Comprehensive genomic profiling and treatment patterns across ancestries in advanced prostate cancer: a large-scale retrospective analysis.

BACKGROUND: Men of African ancestry experience the greatest burden of prostate cancer globally, but they are under-represented in genomic and precision medicine studies. Therefore, we sought to characterise the genomic landscape, comprehensive genomic profiling (CGP) utilisation patterns, and treatment patterns across ancestries in a large, diverse, advanced prostate cancer cohort, to determine the impact of genomics on ancestral disparities. METHODS: In this large-scale retrospective analysis, the CGP-based genomic landscape was evaluated in biopsy sections from 11 741 patients with prostate cancer, with ancestry inferred using a single nucleotide polymorphism-based approach. Admixture-derived ancestry fractions for each patient were also interrogated. Independently, clinical and treatment information was retrospectively reviewed for 1234 patients in a de-identified US-based clinicogenomic database. Prevalence of gene alterations, including actionable gene alterations, was assessed across ancestries (n=11 741). Furthermore, real-world treatment patterns and overall survival was assessed in the subset of patients with linked clincogenomic information (n=1234). FINDINGS: The CGP cohort included 1422 (12%) men of African ancestry and 9244 (79%) men of European ancestry; the clinicogenomic database cohort included 130 (11%) men of African ancestry and 1017 (82%) men of European ancestry. Men of African ancestry received more lines of therapy before CGP than men of European ancestry (median of two lines [IQR 0-8] vs one line [0-10], p=0·029). In genomic analyses, ancestry-specific mutational landscapes were observed, but the prevalence of alterations in AR, the DNA damage response pathway, and other actionable genes were similar across ancestries. Similar genomic landscapes were observed in analyses that accounted for admixture-derived ancestry fractions. After undergoing CGP, men of African ancestry were less likely to receive a clinical study drug compared with men of European ancestry (12 [10%] of 118 vs 246 [26%] of 938, p=0·0005). INTERPRETATION: Similar rates of gene alterations with therapy implications suggest that differences in actionable genes (including AR and DNA damage response pathway genes) might not be a main driver of disparities across ancestries in advanced prostate cancer. Later CGP utilisation and a lower rate of clinical trial enrolment observed in men of African ancestry could affect genomics, outcomes, and disparities. FUNDING: American Society for Radiation Oncology, Department of Defense, Flatiron Health, Foundation Medicine, Prostate Cancer Foundation, and Sylvester Comprehensive Cancer Center.

Substantial Gleason reclassification in Black men with national comprehensive cancer network low-risk prostate cancer - A propensity score analysis.

BACKGROUND: Emerging evidence suggests that a subset of Black men with National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN) low-risk prostate cancer (PCa) may harbor high volume and genomically aggressive disease. However, limited, and ambiguous research exist to evaluate the risk of extreme Gleason reclassification in Black men with low-risk PCa. METHODS: This retrospective cohort study included 45,674 low-risk PCa patients who underwent prostatectomy and were not on active surveillance, from National Cancer Database (NCDB). A propensity score matched-pair design was employed, and the final cohort was limited to 1:1 matched 12,340 patients. Gleason score reclassification was used as primary endpoint. As such, any migration to pathologic Gleason score ≥7(3 + 4) was identified as overall, whereas migration to ≥7(4 + 3) was defined as extreme reclassification. A conditional Poisson regression model was used to estimate the risk of reclassification. Whereas spline model was used to estimate the impact of increasing time to treatment as a non-linear function on Gleason reclassification between race group. RESULTS: Upon matching there were no differences in the baseline characteristics between race groups. In a matched cohort, higher proportion of low-risk Black men (6.6%) reported extreme reclassification to pathologic Gleason score than White men (5.0%), p < 0.001. In a conditional Poisson regression model adjusted for time to treatment, the risk of overall (RR = 1.09, 95% CI, 1.05-1.13, p < 0.001) and extreme (RR = 1.30, 95% CI, 1.12-1.50, p = 0.004) reclassification was significantly higher in Black men as compared to their White counterpart. In spline model, the probability of Gleason reclassification in Black men was elevated with increasing time to treatment, especially after 180 days (53% vs. 43% between Black and White men). CONCLUSION: Risk of Gleason score reclassification is disparately elevated in Black men with low-risk PCa. Furthermore, time to treatment can non-linearly impact Gleason reclassification in Black men.

Association of race with receipt of definitive therapy for high risk prostate cancer in older men.

OBJECTIVES: Black men are more likely to die of prostate cancer (PCa) than White men. Whether this difference is driven by biological versus sociodemographic and access to care differences is actively investigated. However, studies that have highlighted racial disparities in PCa outcomes have been poorly represented by elderly men, a notoriously undertreated group. Herein, we evaluated use of curative treatment between Black and White elderly men with aggressive PCa in a large US database. METHODS: Men ≥80 years diagnosed with National Comprehensive Cancer Network-defined high risk PCa between 2004 and 2016 were analyzed from the National Cancer Database. Multivariable logistic regression was used to model the effect of race and sociodemographic factors on receipt of definitive therapy (surgery or radiation +/- androgen deprivation therapy [ADT]) versus non-definitive therapy (ADT alone or observation) in inverse probability weighted groups matched for stage, prostate-specific antigen, and Gleason score. RESULTS: Between 2004 and 2016, utilization of definitive therapy with either surgery or radiation therapy increased in both White and Black men in the United States. However, we found that Black men compared with White men were significantly less likely to receive definitive therapy (OR 0.71, 95% CI 0.64-0.79, p < .001). Using multivariable modeling, effect size diminished after adjusting for sociodemographic variables. Notably, there is evidence of the racial disparity narrowing over time. CONCLUSIONS: These findings highlight striking but improving racial disparities in elderly men with high risk PCa in the US, an overall undertreated population.

Prostate Cancer Radiation Therapy Recommendations in Response to COVID-19.

PURPOSE: During a global pandemic, the benefit of routine visits and treatment of patients with cancer must be weighed against the risks to patients, staff, and society. Prostate cancer is one of the most common cancers radiation oncology departments treat, and efficient resource utilization is essential in the setting of a pandemic. Herein, we aim to establish recommendations and a framework by which to evaluate prostate radiation therapy management decisions. METHODS AND MATERIALS: Radiation oncologists from the United States and the United Kingdom rapidly conducted a systematic review and agreed upon recommendations to safely manage patients with prostate cancer during the COVID-19 pandemic. A RADS framework was created: remote visits, and avoidance, deferment, and shortening of radiation therapy was applied to determine appropriate approaches. RESULTS: Recommendations were provided by the National Comprehensive Cancer Network risk group regarding clinical node-positive, postprostatectomy, oligometastatic, and low-volume M1 disease. Across all prostate cancer stages, telemedicine consultations and return visits were recommended when resources/staff available. Delays in consultations and return visits of between 1 and 6 months were deemed safe based on stage of disease. Treatment can be avoided or delayed until safe for very low, low, and favorable intermediate-risk disease. Unfavorable intermediate-risk, high-risk, clinical node-positive, recurrence postsurgery, oligometastatic, and low-volume M1 disease can receive neoadjuvant hormone therapy for 4 to 6 months as necessary. Ultrahypofractionation is preferred for localized, oligometastatic, and low-volume M1, and moderate hypofractionation is preferred for postprostatectomy and clinical node positive disease. Salvage is preferred to adjuvant radiation. CONCLUSIONS: Resources can be reduced for all identified stages of prostate cancer. The RADS (remote visits, and avoidance, deferment, and shortening of radiation therapy) framework can be applied to other disease sites to help with decision making in a global pandemic.

Development and Validation of a Clinical Prognostic Stage Group System for Nonmetastatic Prostate Cancer Using Disease-Specific Mortality Results From the International Staging Collaboration for Cancer of the Prostate.

Importance: In 2016, the American Joint Committee on Cancer (AJCC) established criteria to evaluate prediction models for staging. No localized prostate cancer models were endorsed by the Precision Medicine Core committee, and 8th edition staging was based on expert consensus. Objective: To develop and validate a pretreatment clinical prognostic stage group system for nonmetastatic prostate cancer. Design, Setting, and Participants: This multinational cohort study included 7 centers from the United States, Canada, and Europe, the Shared Equal Access Regional Cancer Hospital (SEARCH) Veterans Affairs Medical Centers collaborative (5 centers), and the Cancer of the Prostate Strategic Urologic Research Endeavor (CaPSURE) registry (43 centers) (the STAR-CAP cohort). Patients with cT1-4N0-1M0 prostate adenocarcinoma treated from January 1, 1992, to December 31, 2013 (follow-up completed December 31, 2017). The STAR-CAP cohort was randomly divided into training and validation data sets; statisticians were blinded to the validation data until the model was locked. A Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER) cohort was used as a second validation set. Analysis was performed from January 1, 2018, to November 30, 2019. Exposures: Curative intent radical prostatectomy (RP) or radiotherapy with or without androgen deprivation therapy. Main Outcomes and Measures: Prostate cancer-specific mortality (PCSM). Based on a competing-risk regression model, a points-based Score staging system was developed. Model discrimination (C index), calibration, and overall performance were assessed in the validation cohorts. Results: Of 19 684 patients included in the analysis (median age, 64.0 [interquartile range (IQR), 59.0-70.0] years), 12 421 were treated with RP and 7263 with radiotherapy. Median follow-up was 71.8 (IQR, 34.3-124.3) months; 4078 (20.7%) were followed up for at least 10 years. Age, T category, N category, Gleason grade, pretreatment serum prostate-specific antigen level, and the percentage of positive core biopsy results among biopsies performed were included as variables. In the validation set, predicted 10-year PCSM for the 9 Score groups ranged from 0.3% to 40.0%. The 10-year C index (0.796; 95% CI, 0.760-0.828) exceeded that of the AJCC 8th edition (0.757; 95% CI, 0.719-0.792), which was improved across age, race, and treatment modality and within the SEER validation cohort. The Score system performed similarly to individualized random survival forest and interaction models and outperformed National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN) and Cancer of the Prostate Risk Assessment (CAPRA) risk grouping 3- and 4-tier classification systems (10-year C index for NCCN 3-tier, 0.729; for NCCN 4-tier, 0.746; for Score, 0.794) as well as CAPRA (10-year C index for CAPRA, 0.760; for Score, 0.782). Conclusions and Relevance: Using a large, diverse international cohort treated with standard curative treatment options, a proposed AJCC-compliant clinical prognostic stage group system for prostate cancer has been developed. This system may allow consistency of reporting and interpretation of results and clinical trial design.

Performance of clinicopathologic models in men with high risk localized prostate cancer: impact of a 22-gene genomic classifier.

BACKGROUND: Prostate cancer exhibits biological and clinical heterogeneity even within established clinico-pathologic risk groups. The Decipher genomic classifier (GC) is a validated method to further risk-stratify disease in patients with prostate cancer, but its performance solely within National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN) high-risk disease has not been undertaken to date. METHODS: A multi-institutional retrospective study of 405 men with high-risk prostate cancer who underwent primary treatment with radical prostatectomy (RP) or radiation therapy (RT) with androgen-deprivation therapy (ADT) at 11 centers from 1995 to 2005 was performed. Cox proportional hazards models were used to determine the hazard ratios (HR) for the development of metastatic disease based on clinico-pathologic variables, risk groups, and GC score. The area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC) was determined for regression models without and with the GC score. RESULTS: Over a median follow-up of 82 months, 104 patients (26%) developed metastatic disease. On univariable analysis, increasing GC score was significantly associated with metastatic disease ([HR]: 1.34 per 0.1 unit increase, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.19-1.50, p < 0.001), while age, serum PSA, biopsy GG, and clinical T-stage were not (all p > 0.05). On multivariable analysis, GC score (HR: 1.33 per 0.1 unit increase, 95% CI: 1.19-1.48, p < 0.001) and GC high-risk (vs low-risk, HR: 2.95, 95% CI: 1.79-4.87, p < 0.001) were significantly associated with metastasis. The addition of GC score to regression models based on NCCN risk group improved model AUC from 0.46 to 0.67, and CAPRA from 0.59 to 0.71. CONCLUSIONS: Among men with high-risk prostate cancer, conventional clinico-pathologic data had poor discrimination to risk stratify development of metastatic disease. GC score was a significant and independent predictor of metastasis and may help identify men best suited for treatment intensification/de-escalation.

Prostate Cancer Radiation Therapy Recommendations in Response to COVID-19.

PURPOSE: During a global pandemic, the benefit of routine visits and treatment of patients with cancer must be weighed against the risks to patients, staff, and society. Prostate cancer is one of the most common cancers radiation oncology departments treat, and efficient resource utilization is essential in the setting of a pandemic. Herein, we aim to establish recommendations and a framework by which to evaluate prostate radiation therapy management decisions. METHODS AND MATERIALS: Radiation oncologists from the United States and the United Kingdom rapidly conducted a systematic review and agreed upon recommendations to safely manage patients with prostate cancer during the COVID-19 pandemic. A RADS framework was created: remote visits, and avoidance, deferment, and shortening of radiation therapy was applied to determine appropriate approaches. RESULTS: Recommendations were provided by the National Comprehensive Cancer Network risk group regarding clinical node-positive, postprostatectomy, oligometastatic, and low-volume M1 disease. Across all prostate cancer stages, telemedicine consultations and return visits were recommended when resources/staff available. Delays in consultations and return visits of between 1 and 6 months were deemed safe based on stage of disease. Treatment can be avoided or delayed until safe for very low, low, and favorable intermediate-risk disease. Unfavorable intermediate-risk, high-risk, clinical node-positive, recurrence postsurgery, oligometastatic, and low-volume M1 disease can receive neoadjuvant hormone therapy for 4 to 6 months as necessary. Ultrahypofractionation is preferred for localized, oligometastatic, and low-volume M1, and moderate hypofractionation is preferred for postprostatectomy and clinical node positive disease. Salvage is preferred to adjuvant radiation. CONCLUSIONS: Resources can be reduced for all identified stages of prostate cancer. The RADS (remote visits, and avoidance, deferment, and shortening of radiation therapy) framework can be applied to other disease sites to help with decision making in a global pandemic.

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.

Radiation Therapy Pain Management: Prevalence of Symptoms and Effectiveness of Treatment Options.

BACKGROUND: The prevalence of pain among patients undergoing radiation therapy (RT) is not well described. OBJECTIVES: The purpose of this study was to assess the prevalence and management of pain in patients undergoing RT. METHODS: 94 patients undergoing RT were surveyed at two time points during the course of their treatment. Patients reported on pain, fatigue, nausea, headache, and depressive symptoms, as well as on the use of pharmacologic and nonpharmacologic or alternative methods for symptom management. FINDINGS: The mean severity of pain did not change significantly between the first week of RT and the final week. Severity of pain was associated with worse fatigue, nausea, headaches, and depressive symptoms, providing opportunities for providers to address multiple co-occurring symptoms. Rates of opioid and marijuana use remained similar between the two time points. More than half of the patients reported use of at least one nonpharmacologic method for pain management, with use increasing during the course of RT.

Genomic Validation of 3-Tiered Clinical Subclassification of High-Risk Prostate Cancer.

PURPOSE: Recent data and National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN) guidelines suggest that high-risk prostate cancer (cT3-4, Gleason score ≥8, or prostate-specific antigen [PSA] >20 ng/mL) is a heterogenous group in terms of long-term patient outcomes. We sought to determine whether subclassification of high-risk prostate cancer based on clinical factors correlates with genomic markers of risk. METHODS AND MATERIALS: We identified 3220 patients with NCCN unfavorable intermediate-risk (n = 2000) or high-risk (n = 1220) prostate cancer from a prospective multi-institutional registry cohort. We defined the following subclassification of high-risk prostate cancer based on previously published data: favorable high risk (cT1c, Gleason 6, and PSA >20 ng/mL or cT1c, Gleason 4 + 4 = 8, PSA <10 ng/mL); very high risk (cT3b-T4 or primary Gleason pattern 5); and standard high risk (all others with cT3a, Gleason score ≥8, or PSA >20 ng/mL). We used a set of 33 previously developed genomic classifiers, including Decipher, to determine whether high-risk genomic features correlate with clinical subclasses of high-risk prostate cancer. RESULTS: Among those with favorable high-risk, standard high-risk, and very high-risk prostate cancer, 50.4%, 64.2%, and 81.6% had a high-risk Decipher score, respectively (P < .001). Among 32 other genomic signatures, 29 had a similar trend of increasing risk scores across the 3 subclasses of high-risk disease (P < .05 after correction for multiple hypothesis testing). Patients in the 3 subclasses of high-risk disease had a median of 4, 6, and 13 high-risk signatures, respectively. In comparison, among those with unfavorable intermediate-risk prostate cancer, 38.2% had a high-risk Decipher score, and the median number of high-risk signatures was 3. CONCLUSIONS: Although NCCN guidelines currently use a 2-tiered system for high-risk prostate cancer, genomic markers of risk correlate with the clinically validated subclassification of high-risk prostate cancer into favorable high-risk, standard high-risk, and very high-risk disease, further confirming the prognostic utility of this 3-tiered stratification.

Use and early mortality outcomes of active surveillance in patients with intermediate-risk prostate cancer.

BACKGROUND: Certain patients with intermediate-risk prostate cancer (PCa) may be appropriate candidates for active surveillance (AS). In the current study, the authors sought to characterize AS use and early mortality outcomes for patients with intermediate-risk PCa in the United States. METHODS: The novel Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results Active Surveillance/Watchful Waiting database identified 52,940 men diagnosed with National Comprehensive Cancer Network intermediate-risk PCa (cT2b-c, Gleason score of 7, or a prostate-specific antigen level of 10-20 ng/mL) and actively managed (AS, radiotherapy, or radical prostatectomy) from 2010 through 2015. The Cuzick test assessed AS time trends, and logistic multivariable regression characterized features associated with AS. Fine-Gray and Cox modeling determined PCa-specific mortality (PCSM) and overall survival, respectively. RESULTS: The rate of AS increased from 3.7% in 2010 to 7.3% in 2015, and from 7.2% to 11.7% among men aged ≥70 years. Among men with favorable and unfavorable intermediate-risk disease, the use of AS increased from 7.2% to 14.9% and from 2.2% to 3.8%, respectively (all P value for trend, <.001). The mean age of those patients managed with AS decreased from 69.9 years to 67.9 years (P = .0004). Factors found to be associated with AS included favorable risk disease; black race; higher socioeconomic status; older age; and diagnosis in the West, Northwest, or Midwest regions of the United States. The 5-year PCSM rate was comparable to AS versus treatment among patients with low-risk and favorable intermediate-risk disease, but was worse with AS among those with unfavorable intermediate-risk disease (PCSM, 1.3% vs 0.5%; adjusted hazard ratio, 2.48 [95% CI, 1.11-5.50; P = .026]) and intermediate-risk disease overall (PCSM, 1.1% vs 0.4%; adjusted hazard ratio, 2.34 [95% CI, 1.25-4.37; P = .008]). CONCLUSIONS: The use of AS for patients with intermediate-risk PCa is increasing across the United States, particularly for older men and those with favorable intermediate-risk disease. Early estimates of cancer-specific and overall mortality rates are low with AS, although significantly higher compared with treatment.

Factors associated with the omission of androgen deprivation therapy in radiation-managed high-risk prostate cancer.

PURPOSE: Androgen deprivation therapy (ADT) has been shown to improve survival for men with unfavorable-risk prostate cancer (PCa). We investigated the utilization and factors associated with the omission of ADT in radiation-managed high-risk PCa. METHODS AND MATERIALS: We used the National Cancer Database to identify men with National Comprehensive Cancer Network high-risk PCa treated with external beam radiation therapy (EBRT) with or without brachytherapy boost from 2004 to 2012. Multivariable logistic regression adjusting for clinical and sociodemographic factors was used to identify independent predictors for ADT use. RESULTS: A total of 57,968 radiation-treated high-risk PCa men were included in our analysis. There were 49,363 patients (85.2%) treated with EBRT alone and 8605 patients (14.8%) treated with EBRT plus brachytherapy boost. Overall, 77% of men received ADT. In multivariable regression analysis, the use of brachytherapy boost was associated with a significantly lower utilization of ADT (70% vs. 78%; adjusted odds ratio [AOR]: 0.65; 95% CI: 0.62-0.69; p-Value <0.0001), as was treatment at an academic vs. nonacademic center (AOR: 0.90; 95% CI: 0.86-0.95; p-Value <0.0001) and treatment in 2010-2012 compared to 2004-2006 (AOR: 0.85; 95% CI: 0.81-0.90; p-Value <0.0001). Conversely, greater ADT use was seen with higher Gleason scores, PSA, and T-category (all p-Values <0.001). CONCLUSIONS: Approximately one in four men with radiation-managed high-risk PCa do not receive ADT, which may reflect concerns about its toxicity profile despite known improvements in overall survival. Practice patterns suggest that some providers believe dose escalation through brachytherapy boost may obviate the need for ADT in some high-risk patients, but this hypothesis requires further testing.

Occult High-risk Disease in Clinically Low-risk Prostate Cancer with ≥50% Positive Biopsy Cores: Should National Guidelines Stop Calling Them Low Risk?

OBJECTIVE: To identify contemporary, clinically low-risk patients with ≥50% cores positive and compare the risk of upgrading at prostatectomy with other low- or intermediate-risk patients. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We studied 14,902 patients with prostate cancer in the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results database in 2010-2011 treated with prostatectomy. Patients were categorized by National Comprehensive Cancer Network clinical risk groups, separating low-risk patients by percent positive biopsy cores (PBC). We measured incidence of pathologic high-risk disease, defined as pT3a-T4 or Gleason 8-10, and multivariable logistic regression was used to determine if patients with clinical low-risk disease and ≥50% PBC were similar to other low- or intermediate-risk patients. This analysis was repeated with favorable and unfavorable intermediate risk. RESULTS: At prostatectomy, 9.2% of clinically low-risk patients with <50% PBC, 18.6% of clinically low-risk patients with ≥50% PBC, and 27.6% of clinically intermediate-risk patients had occult, high-risk disease (P <.001). On multivariable logistic regression, low-risk patients with ≥50% PBC were more likely than low-risk patients with <50% PBC to have pathologic high-risk disease (adjusted odds ratio [AOR] 2.28, 95% confidence interval 1.90-2.73, P <.001), had similar risk to favorable intermediate patients overall (AOR 1.09, 0.91-1.31, P = .33), and had higher risk than favorable intermediate patients aged over 60 years (AOR 1.28, 1.00-1.64, P = .04). Low-risk patients with ≥50% PBC had a mean tumor size similar to unfavorable intermediate-risk patients (21.3 vs 21.0 mm, P = .82). CONCLUSION: Nearly 1 in 5 clinically low-risk prostate cancer patients with ≥50% PBC harbor occult pT3a-T4 or Gleason 8-10, suggesting that national guidelines should not classify low-risk patients with ≥50% cores positive as "low risk," and patients should be made aware of this excess risk if considering active surveillance.

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.