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.

Five-Year Patient-Reported Outcomes in NRG Oncology RTOG 0938, Evaluating Two Ultrahypofractionated Regimens for Prostate Cancer.

PURPOSE: There is considerable interest in very short (ultrahypofractionated) radiation therapy regimens to treat prostate cancer based on potential radiobiological advantages, patient convenience, and resource allocation benefits. Our objective is to demonstrate that detectable changes in health-related quality of life measured by the bowel and urinary domains of the Expanded Prostate Cancer Index Composite (EPIC-50) were not substantially worse than baseline scores. METHODS AND MATERIALS: NRG Oncology's RTOG 0938 is a nonblinded randomized phase 2 study of National Comprehensive Cancer Network low-risk prostate cancer in which each arm is compared with a historical control. Patients were randomized to 5 fractions (7.25 Gy in 2 week and a day [twice a week]) or 12 fractions (4.3Gy in 2.5 weeks [5 times a week]). Secondary objectives assessed patient-reported toxicity at 5 years using the EPIC. Chi-square tests were used to assess the proportion of patients with a deterioration from baseline of >5 points for bowel, >2 points for urinary, and >11 points for sexual score. RESULTS: The study enrolled 127 patients to 5 fractions (121 eligible) and 128 patients to 12 fractions (125 eligible). The median follow-up for all patients at the time of analysis was 5.38 years. The 5-year frequency for >5 point change in bowel score were 38.4% (P = .27) and 23.4% (P = 0.98) for 5 and 12 fractions, respectively. The 5-year frequencies for >2 point change in urinary score were 46.6% (P = .15) and 36.4% (P = .70) for 5 and 12 fractions, respectively. For 5 fractions, 49.3% (P = .007) of patients had a drop in 5-year EPIC-50 sexual score of ≥11 points; for 12 fractions, 54% (P < .001) of patients had a drop in 5-year EPIC-50 sexual score of ≥11 points. Disease-free survival at 5 years is 89.6% (95% CI: 84.0-95.2) in the 5-fraction arm and 92.3% (95% CI: 87.4-97.1) in the 12-fraction arm. There was no late grade 4 or 5 treatment-related urinary or bowel toxicity. CONCLUSIONS: This study confirms that, based on long-term changes in bowel and urinary domains and toxicity, the 5- and 12-fraction regimens are well tolerated. These ultrahypofractionated approaches need to be compared with current standard radiation therapy regimens.

Androgen deprivation therapy use and duration with definitive radiotherapy for localised prostate cancer: an individual patient data meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: Randomised trials have investigated various androgen deprivation therapy (ADT) intensification strategies in men receiving radiotherapy for the treatment of prostate cancer. This individual patient data meta-analysis of relevant randomised trials aimed to quantify the benefit of these interventions in aggregate and in clinically relevant subgroups. METHODS: For this meta-analysis, we performed a systematic literature search in MEDLINE, Embase, trial registries, the Web of Science, Scopus, and conference proceedings to identify trials with results published in English between Jan 1, 1962, and Dec 30, 2020. Multicentre randomised trials were eligible if they evaluated the use or prolongation of ADT (or both) in men with localised prostate cancer receiving definitive radiotherapy, reported or collected distant metastasis and survival data, and used ADT for a protocol-defined finite duration. The Meta-Analysis of Randomized trials in Cancer of the Prostate (MARCAP) Consortium was accessed to obtain individual patient data from randomised trials. The primary outcome was metastasis-free survival. Hazard ratios (HRs) were obtained through stratified Cox models for ADT use (radiotherapy alone vs radiotherapy plus ADT), neoadjuvant ADT extension (ie, extension of total ADT duration in the neoadjuvant setting from 3-4 months to 6-9 months), and adjuvant ADT prolongation (ie, prolongation of total ADT duration in the adjuvant setting from 4-6 months to 18-36 months). Formal interaction tests between interventions and metastasis-free survival were done for prespecified subgroups defined by age, National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN) risk group, and radiotherapy dose. This meta-analysis is registered with PROSPERO, CRD42021236855. FINDINGS: Our search returned 12 eligible trials that provided individual patient data (10 853 patients) with a median follow-up of 11·4 years (IQR 9·0-15·0). The addition of ADT to radiotherapy significantly improved metastasis-free survival (HR 0·83 [95% CI 0·77-0·89], p<0·0001), as did adjuvant ADT prolongation (0·84 [0·78-0·91], p<0·0001), but neoadjuvant ADT extension did not (0·95 [0·83-1·09], p=0·50). Treatment effects were similar irrespective of radiotherapy dose, patient age, or NCCN risk group. INTERPRETATION: Our findings provide the strongest level of evidence so far to the magnitude of the benefit of ADT treatment intensification with radiotherapy for men with localised prostate cancer. Adding ADT and prolonging the portion of ADT that follows radiotherapy is associated with improved metastasis-free survival in men, regardless of risk group, age, and radiotherapy dose delivered; however, the magnitude of the benefit could vary and shared decision making with patients is recommended. FUNDING: University Hospitals Seidman Cancer Center, Prostate Cancer Foundation, and the American Society for Radiation Oncology.

High-dose-rate fractionated brachytherapy monotherapy for localized prostate cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

PURPOSE: High-dose-rate (HDR) brachytherapy as primary therapy (monotherapy) is a standard National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN) endorsed treatment option for patients with localized prostate cancer. Thus far, most data are limited to single-institution experiences. Accordingly, we sought to systematically review rates of biochemical recurrence-free survival (bRFS) and toxicity associated with fractionated HDR monotherapy. MATERIAL AND METHODS: A systematic review was performed using PubMed and Embase databases for relevant articles published between January 1999 and December 2019, according to preferred reporting items for systematic review and meta-analyses (PRISMA) guidelines. Included studies were limited to fractionated HDR monotherapy publications in full manuscript form with at least 5-year median follow-up, at least 80 patients included, and adequate reporting of bRFS and toxicity data. Meta-analyses were performed with random-effect modeling. Extent of heterogeneity between studies was determined using I 2 and Cochran's Q tests. RESULTS: Seven unique studies were identified, including 2,123 patients. NCCN low-, intermediate-, and high-risk patients comprised 40%, 40%, and 20% of patients, respectively. Median follow-up at the study group level was 74 months (range, 60-131 months). The 5-year bRFS rate was 95% (95% confidence interval [CI]: 93-96%), and after adjusting to control for publication bias, it was 96% (95% CI: 94-99%). Estimated adjusted late grade ≥ 3 genitourinary and gastrointestinal toxicity rates were 2% (95% CI: 1-4%) and 0.3% (95% CI: 0-1.1%), respectively. CONCLUSIONS: Fractionated HDR monotherapy is associated with high rates of disease control and low rates of toxicity. Future studies are needed to better define the value of this treatment modality relative to other options.

Long-Term Results of NRG Oncology/RTOG 0321: A Phase II Trial of Combined High Dose Rate Brachytherapy and External Beam Radiation Therapy for Adenocarcinoma of the Prostate.

PURPOSE: To report the long-term outcome of patients with prostate cancer treated with external beam radiation therapy and high dose rate (HDR) brachytherapy from a prospective multi-institutional trial conducted by NRG Oncology/RTOG. METHODS AND MATERIALS: Patients with clinically localized (T1c-T3b) prostate cancer without prior history of transurethral resection of prostate or hip prosthesis were eligible for this study. All patients were treated with a combination of 45 Gy in 25 fractions from external beam radiation therapy and one HDR implant delivering 19 Gy in 2 fractions. Adverse events (AE) were collected using Common Toxicity Criteria for Adverse Events, version 3. Cumulative incidence was used to estimate time to severe late gastrointestinal (GI)/genitourinary (GU) toxicity, biochemical failure, disease-specific mortality, local failure, and distant failure. Overall survival was estimated using the Kaplan-Meier method. RESULTS: One hundred and twenty-nine patients were enrolled from July 2004 to May 2006. AE data was available for 115 patients. Patients were National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN) intermediate to very high risk. The median age was 68, T1c-T2c 91%, T3a-T3b 9%, PSA ≤10 70%, PSA >10 to ≤20 30%, GS 6 10%, GS 7 72%, and GS 8 to 10 18%. Forty-three percent of patients received hormonal therapy. At a median follow-up time of 10 years, there were 6 (5%) patients with grade 3 GI and GU treatment-related AEs, and no late grade 4 to 5 GI and GU AEs. At 5 and 10 years, the rate of late grade 3 gastrointestinal and genitourinary AEs was 4% and 5%, respectively. Five- and 10-year overall survival rates were 95% and 76%. Biochemical failure rates per Phoenix definition at 5 and 10 years were 14% and 23%. The 10-year rate of disease-specific mortality was 6%. At 5 and 10 years, the rates of distant failure were 4% and 8%, respectively. The rates of local failure at 5 and 10 years were 2% at both time points. CONCLUSIONS: Combined modality treatment using HDR prostate brachytherapy leads to excellent long-term clinical outcomes in this prospective multi-institutional trial.

Bladder Preservation With Twice-a-Day Radiation Plus Fluorouracil/Cisplatin or Once Daily Radiation Plus Gemcitabine for Muscle-Invasive Bladder Cancer: NRG/RTOG 0712-A Randomized Phase II Trial.

PURPOSE: Fluorouracil plus cisplatin and radiation twice a day (FCT) is an established chemoradiation (CRT) regimen for selective bladder-sparing treatment of muscle-invasive bladder cancer. Gemcitabine and once daily radiation (GD) is a well-supported alternative. The current trial evaluates these regimens. METHODS: Patients with cT2-4a muscle-invasive bladder cancer were randomly assigned to FCT or GD. Patients underwent transurethral resection and induction CRT to 40 Gy. Patients who achieved a complete response (CR) received consolidation CRT to 64 Gy and others underwent cystectomy. We administered adjuvant gemcitabine/cisplatin chemotherapy. The primary end point was the rate of freedom from distant metastasis at 3 years (DMF3). The trial was not statistically powered to compare regimens, but to assess whether either regimen exceeded a DMF3 benchmark of 75%. Toxicity and efficacy end points, including CR and bladder-intact distant metastasis free survival at 3 years (BI-DMFS3), were assessed. RESULTS: From December 2008 to April 2014, 70 patients were enrolled, of which 66 were eligible for analysis, 33 per arm. Median follow-up was 5.1 years (range, 0.4 to 7.8 years) for eligible living patients. DMF3 was 78% and 84% for FCT and GD, respectively. BI-DMFS3 was 67% and 72%, respectively. Postinduction CR rates were 88% and 78%, respectively. Of 33 patients in the FCT arm, 21 (64%) experienced treatment-related grade 3 and 4 toxicities during protocol treatment, with 18 (55%), two (6%), and two patients (6%) experiencing grade 3 and 4 hematologic, GI, and genitourinary toxicity, respectively. For the 33 patients in the GD arm, these figures were 18 (55%) overall and 14 (42%), three (9%) and two patients (6%), respectively. CONCLUSION: Both regimens demonstrated DMF3 greater than 75%. There were fewer toxicities observed in the GD arm. Either gemcitabine and once daily radiation or a cisplatin-based regimen could serve as a base for future trials of systemic therapy.

Patient Reported Outcomes in NRG Oncology RTOG 0938, Evaluating Two Ultrahypofractionated Regimens for Prostate Cancer.

PURPOSE: There is considerable interest in very short (ultrahypofractionated) radiation therapy regimens to treat prostate cancer based on potential radiobiological advantages, patient convenience, and resource allocation benefits. Our objective is to demonstrate that detectable changes in health-related quality of life measured by the bowel and urinary domains of the Expanded Prostate Cancer Index Composite (EPIC-50) were not substantially worse than baseline scores. METHODS AND MATERIALS: NRG Oncology's RTOG 0938 is a nonblinded randomized phase 2 study of National Comprehensive Cancer Network low-risk prostate cancer in which each arm is compared with a historical control. Patients were randomized to 5 fractions (7.25 Gy in 2 weeks) or 12 fractions (4.3 Gy in 2.5 weeks). The co-primary endpoints were the proportion of patients with a change in EPIC-50 bowel score at 1 year (baseline to 1 year) >5 points and in EPIC-50 urinary score >2 points tested with a 1-sample binomial test. RESULTS: The study enrolled 127 patients to 5 fractions (121 analyzed) and 128 patients to 12 fractions (125 analyzed). Median follow-up for all patients at the time of analysis was 3.8 years. The 1-year frequency for >5 point change in bowel score were 29.8% (P < .001) and 28.4% (P < .001) for 5 and 12 fractions, respectively. The 1-year frequencies for >2 point change in urinary score were 45.7% (P < .001) and 42.2% (P < .001) for 5 and 12 fractions, respectively. For 5 fractions, 32.9% of patients had a drop in 1-year EPIC-50 sexual score of ≥11 points (P = .34); for 12 fractions, 30.9% of patients had a drop in 1-year EPIC-50 sexual score of ≥ 11 points (P = .20). Disease-free survival at 2 years is 99.2% (95% confidence interval: 97.5-100) in the 5-fraction arm and 97.5% (95% confidence interval: 94.6-100) in the 12-fraction arm. There was no late grade 4 or 5 treatment-related urinary or bowel toxicity. CONCLUSIONS: This study confirms that, based on changes in bowel and urinary domains and toxicity (acute and late), the 5- and 12-fraction regimens are well tolerated. These ultrahypofractionated approaches need to be compared with current standard radiation therapy regimens.

Unification of favourable intermediate-, unfavourable intermediate-, and very high-risk stratification criteria for prostate cancer.

OBJECTIVE: To improve on the existing risk-stratification systems for prostate cancer. PATIENTS AND METHODS: This was a retrospective investigation including 2 248 patients undergoing dose-escalated external beam radiotherapy (EBRT) at a single institution. We separated National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN) intermediate-risk prostate cancer into 'favourable' and 'unfavourable' groups based on primary Gleason pattern, percentage of positive biopsy cores (PPBC), and number of NCCN intermediate-risk factors. Similarly, NCCN high-risk prostate cancer was stratified into 'standard' and 'very high-risk' groups based on primary Gleason pattern, PPBC, number of NCCN high-risk factors, and stage T3b-T4 disease. Patients with unfavourable-intermediate-risk (UIR) prostate cancer had significantly inferior prostate-specific antigen relapse-free survival (PSA-RFS, P < 0.001), distant metastasis-free survival (DMFS, P < 0.001), prostate cancer-specific mortality (PCSM, P < 0.001), and overall survival (OS, P < 0.001) compared with patients with favourable-intermediate-risk (FIR) prostate cancer. Similarly, patients with very high-risk (VHR) prostate cancer had significantly worse PSA-RFS (P < 0.001), DMFS (P < 0.001), and PCSM (P = 0.001) compared with patients with standard high-risk (SHR) prostate cancer. Moreover, patients with FIR and low-risk prostate cancer had similar outcomes, as did patients with UIR and SHR prostate cancer. RESULTS: Consequently, we propose the following risk-stratification system: Group 1, low risk and FIR; Group 2, UIR and SHR; and Group 3, VHR. These groups have markedly different outcomes, with 8-year distant metastasis rates of 3%, 9%, and 29% (P < 0.001) for Groups 1, 2, and 3, respectively, and 8-year PCSM of 1%, 4%, and 13% (P < 0.001) after EBRT. This modified stratification system was significantly more accurate than the three-tiered NCCN system currently in clinical use for all outcomes. CONCLUSION: Modifying the NCCN risk-stratification system to group FIR with low-risk patients and UIR with SHR patients, results in modestly improved prediction of outcomes, potentially allowing better personalisation of therapeutic recommendations.

Number of Unfavorable Intermediate-Risk Factors Predicts Pathologic Upstaging and Prostate Cancer-Specific Mortality Following Radical Prostatectomy: Results From the SEARCH Database.

BACKGROUND: To validate and further improve the stratification of intermediate risk prostate cancer into favorable and unfavorable subgroups for patients undergoing radical prostatectomy. MATERIALS AND METHODS: The SEARCH database was queried for IR patients undergoing radical prostatectomy without adjuvant radiotherapy. UIR disease was defined any patient with at least one unfavorable risk factor (URF), including primary Gleason pattern 4, 50% of more biopsy cores containing cancer, or multiple National Comprehensive Cancer Network IR factors. RESULTS: One thousand five hundred eighty-six patients with IR prostate cancer comprised the study cohort. Median follow-up was 62 months. Patients classified as UIR were significantly more likely to have pathologic high-risk features, such as Gleason score 8 - 10, pT3-4 disease, or lymph node metastases, than FIR patients (P < 0.001). Furthermore, UIR patients had significantly higher rates of PSA-relapse (PSA, hazard ratio [HR] = 1.89, P < 0.001) and distant metastasis (DM, HR = 2.92, P = 0.001), but no difference in prostate cancer-specific mortality (PCSM) or all-cause mortality in multivariable analysis. On secondary analysis, patients with ≥2 URF had significantly worse PSA-RFS, DM, and PCSM than those with 0 or 1 URF. Moreover, 40% of patients with ≥2 URF had high-risk pathologic features. CONCLUSIONS: Patients with UIR prostate cancer are at increased risk of PSA relapse, DM, and pathologic upstaging following prostatectomy. However, increased risk of PCSM was only detected in those with ≥2 URF. This suggests that further refinement of the UIR subgroup may improve risk stratification. Prostate Prostate 77:154-163, 2017. © 2016 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.

Combination therapy improves prostate cancer survival for patients with potentially lethal prostate cancer: The impact of Gleason pattern 5.

PURPOSE: To investigate the impact of Gleason pattern 5 (GP5) prostate cancer after either external beam radiotherapy (EBRT) or the combination of EBRT with low-dose rate brachytherapy boost (combo). METHODS AND MATERIALS: Between 1998 and 2008, 467 patients with National Comprehensive Cancer Network high-risk prostate cancer were treated with EBRT (n = 326) or combo (low-dose rate to 90-108 Gy using I-125 followed by EBRT) (n = 141). Freedom from biochemical failure, freedom from metastasis (FFM), cancer-specific survival (CSS), and overall survival were evaluated. RESULTS: Combo patients were younger (66 vs. 72 years, p < 0.001) and had fewer comorbidities (Charlson comorbidity index 3.7 vs. 4.4, p < 0.001). EBRT patients had higher tumor stages (T3-4: 30% vs. 21%, p = 0.03) and lower Gleason scores (8-10: 61% vs. 75%, p = 0.01). Androgen deprivation therapy use was similar between cohorts (85% vs. 87%, p = 0.5), but EBRT patients had longer androgen deprivation therapy use (median 14 vs. 12 months, p = 0.05). GP5 predicted worse FFM (p < 0.001, hazard ratio [HR] 3.3, 95% confidence interval [CI]1.8-6.2]) and CSS (p < 0.001, HR 5.9, 95% CI 2.7-12.9) for the EBRT group, but not for the combo group (p = 0.86, HR 0.48, 95% CI 0.1-2.4 for metastasis and p = 0.5, HR 1.6, 95% CI 0.33-8.0 for CSS). In those with GP5 (n = 143), combo was associated with improved outcomes in all endpoints. On univariate analysis, 5-year outcomes for combo vs. EBRT were as follows: freedom from biochemical failure 89% vs. 65%, FFM 89% vs. 67%, CSS 93% vs. 78%, and overall survival 88% vs. 67% (p < 0.05 for all). CONCLUSION: Combo was associated with improved outcomes for men with GP5 prostate cancer. This highlights the importance of local therapy, especially in patients with the highest pathologic grade disease.

Randomized phase II trial of urethral sparing intensity modulated radiation therapy in low-risk prostate cancer: implications for focal therapy.

BACKGROUND: Low-risk prostate cancer (PCa) patients have excellent outcomes, with treatment modality often selected by perceived effects on quality of life. Acute urinary symptoms are common during external beam radiotherapy (EBRT), while chronic symptoms have been linked to urethral dose. Since most low-risk PCa occurs in the peripheral zone (PZ), we hypothesized that EBRT using urethral sparing intensity modulated radiation therapy (US-IMRT) could improve urinary health-related quality of life (HRQOL) while maintaining high rates of PCa control. METHODS: Patients with National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN) defined low-risk PCa with no visible lesion within 5 mm of the prostatic urethra on MRI were randomized to US-IMRT or standard (S-) IMRT. Prescription dose was 75.6 Gy in 41 fractions to the PZ + 3-5 mm for US-IMRT and to the prostate + 3 mm for S-IMRT. For US-IMRT, mean proximal and distal urethral doses were limited to 65 Gy and 74 Gy, respectively. HRQOL was assessed using the Expanded Prostate Cancer Index (EPIC) Quality of Life questionnaire. The primary endpoint was change in urinary HRQOL at 3 months. RESULTS: From June 2004 to November 2006, 16 patients were randomized, after which a futility analysis concluded that continued accrual was unlikely to demonstrate a difference in the primary endpoint. Mean change in EPIC urinary HRQOL at 3 months was -0.5 ± 11.2 in the US-IMRT arm and +3.9 ± 15.3 in the S-IMRT arm (p = 0.52). Median PSA nadir was higher in the US-IMRT arm (1.46 vs. 0.78, p = 0.05). At 4.7 years median follow-up, three US-IMRT and no S-IMRT patients experienced PSA failure (p = 0.06; HR 8.8, 95% CI 0.9-86). Two out of 3 patients with PSA failure had biopsy-proven local failure, both located contralateral to the original site of disease. CONCLUSIONS: Compared with S-IMRT, US-IMRT failed to improve urinary HRQOL and resulted in higher PSA nadir and inferior biochemical control. The high rate of PSA failure and contralateral local failures in US-IMRT patients, despite careful selection of MRI-screened low-risk patients, serve as a cautionary tale for focal PCa treatments.

The percent of positive biopsy cores improves prediction of prostate cancer-specific death in patients treated with dose-escalated radiotherapy.

PURPOSE: To examine the prognostic utility of the percentage of positive cores (PPC) at the time of prostate biopsy for patients treated with dose-escalated external beam radiation therapy. METHODS AND MATERIALS: We performed a retrospective analysis of patients treated at the University of Michigan Medical Center to at least 75 Gy. Patients were stratified according to PPC by quartile, and freedom from biochemical failure (nadir + 2 ng/mL), freedom from metastasis (FFM), cause-specific survival (CSS), and overall survival (OS) were assessed by log-rank test. Receiver operator characteristic (ROC) curve analysis was used to determine the optimal cut point for PPC stratification. Finally, Cox proportional hazards multivariate regression was used to assess the impact of PPC on clinical outcome when adjusting for National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN) risk group and androgen deprivation therapy. RESULTS: PPC information was available for 651 patients. Increasing-risk features including T stage, prostate-specific antigen, Gleason score, and NCCN risk group were all directly correlated with increasing PPC. On log-rank evaluation, all clinical endpoints, except for OS, were associated with PPC by quartile, with worse clinical outcomes as PPC increased, with the greatest impact seen in the highest quartile (>66.7% of cores positive). ROC curve analysis confirmed that a cut point using two-thirds positive cores was most closely associated with CSS (p = 0.002; area under ROC curve, 0.71). On univariate analysis, stratifying patients according to PPC less than or equal to 66.7% vs. PPC greater than 66.7% was prognostic for freedom from biochemical failure (p = 0.0001), FFM (p = 0.0002), and CSS (p = 0.0003) and marginally prognostic for OS (p = 0.055). On multivariate analysis, after adjustment for NCCN risk group and androgen deprivation therapy use, PPC greater than 66.7% increased the risk for biochemical failure (p = 0.0001; hazard ratio [HR], 2.1 [95% confidence interval (CI), 1.4-3.0]) and FFM (p = 0.05; HR, 1.7 [95% CI, 1.1-2.9]) and marginally increased the risk for CSS (p = 0.057; HR, 2.1 [95% CI, 1.0-4.6]). CONCLUSION: PPC at the time of biopsy adds prognostic value for clinically meaningful endpoints for patients treated with dose-escalated radiation therapy. This was particularly true for NCCN-defined intermediate- and high-risk patients.

Variations in quality of care for men with early-stage prostate cancer.

PURPOSE: The commencement of quality-improvement initiatives such as Pay for Performance and the Physician Consortium for Performance Improvement has underscored calls to evaluate the quality of cancer care on a patient level for nationally representative samples. METHODS: We sampled early-stage prostate cancer cases diagnosed in 2000 through 2001 from the American College of Surgeons National Cancer Data Base and explicitly reviewed medical records from 2,775 men (weighted total = 55,160 cases) treated with radical prostatectomy or external-beam radiation therapy. We determined compliance with 29 quality-of-care disease-specific structure and process indicators developed by RAND, stratified by race, geographic region, and hospital type. RESULTS: Overall compliance exceeded 70% for structural and pretherapy disease assessment indicators but was lower for documentation of pretreatment functioning (46.4% to 78.4%), surgical pathology (37.1% to 86.3%), radiation technique (62.6% to 88.3%), and follow-up (55%). Geographic variations were observed as higher compliance in the South Atlantic division than the New England division for having at least one board-certified urologist (odds ratio [OR], 9.2; 95% CI, 1.9 to 45.0), at least one board-certified radiation oncologist (OR, 3.3; 95% CI, 1.2 to 9.0), use of Gleason grading (OR, 4.1; 95% CI, 1.2 to 13.8), and administering total radiation dose >or= 70 Gy (OR, 3.1; 95% CI, 1.6 to 6.1). Teaching/research hospitals and Comprehensive Cancer Centers had higher compliance than Community Cancer Centers, whereas racial differences were not observed for any indicator. CONCLUSION: The significant and unwarranted variations observed for these quality indicators by census division and hospital type illustrate the inconsistencies in prostate cancer care and represent potential targets for quality improvement. The lack of racial disparities suggests equity in care once a patient initiates treatment.