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.

Survival after radiotherapy vs. radical prostatectomy for unfavorable intermediate-risk prostate cancer.

BACKGROUND: The optimal treatment for unfavorable intermediate-risk prostate cancer is unknown. Given the lack of randomized evidence, large comparative studies may be useful in guiding clinical decision-making. METHODS: We queried the National Cancer Database for patients with unfavorable intermediate-risk prostate cancer, as defined by the National Comprehensive Cancer Network. We compared overall survival between patients treated with radical prostatectomy (RP), external beam radiation therapy (EBRT), brachytherapy, and EBRT plus brachytherapy (EBRT+BT) using Cox proportional hazards models and propensity score matching. RESULTS: A total of 10,439 patients were analyzed. There was no statistically significant difference in overall survival between RP and EBRT+BT (hazard ratio [HR] = 1.24; 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.58-2.65). RP was associated with higher survival when compared to EBRT (HR = 2.30, 95% CI 1.70-3.20) and brachytherapy (HR = 2.90, 95% CI 1.40-6.20). When accounting for androgen deprivation therapy (ADT), there was no statistically significant difference in survival between RP and brachytherapy with ADT (HR = 3.08; 95% CI 0.62-15.27) or EBRT to a dose of ≥7920 cGy with ADT (HR = 2.6, 95% CI 0.50-13.20). CONCLUSION: We found no statistically significant difference in survival between RP and EBRT+BT. EBRT and brachytherapy had higher mortality, respectively, compared to RP. When including only radiotherapy patients who received ADT and, in the case of EBRT, a total dose ≥ 7920 cGy, there was no statistically significant difference in survival when comparing RP to EBRT or brachytherapy. These findings should be prospectively studied.

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.

Identification of men with the highest risk of early disease recurrence after radical prostatectomy.

BACKGROUND: Men destined to have early biochemical recurrence (BCR) following radical prostatectomy (RP) may be optimal candidates for multimodal treatment. Here we identified pre-operative predictors of early BCR within a surgical cohort who recurred. METHODS: An institutional prostate cancer (PCa) database containing over 20,000 patients was queried to identify 1,471 men who had BCR after RP, and pre-operative predictors of early versus late BCR were assessed. Early BCR was defined as recurrence within 1 year after RP. Within the recurrence cohort, those with National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN) high-risk features were more likely to experience early BCR. Therefore, in all NCCN high-risk men in the database, we abstracted detailed pathologic biopsy data. Among 753 high-risk men, 41 alternate multivariable criteria were assessed for their ability to predict early BCR in crude and adjusted logistic regression models. RESULTS: The criteria that best identified those likely to experience early BCR are primary Gleason pattern 5 on biopsy or ≥4 cores containing pattern 4 (odds ratio 3.17, P < 0.001). These criteria included 26.7% of NCCN high-risk men. Additionally, these criteria selected for men within the high-risk classification who were at significantly higher risk of subsequent metastasis (adjusted hazard ratio 3.04, P < 0.001) and cancer-specific death (adjusted hazard ratio 3.27, P < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: In men with PCa who present with high-risk features, pre-operative criteria have the ability to discriminate the subgroup most likely to experience early BCR after RP. Men at risk for early disease recurrence may be the most suitable candidates for multimodal therapy.

Pathological examination of radical prostatectomy specimens in men with very low risk disease at biopsy reveals distinct zonal distribution of cancer in black American men.

PURPOSE: Of men with very low risk prostate cancer at biopsy recent evidence shows that black American men are at greater risk for adverse oncologic outcomes after radical prostatectomy. We studied radical prostatectomy specimens from black and white men at very low risk to determine whether there are systematic pathological differences. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Radical prostatectomy specimens were evaluated in men with National Comprehensive Cancer Network® (NCCN) very low risk prostate cancer. At diagnosis all men underwent extended biopsy sampling (10 or more cores) and were treated in the modern Gleason grade era. We analyzed tumor volume, grade and location in 87 black and 89 white men. For each specimen the dominant nodule was defined as the largest tumor with the highest grade. RESULTS: Compared to white men, black men were more likely to have significant prostate cancer (61% vs 29%), Gleason 7 or greater (37% vs 11%, each p <0.001) and a volume of greater than 0.5 cm(3) (45% vs 21%, p = 0.001). Dominant nodules in black men were larger (median 0.28 vs 0.13 cm(3), p = 0.002) and more often anterior (51% vs 29%, p = 0.003). In men who underwent pathological upgrading the dominant nodule was also more frequently anterior in black than in white men (59% vs 0%, p = 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: Black men with very low risk prostate cancer at diagnosis have a significantly higher prevalence of anterior cancer foci that are of higher grade and larger volume. Enhanced imaging or anterior zone sampling may detect these significant anterior tumors, improving the outcome in black men considering active surveillance.

African American men with very low-risk prostate cancer exhibit adverse oncologic outcomes after radical prostatectomy: should active surveillance still be an option for them?

PURPOSE: Active surveillance (AS) is a treatment option for men with very low-risk prostate cancer (PCa); however, favorable outcomes achieved for men in AS are based on cohorts that under-represent African American (AA) men. To explore whether race-based health disparities exist among men with very low-risk PCa, we evaluated oncologic outcomes of AA men with very low-risk PCa who were candidates for AS but elected to undergo radical prostatectomy (RP). PATIENTS AND METHODS: We studied 1,801 men (256 AA, 1,473 white men, and 72 others) who met National Comprehensive Cancer Network criteria for very low-risk PCa and underwent RP. Presenting characteristics, pathologic data, and cancer recurrence were compared among the groups. Multivariable modeling was performed to assess the association of race with upgrading and adverse pathologic features. RESULTS: AA men with very low-risk PCa had more adverse pathologic features at RP and poorer oncologic outcomes. AA men were more likely to experience disease upgrading at prostatectomy (27.3% v 14.4%; P < .001), positive surgical margins (9.8% v 5.9%; P = .02), and higher Cancer of the Prostate Risk Assessment Post-Surgical scoring system (CAPRA-S) scores. On multivariable analysis, AA race was an independent predictor of adverse pathologic features (odds ratio, [OR], 3.23; P = .03) and pathologic upgrading (OR, 2.26; P = .03). CONCLUSION: AA men with very low-risk PCa who meet criteria for AS but undergo immediate surgery experience significantly higher rates of upgrading and adverse pathology than do white men and men of other races. AA men with very low-risk PCa should be counseled about increased oncologic risk when deciding among their disease management options.