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.

Decipher identifies men with otherwise clinically favorable-intermediate risk disease who may not be good candidates for active surveillance.

BACKGROUND: We aimed to validate Decipher to predict adverse pathology (AP) at radical prostatectomy (RP) in men with National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN) favorable-intermediate risk (F-IR) prostate cancer (PCa), and to better select F-IR candidates for active surveillance (AS). METHODS: In all, 647 patients diagnosed with NCCN very low/low risk (VL/LR) or F-IR prostate cancer were identified from a multi-institutional PCa biopsy database; all underwent RP with complete postoperative clinicopathological information and Decipher genomic risk scores. The performance of all risk assessment tools was evaluated using logistic regression model for the endpoint of AP, defined as grade group 3-5, pT3b or higher, or lymph node invasion. RESULTS: The median age was 61 years (interquartile range 56-66) for 220 patients with NCCN F-IR disease, 53% classified as low-risk by Cancer of the Prostate Risk Assessment (CAPRA 0-2) and 47% as intermediate-risk (CAPRA 3-5). Decipher classified 79%, 13% and 8% of men as low-, intermediate- and high-risk with 13%, 10%, and 41% rate of AP, respectively. Decipher was an independent predictor of AP with an odds ratio of 1.34 per 0.1 unit increased (p value = 0.002) and remained significant when adjusting by CAPRA. Notably, F-IR with Decipher low or intermediate score did not associate with significantly higher odds of AP compared to VL/LR. CONCLUSIONS: NCCN risk groups, including F-IR, are highly heterogeneous and should be replaced with multivariable risk-stratification. In particular, incorporating Decipher may be useful for safely expanding the use of AS in this patient population.

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.