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.

Prostate cancer incidence across stage, NCCN risk groups, and age before and after USPSTF Grade D recommendations against prostate-specific antigen screening in 2012.

BACKGROUND: We sought to determine the extent to which US Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) 2012 Grade D recommendations against prostate-specific antigen screening may have impacted recent prostate cancer disease incidence patterns in the United States across stage, National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN) risk groups, and age groups. METHODS: SEER*Stat version 8.3.4 was used to calculate annual prostate cancer incidence rates from 2010 to 2015 for men aged ≥50 years according to American Joint Committee on Cancer stage at diagnosis (localized vs metastatic), NCCN risk group (low vs unfavorable [intermediate or high-risk]), and age group (50-74 years vs ≥75 years). Age-adjusted incidences per 100,000 persons with corresponding year-by-year incidence ratios (IRs) were calculated using the 2000 US Census population. RESULTS: From 2010 to 2015, the incidence (per 100,000 persons) of localized prostate cancer decreased from 195.4 to 131.9 (Ptrend  < .001) and from 189.0 to 123.4 (Ptrend  < .001) among men aged 50-74 and ≥75 years, respectively. The largest relative year-by-year decline occurred between 2011 and 2012 in NCCN low-risk disease (IR, 0.77 [0.75-0.79, P < .0001] and IR 0.68 [0.62-0.74, P < .0001] for men aged 50-74 and ≥75 years, respectively). From 2010-2015, the incidence of metastatic disease increased from 6.2 to 7.1 (Ptrend  < .001) and from 16.8 to 22.6 (Ptrend  < .001) among men aged 50-74 and ≥75 years, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: This report illustrates recent prostate cancer "reverse migration" away from indolent disease and toward more aggressive disease beginning in 2012. The incidence of localized disease declined across age groups from 2012 to 2015, with the greatest relative declines occurring in low-risk disease. Additionally, the incidence of distant metastatic disease increased gradually throughout the study period.

A comparative analysis of overall survival between high-dose-rate and low-dose-rate brachytherapy boosts for unfavorable-risk prostate cancer.

PURPOSE: External beam radiation therapy (EBRT) with low-dose-rate (LDR) brachytherapy boost has been associated with improved biochemical progression-free survival and overall survival (OS) compared with dose-escalated EBRT (DE-EBRT) alone for unfavorable-risk prostate cancer. However, it is not known whether high-dose-rate (HDR) boost provides a similar benefit. We compare HDR boost against LDR boost and DE-EBRT with respect to OS. METHODS: Using the National Cancer Database, we identified 122,896 patients who were diagnosed with National Comprehensive Cancer Network intermediate- or high-risk prostate cancer between 2004 and 2014 and treated with DE-EBRT (75.6-86.4 Gy), LDR boost, or HDR boost. We compared the OS among the three groups using multivariable Cox proportional hazards regression. Inverse probability treatment weighting was used to adjust for covariate imbalance. RESULTS: On multivariable Cox proportional hazards regression, HDR boost was associated with a similar OS to LDR boost (adjusted hazard ratio [AHR] 1.03 [0.96, 1.11]; p = 0.38) but significantly better OS than DE-EBRT (AHR 1.36 [1.29, 1.44]; p < 0.001). Inverse probability treatment weighting analysis yielded similar results. There was no significant difference between LDR and HDR boosts for National Comprehensive Cancer Network intermediate-risk (AHR 1.05 [0.96, 1.15]; p = 0.32) and high-risk (AHR 1.00 [0.89, 1.12]; p = 0.98) subgroups (p-interaction = 0.55). CONCLUSIONS: Our results suggest that HDR brachytherapy boost yields similar OS benefits compared with LDR brachytherapy boost for unfavorable-risk prostate cancer. HDR boost may be a suitable alternative to LDR boost.

Long-term outcomes of partial prostate treatment with magnetic resonance imaging-guided brachytherapy for patients with favorable-risk prostate cancer.

BACKGROUND: Partial prostate treatment has emerged as a potential method for treating patients with favorable-risk prostate cancer while minimizing toxicity. The authors previously demonstrated poor rates of biochemical disease control for patients with National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN) intermediate-risk disease using partial gland treatment with brachytherapy. The objective of the current study was to estimate the rates of distant metastasis and prostate cancer-specific mortality (PCSM) for this cohort. METHODS: Between 1997 and 2007, a total of 354 men with clinical T1c disease, a prostate-specific antigen (PSA) level < 15 ng/mL, and Gleason grade ≤3 + 4 prostate cancer underwent partial prostate treatment with brachytherapy to the peripheral zone under 0.5-Tesla magnetic resonance guidance. The cumulative incidences of metastasis and PCSM for the NCCN very low-risk, low-risk, and intermediate-risk groups were estimated. Fine and Gray competing risk regression was used to evaluate clinical factors associated with time to metastasis. RESULTS: A total of 22 patients developed metastases at a median of 11.0 years (interquartile range, 6.9-13.9 years). The 12-year metastasis rates for patients with very low-risk, low-risk, and intermediate-risk disease were 0.8% (95% confidence interval [95% CI], 0.1%-4.4%), 8.7% (95% CI, 3.4%-17.2%), and 15.7% (95% CI, 5.7%-30.2%), respectively, and the 12-year PCSM estimates were 1.6% (95% CI, 0.1%-7.6%), 1.4% (95% CI, 0.1%-6.8%), and 8.2% (95% CI, 1.9%-20.7%), respectively. On multivariate analysis, NCCN risk category (low risk: hazard ratio, 6.34 [95% CI, 1.18-34.06; P = .03] and intermediate risk: hazard ratio, 6.98 [95% CI, 1.23-39.73; P = .03]) was found to be significantly associated with the time to metastasis. CONCLUSIONS: Partial prostate treatment with brachytherapy may be associated with higher rates of distant metastasis and PCSM for patients with intermediate-risk disease after long-term follow-up. Treatment of less than the full gland may not be appropriate for this cohort.

Short-course androgen deprivation therapy and the risk of death from high-risk prostate cancer in men undergoing external beam radiation therapy and brachytherapy.

PURPOSE: We estimated the risks of prostate cancer-specific mortality (PCSM) and all-cause mortality (ACM) in men with high-risk prostate cancer (PC) undergoing external beam radiation therapy and brachytherapy with short-course androgen deprivation therapy (ADT) (median 4 months) as compared with men with more favorable-risk PC undergoing standard of care as per the National Comprehensive Cancer Network guidelines. METHODS AND MATERIALS: The prospective study cohort comprised 6595 consecutively treated men with T1-4 N0M0 PC whose treatment included brachytherapy between October 16, 1997, and May 28, 2013. Fine and Gray competing risk regression and Cox regression analyses were used to assess the risks of PCSM and ACM in men with high, unfavorable intermediate, and favorable intermediate risk as compared with low-risk PC. RESULTS: After median followup of 7.76 years, 820 men died (12.43%): 72 of PC (8.78%). Men with favorable intermediate-risk PC did not have significantly increased PCSM risk as compared with men with low-risk PC (adjusted hazard ratio [AHR], 1.26; 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.56, 2.88; p-Value 0.58), whereas men with high-risk PC (AHR, 3.74; 95% CI 1.12, 12.53; p-Value 0.032) and unfavorable intermediate-risk PC (AHR, 3.10; 95% CI 1.43, 6.72; p-Value 0.004) did. Based on 10-year adjusted point estimates of PCSM and ACM for men with high-risk PC being 6.01% (95% CI 3.79%, 8.94%) and 21.30% (95% CI 17.45%, 25.42%), respectively, PCSM comprised 28% of ACM. CONCLUSIONS: In the setting of external beam radiation therapy and brachytherapy, men with high-risk PC have low absolute adjusted estimates of PCSM (~6%) during the first decade after treatment despite receiving only short-course ADT. Whether long-term ADT can lower PCSM and improve survival in these men requires additional study.

Risk Group and Death From Prostate Cancer: Implications for Active Surveillance in Men With Favorable Intermediate-Risk Prostate Cancer.

IMPORTANCE: Active surveillance (AS), per the National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN) guidelines, is considered for patients with low-risk prostate cancer (PC) and a life expectancy of at least 10 years. However, given the grade migration following the 2005 International Society of Urologic Pathology consensus conference, AS may be appropriate for men presenting with favorable intermediate-risk PC. OBJECTIVE: To estimate and compare the risk of PC-specific mortality (PCSM) and all-cause mortality (ACM) following brachytherapy among men with low and favorable intermediate-risk PC. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: Prospective cohort study of 5580 consecutively treated men (median age, 68 years) with localized adenocarcinoma of the prostate treated with brachytherapy at the Prostate Cancer Foundation of Chicago between October 16, 1997, and May 28, 2013. INTERVENTION: Standard of practice per the NCCN guidelines. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES: Fine and Gray competing risks regression and Cox regression analyses were used to assess whether the risks of PCSM and ACM, respectively, were increased in men with favorable intermediate-risk vs low-risk PC. Analyses were adjusted for age at brachytherapy, year of treatment, and known PC prognostic factors. RESULTS: After median follow-up of 7.69 years, 605 men had died (10.84% of total cohort), 34 of PC (5.62% of total deaths). Men with favorable intermediate-risk PC did not have significantly increased risk of PCSM and ACM compared with men with low-risk PC (adjusted hazard ratio [HR], 1.64; 95% CI, 0.76-3.53; P = .21 for PCSM; adjusted HR, 1.11; 95% CI, 0.88-1.39; P = .38 for ACM). Eight-year adjusted point estimates for PCSM were low: 0.48% (95% CI, 0.23%-0.93%) and 0.33% (95% CI, 0.19%-0.56%) for men with favorable intermediate-risk PC and low-risk PC, respectively. The respective estimates for ACM were 10.45% (95% CI, 8.91%-12.12%) and 8.68% (95% CI, 7.80%-9.61%). CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: Men with low-risk PC and favorable intermediate-risk PC have similarly low estimates of PCSM and ACM during the first decade following brachytherapy. While awaiting the results of ProtecT, the randomized trial of AS vs treatment, our results provide evidence to support AS as an initial approach for men with favorable intermediate-risk PC.

Trends in disparate treatment of African American men with localized prostate cancer across National Comprehensive Cancer Network risk groups.

OBJECTIVE: To determine whether African Americans (AAs) with intermediate- to high-risk prostate cancer (PCa) receive similar treatment as white patients and whether any observed disparities are narrowing with time. METHODS: We used Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results to identify 128,189 men with localized intermediate- to high-risk PCa (prostate-specific antigen ≥10 ng/mL, Gleason score ≥7, or T stage ≥T2b) diagnosed from 2004 to 2010. We used multivariate logistic regression analyses to determine the impact of race on the receipt of definitive treatment. RESULTS: AA men were significantly less likely to receive curative-intent treatment than white men (adjusted odds ratio [AOR], 0.82; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.79-0.86; P <.001). There was no evidence of this disparity narrowing over time (Pinteraction 2010 vs 2004 = .490). Disparities in the receipt of treatment between AA and white men were significantly larger in high-risk (AOR, 0.60; 95% CI, 0.56-0.64; P <.001) than in intermediate-risk disease (AOR, 0.92; 95% CI, 0.88-0.97; P = .04; Pinteraction <.001). After adjusting for treatment, demographics, and prognostic factors, AA men had a higher risk of prostate cancer-specific mortality (adjusted hazard ratio, 1.12; 95% CI, 1.01-1.25; P = .03). CONCLUSION: AA men with intermediate- to high-risk PCa are less likely to be treated with curative intent than white men. This disparity is worse in high-risk disease and is not improving over time. Factors underlying this treatment disparity should be urgently studied as it is a potentially correctable contributor to excess PCa mortality among AA patients.

Models of care and NCCN guideline adherence in very-low-risk prostate cancer.

NCCN Guidelines recommend active surveillance as the primary management option for patients with very-low-risk prostate cancer and an expected survival of less than 20 years, reflecting the favorable prognosis of these men and the lack of perceived benefit of immediate, definitive treatment. The authors hypothesized that care at a multidisciplinary clinic, where multiple physicians have an opportunity to simultaneously review and discuss each case, is associated with increased rates of active surveillance in men with very-low-risk prostate cancer, including those with limited life expectancy. Of 630 patients with low-risk prostate cancer managed at 1 of 3 tertiary care centers in Boston, Massachusetts in 2009, 274 (43.5%) had very-low-risk classification. Patients were either seen by 1 or more individual practitioners in sequential settings or at a multidisciplinary clinic, in which concurrent consultation with 2 or more of the following specialties was obtained: urology, radiation oncology, and medical oncology. Patients seen at a multidisciplinary prostate cancer clinic were more likely to select active surveillance than those seen by individual practitioners (64% vs 30%; P<.001), an association that remained significant on multivariable logistic regression (odds ratio [OR], 4.16; P<.001). When the analysis was limited to patients with an expected survival of less than 20 years, this association remained highly significant (72% vs 34%, P<.001; OR, 5.19; P<.001, respectively). Multidisciplinary care is strongly associated with selection of active surveillance, adherence to NCCN Guidelines and minimization of overtreatment in patients with very-low-risk prostate cancer.

Comparative effectiveness of minimally invasive vs open radical prostatectomy.

CONTEXT: Minimally invasive radical prostatectomy (MIRP) has diffused rapidly despite limited data on outcomes and greater costs compared with open retropubic radical prostatectomy (RRP). OBJECTIVE: To determine the comparative effectiveness of MIRP vs RRP. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PATIENTS: Population-based observational cohort study using US Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results Medicare linked data from 2003 through 2007. We identified men with prostate cancer who underwent MIRP (n = 1938) vs RRP (n = 6899). MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: We compared postoperative 30-day complications, anastomotic stricture 31 to 365 days postoperatively, long-term incontinence and erectile dysfunction more than 18 months postoperatively, and postoperative use of additional cancer therapies, a surrogate for cancer control. RESULTS: Among men undergoing prostatectomy, use of MIRP increased from 9.2% (95% confidence interval [CI], 8.1%-10.5%) in 2003 to 43.2% (95% CI, 39.6%-46.9%) in 2006-2007. Men undergoing MIRP vs RRP were more likely to be recorded as Asian (6.1% vs 3.2%), less likely to be recorded as black (6.2% vs 7.8%) or Hispanic (5.6% vs 7.9%), and more likely to live in areas with at least 90% high school graduation rates (50.2% vs 41.0%) and with median incomes of at least $60,000 (35.8% vs 21.5%) (all P < .001). In propensity score-adjusted analyses, MIRP vs RRP was associated with shorter length of stay (median, 2.0 vs 3.0 days; P<.001) and lower rates of blood transfusions (2.7% vs 20.8%; P < .001), postoperative respiratory complications (4.3% vs 6.6%; P = .004), miscellaneous surgical complications (4.3% vs 5.6%; P = .03), and anastomotic stricture (5.8% vs 14.0%; P < .001). However, MIRP vs RRP was associated with an increased risk of genitourinary complications (4.7% vs 2.1%; P = .001) and diagnoses of incontinence (15.9 vs 12.2 per 100 person-years; P = .02) and erectile dysfunction (26.8 vs 19.2 per 100 person-years; P = .009). Rates of use of additional cancer therapies did not differ by surgical procedure (8.2 vs 6.9 per 100 person-years; P = .35). CONCLUSION: Men undergoing MIRP vs RRP experienced shorter length of stay, fewer respiratory and miscellaneous surgical complications and strictures, and similar postoperative use of additional cancer therapies but experienced more genitourinary complications, incontinence, and erectile dysfunction.