following physician review of the cell cycle progression test result, physician/patient review of the cell cycle progression test results and a minimum of 3 months of clinical followup (actual treatment). RESULTS: Of the 1,596 patients enrolled in this registry 1,206 were eligible for analysis. There was a significant reduction in the treatment burden recorded at each successive evaluation (p <0.0001), with the mean number of treatments per patient decreasing from 1.72 before the cell cycle progression test to 1.16 in actual followup. The cell cycle progression test caused a change in actual treatment in 47.8% of patients. Of these changes 72.1% were reductions and 26.9% were increases in treatment. For each clinical risk category there was a significant change in treatment modality (intervention vs nonintervention) before vs after cell cycle progression testing (p=0.0002). CONCLUSIONS: The cell cycle progression test has a significant impact in assisting physicians and patients reach personalized treatment decisions.

Cell cycle progression score and treatment decisions in prostate cancer: results from an ongoing registry.

OBJECTIVE: The cell cycle progression (CCP) test (Prolaris) is a novel prognostic assay that provides accurate risk of prostate cancer-specific disease progression and disease specific mortality when combined with standard clinicopathologic parameters. This prospective study evaluated the impact of the CCP report on physician treatment recommendations for prostate cancer. METHODS: Physicians ordering the CCP test in clinical practice completed surveys regarding treatment recommendations before and after they received and discussed the test results with patients. Clinicians also rated the influence of the test result on treatment decisions. Treatment selections were confirmed via third-party audit of patient charts following final survey responses. RESULTS: Overall, 65% of cases showed a change between intended treatment pre- and post-CCP test reporting. Pre-CCP testing, 164 of 305 cases received a recommendation for interventional treatment. Post-CCP test, interventional therapy was recommended for 103 of these cases, a reduction of 37.2%. Conversely, 141 of 305 cases were recommended pre-CCP testing for non-interventional treatment; 108 of these remained with non-interventional treatment while 33 shifted to interventional options, a 23.4% increase. There was a 49.5% reduction in surgical interventions and a 29.6% reduction in radiation treatment. A third-party audit identified 80.2% concordance between the post-CCP testing treatment recommendation and actual treatment. Re-assignment to intervention or non-intervention generally correlated with the result of the CCP report. Study limitations included physician selection of patients for testing, no evaluation of patient input in therapeutic choice, and other potential treatment decision factors not queried by the survey. CONCLUSION: Based on responses of ordering physicians, the CCP report adds meaningful new information to risk assessment for localized prostate cancer patients. Test results led to changes in treatment with reductions and increases in interventional treatment that were directionally aligned with prostate cancer risk specified by the test.

Clinical utility of a biopsy-based cell cycle gene expression assay in localized prostate cancer.

OBJECTIVE: The CCP signature test (Prolaris) quantifies a patient's risk of disease progression and prostate cancer specific mortality using a gene-expression-based cell cycle progression (CCP) score. This study evaluated the potential clinical utility of the CCP test in a US-based clinical setting. METHODS: Urologists who participated in a prospective clinical study were sent a retrospective questionnaire to assess the value of the CCP test result. Fifteen board-certified urologists participated in the study, representing 15 distinct community urology group practices. Questionnaires were received for 294 evaluable patients. All patients had localized prostate cancer (T1-T3b, N0, M0). RESULTS: Physicians found the CCP score valuable and indicated that 55% of tests generated a mortality risk that was either higher or lower than expected. Physicians also indicated that 32% of test results would lead to a definite or possible change in treatment. The data suggest that the test would have the net effect of shifting patients from more aggressive treatment to more conservative treatment. This was evidenced by the significant association between change in treatment and lower CCP scores (p < 0.002) and by the fact that 62% of tests likely to lead to a definite or possible change in treatment had mortality risks lower than the physician expected versus only 10% with risks higher than expected. STUDY LIMITATIONS: This study measured the retrospectively assessed likelihood of change in treatment as estimated by the physician, not the actual change in treatment. CONCLUSIONS: The CCP score adds meaningful new information to risk assessment for localized prostate cancer patients. Real-world use of the test is likely to lead to a change in treatment in a significant portion of tested patients, particularly by shifting patients towards more conservative management. This could reduce overtreatment of patients with less aggressive disease, decreasing patient morbidity and costs for payers and the healthcare system.

Radical prostatectomy versus observation for localized prostate cancer.

BACKGROUND: The effectiveness of surgery versus observation for men with localized prostate cancer detected by means of prostate-specific antigen (PSA) testing is not known. METHODS: From November 1994 through January 2002, we randomly assigned 731 men with localized prostate cancer (mean age, 67 years; median PSA value, 7.8 ng per milliliter) to radical prostatectomy or observation and followed them through January 2010. The primary outcome was all-cause mortality; the secondary outcome was prostate-cancer mortality. RESULTS: During the median follow-up of 10.0 years, 171 of 364 men (47.0%) assigned to radical prostatectomy died, as compared with 183 of 367 (49.9%) assigned to observation (hazard ratio, 0.88; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.71 to 1.08; P=0.22; absolute risk reduction, 2.9 percentage points). Among men assigned to radical prostatectomy, 21 (5.8%) died from prostate cancer or treatment, as compared with 31 men (8.4%) assigned to observation (hazard ratio, 0.63; 95% CI, 0.36 to 1.09; P=0.09; absolute risk reduction, 2.6 percentage points). The effect of treatment on all-cause and prostate-cancer mortality did not differ according to age, race, coexisting conditions, self-reported performance status, or histologic features of the tumor. Radical prostatectomy was associated with reduced all-cause mortality among men with a PSA value greater than 10 ng per milliliter (P=0.04 for interaction) and possibly among those with intermediate-risk or high-risk tumors (P=0.07 for interaction). Adverse events within 30 days after surgery occurred in 21.4% of men, including one death. CONCLUSIONS: Among men with localized prostate cancer detected during the early era of PSA testing, radical prostatectomy did not significantly reduce all-cause or prostate-cancer mortality, as compared with observation, through at least 12 years of follow-up. Absolute differences were less than 3 percentage points. (Funded by the Department of Veterans Affairs Cooperative Studies Program and others; PIVOT ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT00007644.).

Toremifene decreases vertebral fractures in men younger than 80 years receiving androgen deprivation therapy for prostate cancer.

PURPOSE: Androgen deprivation therapy is associated with an increased fracture risk. In a recent phase III trial toremifene significantly decreased vertebral fractures in men on androgen deprivation therapy. Similar to other selective estrogen receptor modulators, toremifene was associated with an increase in venous thromboembolic events with the greatest risk in men 80 years old or older. In this post hoc analysis we evaluated the efficacy and safety of toremifene in men younger than 80 years. MATERIALS AND METHODS: This analysis included 847 men younger than 80 years, of whom 430 received toremifene 80 mg by mouth daily and 417 received placebo for up to 24 months. The primary end point was new vertebral fractures. Secondary end points included fragility fractures, bone mineral density and safety. RESULTS: Compared with placebo, toremifene decreased the relative risk of new vertebral fractures by 79.5% (95% CI 29.8-94.0, p <0.005). The new vertebral fracture incidence was 1.0% for toremifene and 4.8% for placebo (absolute risk reduction 3.8%). Compared with placebo, toremifene significantly decreased the incidence of nontraumatic fracture or greater than 7% bone loss by 24 months (p <0.0001). Toremifene also significantly increased bone mineral density at all measured sites (all comparisons p <0.001). The incidence of venous thromboembolic events was similar in the toremifene and placebo groups (2.1% and 1.0%, respectively, p = 0.26). The rates of other adverse events were also similar between the groups. CONCLUSIONS: Toremifene significantly decreased new vertebral fractures in men younger than 80 years receiving androgen deprivation therapy for prostate cancer. The risk of venous thromboembolic events was lower than in the overall study population, suggesting an improved risk-benefit profile in younger men.

The Prostate cancer Intervention Versus Observation Trial:VA/NCI/AHRQ Cooperative Studies Program #407 (PIVOT): design and baseline results of a randomized controlled trial comparing radical prostatectomy to watchful waiting for men with clinically localized prostate cancer.

BACKGROUND: Prostate cancer is the most common noncutaneous malignancy and the second leading cause of cancer death in men. Ninety percent of men with prostate cancer are over aged 60 years, diagnosed by early detection with the prostate specific antigen (PSA) blood test and have disease believed confined to the prostate gland (clinically localized). Common treatments for clinically localized prostate cancer include watchful waiting surgery to remove the prostate gland (radical prostatectomy), external beam radiation therapy and interstitial radiation therapy (brachytherapy) and androgen deprivation. Little is known about the relative effectiveness and harms of treatments due to the paucity of randomized controlled trials. The VA/NCI/AHRQ Cooperative Studies Program Study #407: Prostate cancer Intervention Versus Observation Trial (PIVOT), initiated in 1994, is a multicenter randomized controlled trial comparing radical prostatectomy to watchful waiting in men with clinically localized prostate cancer. METHODS: We describe the study rationale, design, recruitment methods and baseline characteristics of PIVOT enrollees. We provide comparisons with eligible men declining enrollment and men participating in another recently reported randomized trial of radical prostatectomy versus watchful waiting conducted in Scandinavia. RESULTS: We screened 13,022 men with prostate cancer at 52 United States medical centers for potential enrollment. From these, 5023 met initial age, comorbidity and disease eligibility criteria and a total of 731 men agreed to participate and were randomized. The mean age of enrollees was 67 years. Nearly one-third were African-American. Approximately 85% reported they were fully active. The median prostate specific antigen (PSA) was 7.8 ng/mL (mean 10.2 ng/mL). In three-fourths of men the primary reason for biopsy leading to a diagnosis of prostate cancer was a PSA elevation or rise. Using previously developed tumor risk categorizations incorporating PSA levels, Gleason histologic grade and tumor stage, approximately 43% had low risk, 36% had medium risk and 20% had high-risk prostate cancer. Comparison to our national sample of eligible men declining PIVOT participation as well as to men enrolled in the Scandinavian trial indicated that PIVOT enrollees are representative of men being diagnosed and treated in the U.S. and quite different from men in the Scandinavian trial. CONCLUSIONS: PIVOT enrolled an ethnically diverse population representative of men diagnosed with prostate cancer in the United States. Results will yield important information regarding the relative effectiveness and harms of surgery compared to watchful waiting for men with predominately PSA detected clinically localized prostate cancer.