Implementation of PSMA PET/CT and alignment of ordering to SNMMI appropriate use criteria in a large network system.

INTRODUCTION: The Society of Nuclear Medicine and Molecular Imaging (SNMMI) provides appropriate use criteria (AUC) for prostate-specific membrane antigen positron emission tomography/computed tomography (PSMA PET/CT) which include guidance on imaging in newly diagnosed prostate cancer and in patients with biochemically recurrent (BCR) disease. This study aims to examine trends in PSMA implementation and the prevalence and outcomes of scans ordered in scenarios deemed rarely appropriate or not meeting SNMMI AUC. METHODS: We retrospectively identified patients who were diagnosed with presumptive National Comprehensive Cancer Network unfavorable intermediate, high, or very high risk prostate cancer, patients who underwent staging for BCR, and all patients staged with PSMA between July 2021 and March 2023. Positivity was validated by adherence to a predetermined reference standard. RESULTS: The frequency of PSMA use increased in initial staging from 24% to 80% and work-up of BCR from 91% to 99% over our study period. In addition, 5% (17/340) of PSMA scans ordered for initial staging did not meet AUC and 3% (15/557) of posttreatment scans were deemed rarely appropriate. Initial staging orders not meeting SNMMI AUC resulted in no positivity (0/17), while rarely appropriate posttreatment scans were falsely positive in 75% (3/4) of cases. Urologists (53%, 17/32) comprised the largest ordering specialty in rarely appropriate use. CONCLUSION: The frequency of PSMA use rose across the study period. A significant minority of patients received PSMA PET/CT in rarely appropriate scenarios yielding no positivity in initial staging and significant false positivity post-therapy. Further education of providers and electronic medical record-based interventions could help limit the rarely appropriate use of PET imaging.

Waste Coffee Ground-Derived Porous Carbon for Neurochemical Detection.

We present an optimized synthetic method for repurposing coffee waste to create controllable, uniform porous carbon frameworks for biosensor applications to enhance neurotransmitter detection with fast-scan cyclic voltammetry. Harnessing porous carbon structures from biowastes is a common practice for low-cost energy storage applications; however, repurposing biowastes for biosensing applications has not been explored. Waste coffee ground-derived porous carbon was synthesized by chemical activation to form multivoid, hierarchical porous carbon, and this synthesis was specifically optimized for porous uniformity and electrochemical detection. These materials, when modified on carbon-fiber microelectrodes, exhibited high surface roughness and pore distribution, which contributed to significant improvements in electrochemical reversibility and oxidative current for dopamine (3.5 ± 0.4-fold) and other neurochemicals. Capacitive current increases were small, showing evidence of small increases in electroactive surface area. Local trapping of dopamine within the pores led to improved electrochemical reversibility and frequency-independent behavior. Overall, we demonstrate an optimized biowaste-derived porous carbon synthesis for neurotransmitter detection for the first time and show material utility for viable neurotransmitter detection within a tissue matrix. This work supports the notion that controlled surface nanogeometries play a key role in electrochemical detection.

External Validation of a Digital Pathology-based Multimodal Artificial Intelligence Architecture in the NRG/RTOG 9902 Phase 3 Trial.

BACKGROUND: Accurate risk stratification is critical to guide management decisions in localized prostate cancer (PCa). Previously, we had developed and validated a multimodal artificial intelligence (MMAI) model generated from digital histopathology and clinical features. Here, we externally validate this model on men with high-risk or locally advanced PCa treated and followed as part of a phase 3 randomized control trial. OBJECTIVE: To externally validate the MMAI model on men with high-risk or locally advanced PCa treated and followed as part of a phase 3 randomized control trial. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: Our validation cohort included 318 localized high-risk PCa patients from NRG/RTOG 9902 with available histopathology (337 [85%] of the 397 patients enrolled into the trial had available slides, of which 19 [5.6%] failed due to poor image quality). OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS AND STATISTICAL ANALYSIS: Two previously locked prognostic MMAI models were validated for their intended endpoint: distant metastasis (DM) and PCa-specific mortality (PCSM). Individual clinical factors and the number of National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN) high-risk features served as comparators. Subdistribution hazard ratio (sHR) was reported per standard deviation increase of the score with corresponding 95% confidence interval (CI) using Fine-Gray or Cox proportional hazards models. RESULTS AND LIMITATIONS: The DM and PCSM MMAI algorithms were significantly and independently associated with the risk of DM (sHR [95% CI] = 2.33 [1.60-3.38], p < 0.001) and PCSM, respectively (sHR [95% CI] = 3.54 [2.38-5.28], p < 0.001) when compared against other prognostic clinical factors and NCCN high-risk features. The lower 75% of patients by DM MMAI had estimated 5- and 10-yr DM rates of 4% and 7%, and the highest quartile had average 5- and 10-yr DM rates of 19% and 32%, respectively (p < 0.001). Similar results were observed for the PCSM MMAI algorithm. CONCLUSIONS: We externally validated the prognostic ability of MMAI models previously developed among men with localized high-risk disease. MMAI prognostic models further risk stratify beyond the clinical and pathological variables for DM and PCSM in a population of men already at a high risk for disease progression. This study provides evidence for consistent validation of our deep learning MMAI models to improve prognostication and enable more informed decision-making for patient care. PATIENT SUMMARY: This paper presents a novel approach using images from pathology slides along with clinical variables to validate artificial intelligence (computer-generated) prognostic models. When implemented, clinicians can offer a more personalized and tailored prognostic discussion for men with localized prostate cancer.

Use of the Decipher genomic classifier among men with prostate cancer in the United States.

BACKGROUND: Management of localized or recurrent prostate cancer since the 1990s has been based on risk stratification using clinicopathological variables, including Gleason score, T stage (based on digital rectal exam), and prostate-specific antigen (PSA). In this study a novel prognostic test, the Decipher Prostate Genomic Classifier (GC), was used to stratify risk of prostate cancer progression in a US national database of men with prostate cancer. METHODS: Records of prostate cancer cases from participating SEER (Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results) program registries, diagnosed during the period from 2010 through 2018, were linked to records of testing with the GC prognostic test. Multivariable analysis was used to quantify the association between GC scores or risk groups and use of definitive local therapy after diagnosis in the GC biopsy-tested cohort and postoperative radiotherapy in the GC-tested cohort as well as adverse pathological findings after prostatectomy. RESULTS: A total of 572 545 patients were included in the analysis, of whom 8927 patients underwent GC testing. GC biopsy-tested patients were more likely to undergo active active surveillance or watchful waiting than untested patients (odds ratio [OR] =2.21, 95% confidence interval [CI] = 2.04 to 2.38, P < .001). The highest use of active surveillance or watchful waiting was for patients with a low-risk GC classification (41%) compared with those with an intermediate- (27%) or high-risk (11%) GC classification (P < .001). Among National Comprehensive Cancer Network patients with low and favorable-intermediate risk, higher GC risk class was associated with greater use of local therapy (OR = 4.79, 95% CI = 3.51 to 6.55, P < .001). Within this subset of patients who were subsequently treated with prostatectomy, high GC risk was associated with harboring adverse pathological findings (OR = 2.94, 95% CI = 1.38 to 6.27, P = .005). Use of radiation after prostatectomy was statistically significantly associated with higher GC risk groups (OR = 2.69, 95% CI = 1.89 to 3.84). CONCLUSIONS: There is a strong association between use of the biopsy GC test and likelihood of conservative management. Higher genomic classifier scores are associated with higher rates of adverse pathology at time of surgery and greater use of postoperative radiotherapy.In this study the Decipher Prostate Genomic Classifier (GC) was used to analyze a US national database of men with prostate cancer. Use of the GC was associated with conservative management (ie, active surveillance). Among men who had high-risk GC scores and then had surgery, there was a 3-fold higher chance of having worrisome findings in surgical specimens.

Utilization of genetic testing in men with advanced prostate cancer.

BACKGROUND: Genetic evaluation of men with advanced prostate cancer is recognized as imperative both to guide treatment decisions and to trigger cascade genetic testing of family members. Here we investigate utilization patterns of genetic testing among a contemporary cohort of men with advanced prostate cancer at our institution. METHODS: We queried the Northwestern Electronic Data Warehouse from January 2021 to present for all men diagnosed with National Comprehensive Cancer Network high-risk/very high-risk, regional, or metastatic prostate cancer. Patients were excluded from analyses if treated at an outside institution and/or presented for a second opinion evaluation. Statistics were performed using t-test, Chi-squared test, and univariable and multivariable logistic regression with significance defined as p < 0.05. RESULTS: Atotal of 320 men (52.5%) had local/regional disease and 290 (47.5%) had metastatic disease, 53 (18.3%) of whom had castrate resistant prostate cancer. Rates of germline genetic testing rate were low in patients with localized disease (9.4%) and metastatic disease (34.1%). Only 19 (35.8%) men diagnosed with metastatic castrate resistant prostate cancer underwent germline genetic evaluation. Germline testing was most frequently discussed or ordered by medical oncologists (52%) followed by urologists (20%). Men who underwent germline testing were younger (p < 0.001), more likely to have Medicaid or private insurance (p = 0.002), and more likely to have metastatic disease (p < 0.001). There were no statistically significant differences in baseline PSA, ethnicity, race, or castration sensitivity status. Age (odds ratio [OR]: 0.94, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.91-0.97, p < 0.001) and metastatic disease (OR: 5.71, 95% CI: 3.63-9.22, p < 0.001) were significant independent predictors of genetic testing on multivariable logistic regression. CONCLUSIONS: Here we report that utilization of genetic testing is associated with metastatic disease and inversely associated with age. Overall, utilization rates of genetic testing remain low in all patient groups, including in the metastatic castrate resistant setting, where genetic testing can identify patients with homologous recombination repair deficiency who may benefit from use of targeted therapeutics such as PARP inhibitors. Genetic testing in men with aggressive prostate cancer is critical and barriers to routine implementation of testing require further study to develop strategies to improve utilization rates.

Relationships between holmium laser enucleation of the prostate and prostate cancer.

Holmium laser enucleation of the prostate (HoLEP) is a size-independent surgical option for treating benign prostatic hyperplasia (BPH) and lower urinary tract symptoms (LUTS) with excellent, durable functional outcomes. The prevalence of LUTS secondary to BPH and prostate cancer both increase with age, although the two diseases develop independently. Urologists often face a diagnostic dilemma, as men with LUTS secondary to BPH might also present with an elevated PSA and, therefore, need a diagnostic work-up to exclude prostate cancer. Nevertheless, ~15% of men with a negative elevated PSA work-up will undergo HoLEP and will be diagnosed with incidental prostate cancer at the time of HoLEP. Indeed, prostate cancer is often found in men undergoing HoLEP, and this situation can be challenging to manage. Variables associated with the detection of incidental prostate cancer, strategies to reduce incidental prostate cancer, as well as the natural history and management of this condition have been extensively studied, but further work in this area is still needed.

Comparison of Multimodal Therapies and Outcomes Among Patients With High-Risk Prostate Cancer With Adverse Clinicopathologic Features.

Importance: The optimal management strategy for high-risk prostate cancer and additional adverse clinicopathologic features remains unknown. Objective: To compare clinical outcomes among patients with high-risk prostate cancer after definitive treatment. Design, Setting, and Participants: This retrospective cohort study included patients with high-risk prostate cancer (as defined by the National Comprehensive Cancer Network [NCCN]) and at least 1 adverse clinicopathologic feature (defined as any primary Gleason pattern 5 on biopsy, clinical T3b-4 disease, ≥50% cores with biopsy results positive for prostate cancer, or NCCN ≥2 high-risk features) treated between 2000 and 2014 at 16 tertiary centers. Data were analyzed in November 2020. Exposures: Radical prostatectomy (RP), external beam radiotherapy (EBRT) with androgen deprivation therapy (ADT), or EBRT plus brachytherapy boost (BT) with ADT. Guideline-concordant multimodal treatment was defined as RP with appropriate use of multimodal therapy (optimal RP), EBRT with at least 2 years of ADT (optimal EBRT), or EBRT with BT with at least 1 year ADT (optimal EBRT with BT). Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary outcome was prostate cancer-specific mortality; distant metastasis was a secondary outcome. Differences were evaluated using inverse probability of treatment weight-adjusted Fine-Gray competing risk regression models. Results: A total of 6004 men (median [interquartile range] age, 66.4 [60.9-71.8] years) with high-risk prostate cancer were analyzed, including 3175 patients (52.9%) who underwent RP, 1830 patients (30.5%) who underwent EBRT alone, and 999 patients (16.6%) who underwent EBRT with BT. Compared with RP, treatment with EBRT with BT (subdistribution hazard ratio [sHR] 0.78, [95% CI, 0.63-0.97]; P = .03) or with EBRT alone (sHR, 0.70 [95% CI, 0.53-0.92]; P = .01) was associated with significantly improved prostate cancer-specific mortality; there was no difference in prostate cancer-specific mortality between EBRT with BT and EBRT alone (sHR, 0.89 [95% CI, 0.67-1.18]; P = .43). No significant differences in prostate cancer-specific mortality were found across treatment cohorts among 2940 patients who received guideline-concordant multimodality treatment (eg, optimal EBRT alone vs optimal RP: sHR, 0.76 [95% CI, 0.52-1.09]; P = .14). However, treatment with EBRT alone or EBRT with BT was consistently associated with lower rates of distant metastasis compared with treatment with RP (eg, EBRT vs RP: sHR, 0.50 [95% CI, 0.44-0.58]; P < .001). Conclusions and Relevance: These findings suggest that among patients with high-risk prostate cancer and additional unfavorable clinicopathologic features receiving guideline-concordant multimodal therapy, prostate cancer-specific mortality outcomes were equivalent among those treated with RP, EBRT, and EBRT with BT, although distant metastasis outcomes were more favorable among patients treated with EBRT and EBRT with BT. Optimal multimodality treatment is critical for improving outcomes in patients with high-risk prostate cancer.

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.

Evaluation of Intense Androgen Deprivation Before Prostatectomy: A Randomized Phase II Trial of Enzalutamide and Leuprolide With or Without Abiraterone.

PURPOSE: Patients with locally advanced prostate cancer have an increased risk of cancer recurrence and mortality. In this phase II trial, we evaluate neoadjuvant enzalutamide and leuprolide (EL) with or without abiraterone and prednisone (ELAP) before radical prostatectomy (RP) in men with locally advanced prostate cancer. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Eligible patients had a biopsy Gleason score of 4 + 3 = 7 or greater, prostate-specific antigen (PSA) greater than 20 ng/mL, or T3 disease (by prostate magnetic resonance imaging). Lymph nodes were required to be smaller than 20 mm. Patients were randomly assigned 2:1 to ELAP or EL for 24 weeks followed by RP. All specimens underwent central pathology review. The primary end point was pathologic complete response or minimal residual disease (residual tumor ≤ 5 mm). Secondary end points were PSA, surgical staging, positive margins, and safety. Biomarkers associated with pathologic outcomes were explored. RESULTS: Seventy-five patients were enrolled at four centers. Most patients had high-risk disease by National Comprehensive Cancer Network criteria (n = 65; 87%). The pathologic complete response or minimal residual disease rate was 30% (n = 15 of 50) in ELAP-treated patients and 16% (n = four of 25) in EL-treated patients (two-sided P = .263). Rates of ypT3 disease, positive margins, and positive lymph nodes were similar between arms. Treatment was well-tolerated. Residual tumors in the two arms showed comparable levels of ERG, PTEN, androgen receptor PSA, and glucocorticoid receptor expression. Tumor ERG positivity and PTEN loss were associated with more extensive residual tumors at RP. CONCLUSION: Neoadjuvant hormone therapy followed by RP in locally advanced prostate cancer resulted in favorable pathologic responses in some patients, with a trend toward improved pathologic outcomes with ELAP. Longer follow-up is necessary to evaluate the impact of therapy on recurrence rates. The potential association of ERG and PTEN alterations with worse outcomes warrants additional investigation.

Validation of the Decipher Test for predicting adverse pathology in candidates for prostate cancer active surveillance.

ABSTACT: BACKGROUND: Many men diagnosed with prostate cancer are active surveillance (AS) candidates. However, AS may be associated with increased risk of disease progression and metastasis due to delayed therapy. Genomic classifiers, e.g., Decipher, may allow better risk-stratify newly diagnosed prostate cancers for AS. METHODS: Decipher was initially assessed in a prospective cohort of prostatectomies to explore the correlation with clinically meaningful biologic characteristics and then assessed in diagnostic biopsies from a retrospective multicenter cohort of 266 men with National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN) very low/low and favorable-intermediate risk prostate cancer. Decipher and Cancer of the Prostate Risk Assessment (CAPRA) were compared as predictors of adverse pathology (AP) for which there is universal agreement that patients with long life-expectancy are not suitable candidates for AS (primary pattern 4 or 5, advanced local stage [pT3b or greater] or lymph node involvement). RESULTS: Decipher from prostatectomies was significantly associated with adverse pathologic features (p-values < 0.001). Decipher from the 266 diagnostic biopsies (64.7% NCCN-very-low/low and 35.3% favorable-intermediate) was an independent predictor of AP (odds ratio 1.29 per 10% increase, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.03-1.61, p-value 0.025) when adjusting for CAPRA. CAPRA area under curve (AUC) was 0.57, (95% CI 0.47-0.68). Adding Decipher to CAPRA increased the AUC to 0.65 (95% CI 0.58-0.70). NPV, which determines the degree of confidence in the absence of AP for patients, was 91% (95% CI 87-94%) and 96% (95% CI 90-99%) for Decipher thresholds of 0.45 and 0.2, respectively. Using a threshold of 0.2, Decipher was a significant predictor of AP when adjusting for CAPRA (p-value 0.016). CONCLUSION: Decipher can be applied to prostate biopsies from NCCN-very-low/low and favorable-intermediate risk patients to predict absence of adverse pathologic features. These patients are predicted to be good candidates for active surveillance.

Low Tristetraprolin Expression Is Associated with Lethal Prostate Cancer.

BACKGROUND: Inflammation is linked to prostate cancer progression and is mediated by NF-κB. Tristetraprolin is a key node of NF-κB activation and we investigated its biological and prognostic role in lethal prostate cancer. METHODS: In vitro assays assessed the function of tristetraprolin and the association between low mRNA tristetraprolin levels and lethal prostate cancer (metastatic disease or death) was assessed across independent prostatectomy cohorts: (i) nested case-control studies from Health Professionals Follow-up Study and Physicians' Health Study, and (ii) prostatectomy samples from Cleveland Clinic, Mayo Clinic, Johns Hopkins and Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center. Tristetraprolin expression levels in prostatectomy samples from patients with localized disease and biopsies of metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer (mCRPC) were assessed in a Cornell University cohort. RESULTS: In vitro tristetraprolin expression was inversely associated with NF-κB-controlled genes, proliferation, and enzalutamide sensitivity. Men with localized prostate cancer and lower quartile of tumor tristetraprolin expression had a significant, nearly two-fold higher risk of lethal prostate cancer after adjusting for known clinical and histologic prognostic features (age, RP Gleason score, T-stage). Tristetraprolin expression was also significantly lower in mCRPC compared with localized prostate cancer. CONCLUSIONS: Lower levels of tristetraprolin in human prostate cancer prostatectomy tissue are associated with more aggressive prostate cancer and may serve as an actionable prognostic and predictive biomarker. IMPACT: There is a clear need for improved biomarkers to identify patients with localized prostate cancer in need of treatment intensification, such as adjuvant testosterone suppression, or treatment de-intensification, such as active surveillance. Tristetraprolin levels may serve as informative biomarkers in localized prostate cancer.

Development and Validation of a Novel Integrated Clinical-Genomic Risk Group Classification for Localized Prostate Cancer.

Purpose It is clinically challenging to integrate genomic-classifier results that report a numeric risk of recurrence into treatment recommendations for localized prostate cancer, which are founded in the framework of risk groups. We aimed to develop a novel clinical-genomic risk grouping system that can readily be incorporated into treatment guidelines for localized prostate cancer. Materials and Methods Two multicenter cohorts (n = 991) were used for training and validation of the clinical-genomic risk groups, and two additional cohorts (n = 5,937) were used for reclassification analyses. Competing risks analysis was used to estimate the risk of distant metastasis. Time-dependent c-indices were constructed to compare clinicopathologic risk models with the clinical-genomic risk groups. Results With a median follow-up of 8 years for patients in the training cohort, 10-year distant metastasis rates for National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN) low, favorable-intermediate, unfavorable-intermediate, and high-risk were 7.3%, 9.2%, 38.0%, and 39.5%, respectively. In contrast, the three-tier clinical-genomic risk groups had 10-year distant metastasis rates of 3.5%, 29.4%, and 54.6%, for low-, intermediate-, and high-risk, respectively, which were consistent in the validation cohort (0%, 25.9%, and 55.2%, respectively). C-indices for the clinical-genomic risk grouping system (0.84; 95% CI, 0.61 to 0.93) were improved over NCCN (0.73; 95% CI, 0.60 to 0.86) and Cancer of the Prostate Risk Assessment (0.74; 95% CI, 0.65 to 0.84), and 30% of patients using NCCN low/intermediate/high would be reclassified by the new three-tier system and 67% of patients would be reclassified from NCCN six-tier (very-low- to very-high-risk) by the new six-tier system. Conclusion A commercially available genomic classifier in combination with standard clinicopathologic variables can generate a simple-to-use clinical-genomic risk grouping that more accurately identifies patients at low, intermediate, and high risk for metastasis and can be easily incorporated into current guidelines to better risk-stratify patients.

Ability of a Genomic Classifier to Predict Metastasis and Prostate Cancer-specific Mortality after Radiation or Surgery based on Needle Biopsy Specimens.

BACKGROUND: Decipher is a validated genomic classifier developed to determine the biological potential for metastasis after radical prostatectomy (RP). OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the ability of biopsy Decipher to predict metastasis and Prostate cancer-specific mortality (PCSM) in primarily intermediate- to high-risk patients treated with RP or radiation therapy (RT). DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: Two hundred and thirty-five patients treated with either RP (n=105) or RT±androgen deprivation therapy (n=130) with available genomic expression profiles generated from diagnostic biopsy specimens from seven tertiary referral centers. The highest-grade core was sampled and Decipher was calculated based on a locked random forest model. OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS AND STATISTICAL ANALYSIS: Metastasis and PCSM were the primary and secondary outcomes of the study, respectively. Cox analysis and c-index were used to evaluate the performance of Decipher. RESULTS AND LIMITATIONS: With a median follow-up of 6 yr among censored patients, 34 patients developed metastases and 11 died of prostate cancer. On multivariable analysis, biopsy Decipher remained a significant predictor of metastasis (hazard ratio: 1.37 per 10% increase in score, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.06-1.78, p=0.018) after adjusting for clinical variables. For predicting metastasis 5-yr post-biopsy, Cancer of the Prostate Risk Assessment score had a c-index of 0.60 (95% CI: 0.50-0.69), while Cancer of the Prostate Risk Assessment plus biopsy Decipher had a c-index of 0.71 (95% CI: 0.60-0.82). National Comprehensive Cancer Network risk group had a c-index of 0.66 (95% CI: 0.53-0.77), while National Comprehensive Cancer Network plus biopsy Decipher had a c-index of 0.74 (95% CI: 0.66-0.82). Biopsy Decipher was a significant predictor of PCSM (hazard ratio: 1.57 per 10% increase in score, 95% CI: 1.03-2.48, p=0.037), with a 5-yr PCSM rate of 0%, 0%, and 9.4% for Decipher low, intermediate, and high, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: Biopsy Decipher predicted metastasis and PCSM from diagnostic biopsy specimens of primarily intermediate- and high-risk men treated with first-line RT or RP. PATIENT SUMMARY: Biopsy Decipher predicted metastasis and prostate cancer-specific mortality risk from diagnostic biopsy specimens.

Prognostic utility of biopsy-derived cell cycle progression score in patients with National Comprehensive Cancer Network low-risk prostate cancer undergoing radical prostatectomy: implications for treatment guidance.

OBJECTIVES: To determine the prognostic utility of the cell cycle progression (CCP) score in men with National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN)-defined low-risk prostate cancer (PCa) undergoing radical prostatectomy (RP). PATIENTS AND METHODS: Men who underwent RP for Gleason score ≤6 PCa at three institutions (Martini Clinic [MC], Durham Veterans Affairs Medical Center [DVA] and Intermountain Healthcare [IH]) were identified. The CCP score was obtained from diagnostic (DVA, IH) or simulated biopsies (MC). The primary outcome was biochemical recurrence (BCR; prostate-specific antigen ≥0.2 ng/mL) after RP. The prognostic utility of the CCP score was assessed using Kaplan-Meier analysis and multivariable Cox proportional hazards models in the subset of men meeting NCCN low-risk criteria and in the overall cohort. RESULTS: Among the 236 men identified, 80% (188/236) met the NCCN low-risk criteria. Five-year BCR-free survival for the low (<0), intermediate (0-1) and high (>1) CCP score groups was 89.2%, 80.4%, 64.7%, respectively, in the low-risk cohort (P = 0.03), and 85.9%, 79.1%, 63.1%, respectively, in the overall cohort (P = 0.041). In multivariable models adjusting for clinical and pathological variables with the Cancer of the Prostate Risk Assessment (CAPRA) score, the CCP score was an independent predictor of BCR in the low-risk (hazard ratio [HR] 1.77 per unit score, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.21, 2.58; P = 0.003) and overall cohorts (HR 1.41 per unit score, 95% CI 1.02, 1.96; P = 0.039). CONCLUSION: In a cohort of men with NCCN-defined low-risk PCa, the CCP score improved clinical risk stratification of men who were at increased risk of BCR, which suggests the CCP score could improve the assessment of candidacy for active surveillance and guide optimum treatment selection in these patients with otherwise similar clinical characteristics.

Implementation of a Surgeon-Level Comparative Quality Performance Review to Improve Positive Surgical Margin Rates during Radical Prostatectomy.

PURPOSE: Success in the era of value-based payment will depend on the capacity of health systems to improve quality while controlling costs. Comparative quality performance review can be used to drive improvements in surgical outcomes and thereby reduce costs. We sought to determine the efficacy of a comparative quality performance review to improve a surgeon-level measure of surgical oncologic quality, that is the positive surgical margin rate at the time of radical prostatectomy. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Eight surgeons who performed consecutive radical prostatectomies at a single high volume institution between January 1, 2015 and December 31, 2015 were included in analysis. Individual surgeons were provided with confidential report cards every 6 months detailing their case mix, case volume and pT2 radical prostatectomy positive surgical margin rate relative to 1) their own self-matched data, 2) the de-identified data of their colleagues and 3) institutional aggregate data during the study period. Positive surgical margin rates were compared before and after intervention. Hierarchal logistic regression analysis was used to examine the association of study period on the odds of positive surgical margins, adjusted for prostate specific antigen level and National Comprehensive Cancer Network® risk group. RESULTS: Overall, 1,822 (1,392 before and 430 after intervention) radical prostatectomies were performed that met study inclusion criteria. The aggregate departmental unadjusted positive surgical margin rates were 10.6% and 7.4% in the pre-intervention and post-intervention groups, respectively. After adjusting for higher risk cancer in the post-intervention group, there was a significant protective association of post-intervention status on positive margins (OR 0.64, 95% CI 0.43-0.97, p = 0.03). All 5 surgeons with positive surgical margin rates higher than the aggregate department rate in the pre-intervention period showed improvement after intervention. CONCLUSIONS: Comparative quality performance review can be implemented at the surgeon level and can promote improvement in an objective measure of surgical oncology quality.

Utility of Risk Models in Decision Making After Radical Prostatectomy: Lessons from a Natural History Cohort of Intermediate- and High-Risk Men.

BACKGROUND: Current guidelines suggest adjuvant radiation therapy for men with adverse pathologic features (APFs) at radical prostatectomy (RP). We examine at-risk men treated only with RP until the time of metastasis. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate whether clinicopathologic risk models can help guide postoperative therapeutic decision making. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: Men with National Comprehensive Cancer Network intermediate- or high-risk localized prostate cancer undergoing RP in the prostate-specific antigen (PSA) era were identified (n=3089). Only men with initial undetectable PSA after surgery and who received no therapy prior to metastasis were included. APFs were defined as pT3 disease or positive surgical margins. OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS AND STATISTICAL ANALYSIS: Area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC) for time to event data was used to measure the discrimination performance of the risk factors. Cumulative incidence curves were constructed using Fine and Gray competing risks analysis to estimate the risk of biochemical recurrence (BCR) or metastasis, taking censoring and death due to other causes into consideration. RESULTS AND LIMITATIONS: Overall, 43% of the cohort (n=1327) had APFs at RP. Median follow-up for censored patients was 5 yr. Cumulative incidence of metastasis was 6% at 10 yr after RP for all patients. Cumulative incidence of metastasis among men with APFs was 7.5% at 10 yr after RP. Among men with BCR, the incidence of metastasis was 38% 5 yr after BCR. At 10 yr after RP, time-dependent AUC for predicting metastasis by Cancer of the Prostate Risk Assessment Postsurgical or Eggener risk models was 0.81 (95% confidence interval [CI], 0.72-0.97) and 0.78 (95% CI, 0.67-0.97) in the APF population, respectively. At 5 yr after BCR, these values were lower (0.58 [95% CI, 0.50-0.66] and 0.70 [95% CI, 0.63-0.76]) among those who developed BCR. Use of risk model cut points could substantially reduce overtreatment while minimally increasing undertreatment (ie, use of an Eggener cut point of 2.5% for treatment of men with APFs would spare 46% from treatment while only allowing for metastatic events in 1% at 10 yr after RP). CONCLUSIONS: Use of risk models reduces overtreatment and should be a routine part of patient counseling when considering adjuvant therapy. Risk model performance is significantly reduced among men with BCR. PATIENT SUMMARY: Use of current risk models can help guide decision making regarding therapy after surgery and reduce overtreatment.

Reclassification rates are higher among African American men than Caucasians on active surveillance.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the risk of reclassification on serial biopsy for Caucasian and African American (AA) men with very low-risk (VLR) prostate cancer enrolled in a large prospective active surveillance (AS) registry. METHODS: The Johns Hopkins AS registry is a prospective observational study that has enrolled 982 men since 1994. Including only men who met all National Comprehensive Cancer Network VLR criteria (clinical stage ≤T1, Gleason score ≤6, prostate-specific antigen [PSA] level <10 ng/mL, PSA density <0.15 ng/mL/cm(3), positive cores <3, percent cancer per core ≤50), we analyzed a cohort of 654 men (615 Caucasians and 39 AAs). The association of race with reclassification on serial biopsy was assessed with competing-risks regressions. RESULTS: AA men on AS were more likely than Caucasians to experience upgrading on serial biopsy (36% vs 16%; adjusted P <.001). Adjusting for PSA level, prostate size, volume of cancer on biopsy, treatment year, and body mass index, AA race was an independent predictor of biopsy reclassification (subdistribution hazard ratio, 1.8; P = .003). Examining specific modes of reclassification, AA race was independently associated with reclassification by grade (subdistribution hazard ratio, 3.0; P = .002) but not by volume. CONCLUSION: AA men with VLR prostate cancer followed on AS are at significantly higher risk of grade reclassification compared with Caucasians. Therefore, if the goal of AS is to selectively monitor men with low-grade disease, AA men may require alternate selection criteria.

Racial disparities in oncologic outcomes after radical prostatectomy: long-term follow-up.

OBJECTIVE: To report race-based outcomes after radical prostatectomy (RP) in a cohort stratified by National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN) risk category with updated follow-up. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Studies describing racial disparities in outcomes after RP are conflicting. We studied 15,993 white and 1634 African American (AA) pretreatment-naïve men who underwent RP at our institution (1992-2013) with complete preoperative and pathologic data. Pathologic outcomes were compared between races using appropriate statistical tests; biochemical recurrence (BCR) for men with complete follow-up was compared using multivariate models that controlled separately for preoperative and postoperative covariates. RESULTS: Very low- and low-risk AA men were more likely to have positive surgical margins (P <.01), adverse pathologic features (P <.01), and be upgraded at RP (P <.01). With a median follow-up of 4.0 years after RP, AA race was an independent predictor of BCR among NCCN low-risk (HR, 2.16; P <.001) and intermediate-risk (hazard ratio [HR], 1.34; P = .024) classes and pathologic Gleason score ≤ 6 (HR, 2.42; P <.001) and Gleason score 7 (HR, 1.71; P <.001). BCR-free survival for very low-risk AA men was similar to low-risk white men (P = .890); BCR-free survival for low-risk AA men was similar to intermediate-risk white men (P = .060). CONCLUSION: When stratified by NCCN risk, AA men with very low-, low-, or intermediate-risk prostate cancer who undergo RP are more likely to have adverse pathologic findings and BCR compared with white men. AA men with "low risk" prostate cancer, especially those considering active surveillance, should be counseled that their recurrence risks can resemble those of whites in higher risk categories.