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.

Impact of preoperative prostate magnetic resonance imaging on the surgical management of high-risk prostate cancer.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the effect of adding multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging (mpMRI) to pre-surgical planning on surgical decision making for the management of high-risk prostate cancer (HRPC). PATIENTS AND METHODS: A survey was designed to query multiple centers on surgical decisions of 41 consecutive HRPC cases seen from 2012 to 2015. HRPC was defined by the National Comprehensive Cancer Center Network guidelines. Six fellowship-trained urologic oncologists were asked for their surgical plan in regards to the degree of planned nerve-sparing and lymph node dissection. Two rounds of surveys were administered to six external urologic oncologists. The first survey included the case description only and the second included case description with mpMRI images and report. The correct surgical plan was analyzed by correlation of the degree of planned surgical excision and consistency with the final pathologic evaluation. A priori, an effect size of 20% change was used to determine statistical significance, at p < 0.05. RESULTS: All cases had at least one change to surgical planning after mpMRI review. Forty (98%) patients had a change in the degree of planned nerve sparing: wider excision in 32% and increased nerve sparing in 24%. After mpMRI the correct surgical plan change was made in 49% for the right and left 51%, decreasing the potential for positive margins. Lymph node dissection was altered from standard to extended lymph node dissection in 17%. CONCLUSIONS: Although mpMRI is not integrated in guidelines for preoperative planning in HRPC, its use may impact surgical planning, cancer control, and quality of life.

Radical prostatectomy or radiotherapy for high- and very high-risk prostate cancer: a multidisciplinary prostate cancer clinic experience of patients eligible for either treatment.

OBJECTIVE: To compare radical prostatectomy (RP) vs radiotherapy (RT) with androgen-deprivation therapy (ADT) in the setting of patients with high-risk and very high-risk (VHR) prostate cancer who were deemed eligible for either therapy and made a treatment choice after consultation in a multidisciplinary prostate cancer clinic (MDPCC), and to compare the MDPCC patients' outcomes to a matched Surveillance, Epidemiology and End Results (SEER) cohort. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Prospectively collected, retrospective study comparing patients who underwent RP (231 patients) vs RT+ADT (73) from 2004 to 2013. Biochemical recurrence (BCR), local recurrence, distant metastasis failure, and overall survival (OS) were calculated for each treatment group overall and according to National Comprehensive Cancer Network risk strata. A propensity score matched comparison with a SEER cohort was performed for OS. RESULTS: There was no difference in local recurrence (hazard ratio [HR] 2.7, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.0-7.9; P = 0.06), distant metastasis failure (HR 2.5, 95% CI 0.8-7.8; P = 0.1) and OS (HR 1.35, 95% CI 0.4-4.8; P = 0.6) between patients undergoing RP vs RT+ADT. Patients treated via the MDPCC survived on average 16.9 months (95% CI 13.1-20.8) longer than those in the matched SEER cohort. CONCLUSIONS: Long-term outcomes appear similar amongst patients with high-risk and VHR prostate cancer deemed eligible for either RP or RT, and treated after consultation in a MDPCC. Outcomes of the MDPCC patients were superior to those of the matched SEER cohort.