Increasing rates of NCCN high and very high-risk prostate cancer versus number of prostate biopsy cores.

BACKGROUND: Recently, an increase in the rates of high-risk prostate cancer (PCa) was reported. We tested whether the rates of and low, intermediate, high and very high-risk PCa changed over time. We also tested whether the number of prostate biopsy cores contributed to changes rates over time. METHODS: Within the Surveillance, Epidemiology and End Results (SEER) database (2010-2015), annual rates of low, intermediate, high-risk according to traditional National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN) and high versus very high-risk PCa according to Johns Hopkins classification were tabulated without and with adjustment for the number of prostate biopsy cores. RESULTS: In 119,574 eligible prostate cancer patients, the rates of NCCN low, intermediate, and high-risk PCa were, respectively, 29.7%, 47.8%, and 22.5%. Of high-risk patients, 39.6% and 60.4% fulfilled high and very high-risk criteria. Without adjustment for number of prostate biopsy cores, the estimated annual percentage changes (EAPC) for low, intermediate, high and very high-risk were respectively -5.5% (32.4%-24.9%, p < .01), +0.5% (47.6%-48.4%, p = .09), +4.1% (8.2%-9.9%, p < .01), and +8.9% (11.8%-16.9%, p < .01), between 2010 and 2015. After adjustment for number of prostate biopsy cores, differences in rates over time disappeared and ranged from 29.8%-29.7% for low risk, 47.9%-47.9% for intermediate risk, 8.9%-9.0% for high-risk, and 13.6%-13.6% for very high-risk PCa (all p > .05). CONCLUSIONS: The rates of high and very high-risk PCa are strongly associated with the number of prostate biopsy cores, that in turn may be driven by broader use magnetic resonance imaging (MRI).

Improving the Stratification of Patients With Intermediate-risk Prostate Cancer.

BACKGROUND: Intermediate-risk prostate cancer (IR PCa) phenotypes may vary from favorable to unfavorable. National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN) criteria help distinguish between those groups. We studied and attempted to improve this stratification. PATIENTS AND METHODS: A total of 4048 (NCCN favorable: 2015 [49.8%] vs. unfavorable 2033 [50.2%]) patients with IR PCa treated with radical prostatectomy were abstracted from an institutional database (2000-2018). Multivariable logistic regression models predicting upstaging and/or upgrading (Gleason Grade Group [GGG] IV-V and/or ≥ pT3 or pN1) in IR PCa were developed, validated, and directly compared with the NCCN IR PCa stratification. RESULTS: All 4048 patients were randomly divided between development (n = 2024; 50.0%) and validation cohorts (n = 2024; 50.0%). The development cohort was used to fit basic (age, prostate-specific antigen, clinical T stage, biopsy GGG, and percentage of positive cores [all P < .001]) and extended models (age, prostate-specific antigen, clinical T stage, biopsy GGG, prostate volume, and percentage of tumor within all biopsy cores [all P < .001]). In the validation cohort, the basic and the extended models were, respectively, 71.4% and 74.7% accurate in predicting upstaging and/or upgrading versus 66.8% for the NCCN IR PCa stratification. Both models outperformed NCCN IR PCa stratification in calibration and decision curve analyses (DCA). Use of NCCN IR PCa stratification would have misclassified 20.1% of patients with ≥ pT3 or pN1 and/or GGG IV to V versus 18.3% and 16.4% who were misclassified using the basic or the extended model, respectively. CONCLUSION: Both newly developed and validated models better discriminate upstaging and/or upgrading risk than the NCCN IR PCa stratification.

Comparison of Mexican-American vs Caucasian prostate cancer active surveillance candidates.

BACKGROUND: We compared upgrading and upstaging rates in low risk and favorable intermediate risk prostate cancer (CaP) patients according to racial and/or ethnic group: Mexican-Americans and Caucasians. METHODS: Within Surveillance, Epidemiology and End Results database (2010-2015), we identified low risk and favorable intermediate risk CaP patients according to National Comprehensive Cancer Network guidelines. Descriptives and logistic regression models were used. Furthermore, a subgroup analysis was performed to test the association between Mexican-American vs. Caucasian racial and/or ethnic groups and upgrading either to Gleason-Grade Group (GGG II) or to GGG III, IV or V, in low risk or favorable intermediate risk CaP patients, respectively. RESULTS: We identified 673 (2.6%) Mexican-American and 24,959 (97.4%) Caucasian CaP patients. Of those, 14,789 were low risk (434 [2.9%] Mexican-Americans vs. 14,355 [97.1%] Caucasians) and 10,834 were favorable intermediate risk (239 [2.2%] Mexican-Americans vs. 10,604 [97.8%] Caucasians). In low risk CaP patients, Mexican-American vs. Caucasian racial and/or ethnic group did not result in either upgrading or upstaging differences. However, in favorable intermediate risk CaP patients, upgrading rate was higher in Mexican-Americans than in Caucasians (31.4 vs. 25.5%, OR 1.33, P = 0.044), but no difference was recorded for upstaging. When comparisons focused on upgrading to GGG III, IV or V, higher rate was recorded in Mexican-American relative to Caucasian favorable intermediate risk CaP patients (20.4 vs. 15.4%, OR 1.41, P = 0.034). CONCLUSION: Low risk Mexican-American CaP patients do not differ from low risk Caucasian CaP patients. However, favorable intermediate risk Mexican-American CaP patients exhibit higher rates of upgrading than their Caucasian counterparts. This information should be considered at treatment decision making.