Temporal trend in risk of prostate cancer death in men with favourable-risk prostate cancer.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: Changes in work-up and histopathological assessment have caused stage and grade migration in men with prostate cancer (PCa). The aim of this study was to assess temporal trends in risk of PCa death for men with favourable-risk PCa managed with primary radical prostatectomy or observation. METHODS AND MATERIAL: Men aged 75 or younger with Charlson Comorbidity index 0-1 diagnosed with favourable-risk PCa (T1-T2, prostate specific antigen [PSA] <20 ng/mL and Gleason score 6 or 7[3+4]) in the period 2000-2016 who were treated with primary radical prostatectomy or managed with observation in PCBaSe 4.0. Treatment groups were compared following propensity score matching, and risk of PCa death was estimated by use of Cox regression analyses. RESULTS: A total of 9,666 men were selected for each treatment strategy. The 7-year cumulative incidence of PCa death decreased in all risk and treatment groups. For example, the incidence in men diagnosed with low-risk PCa and managed with observation was 1.2% in 2000-2005, which decreased to 0.4% in 2011-2016. Corresponding incidences for men with intermediate-risk PCa managed with observation were 2.0% and 0.7%. The relative risk of PCa death was lower in men with low-risk PCa managed with radical prostatectomy compared to observation: in 2000-2005 hazard ratio (HR) 0.20 (95% confidence interval [CI] 0.10-0.38) and in 2011-2016 HR 0.35 (95% CI 0.05-2.26). Corresponding risks for men with intermediate-risk PCa were HR 0.28 (95% CI 0.16-0.47) and HR 0.21 (95% CI 0.04-1.18). The absolute risk reduction of radical prostatectomy compared to observation for men with low-risk PCa was 1% in 2000-2005 and 0.4% in 2011-2016, and for men with intermediate-risk PCa 1.1% in 2000-2005 and 0.7% in 2011-2016. CONCLUSION: Men diagnosed in 2011-2016 with low-risk and favourable intermediate-risk PCa have a similar relative benefit but smaller absolute benefit of curative treatment compared to men diagnosed in 2000-2005.

Prognosis of Gleason score 8 prostatic adenocarcinoma in needle biopsies: a nationwide population-based study.

A 5-tier grouping of Gleason scores has recently been proposed. Studies have indicated prognostic heterogeneity within these groups. We assessed prostate cancer-specific mortality (PCSM) and all-cause mortality (ACM) for men diagnosed with Gleason score 3 + 5 = 8, 4 + 4 = 8 and 5 + 3 = 8 acinar adenocarcinoma on needle biopsy in a population-based national cohort. The Prostate Cancer data Base Sweden 5.0 was used for survival analysis with PCSM and ACM at 5 and 10 years as endpoints. Multivariable Cox regression models controlling for socioeconomic factors, stage and primary treatment type were used for PCSM and ACM. Among 199,620 men reported with prostate cancer in 2000-2020, 172,112 were diagnosed on needle biopsy. In 18,281 (11%), there was a Gleason score of 8 in needle biopsies, including a Gleason score of 3 + 5, 4 + 4 and 5 + 3 in 11%, 86% and 2.3%, respectively. The primary treatment was androgen deprivation therapy (55%), deferred treatment (8%), radical prostatectomy (16%) or radical radiotherapy (21%). PCSM in men with Gleason scores of 3 + 5, 4 + 4 and 5 + 3 at 5 years of follow-up was 0.10 (95% CI 0.09-0.12), 0.22 (0.22-0.23) and 0.32 (0.27-0.36), respectively, and at 10 years 0.19 (0.17-0.22), 0.34 (0.33-0.35) and 0.44 (0.39-0.49), respectively. There was a significantly higher PCSM after 5 and 10 years in men with Gleason score 5 + 3 cancers than in those with 4 + 4 and in Gleason score 4 + 4 cancers than in those with 3 + 5. Grouping of Gleason scores will eliminate the prognostic granularity of Gleason scoring, thus diminishing the prognostic significance of this proposed grading system.

Effectiveness and Cost-effectiveness of Artificial Intelligence-assisted Pathology for Prostate Cancer Diagnosis in Sweden: A Microsimulation Study.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE: Image-based artificial intelligence (AI) methods have shown high accuracy in prostate cancer (PCa) detection. Their impact on patient outcomes and cost effectiveness in comparison to human pathologists remains unknown. Our aim was to evaluate the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of AI-assisted pathology for PCa diagnosis in Sweden. METHODS: We modeled quadrennial prostate-specific antigen (PSA) screening for men between the ages of 50 and 74 yr over a lifetime horizon using a health care perspective. Men with PSA ≥3 ng/ml were referred for standard biopsy (SBx), for which cores were either examined via AI followed by a pathologist for AI-labeled positive cores, or a pathologist alone. The AI performance characteristics were estimated using an internal STHLM3 validation data set. Outcome measures included the number of tests, PCa incidence and mortality, overdiagnosis, quality-adjusted life years (QALYs), and the potential reduction in pathologist-evaluated biopsy cores if AI were used. Cost-effectiveness was assessed using the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio. KEY FINDINGS AND LIMITATIONS: In comparison to a pathologist alone, the AI-assisted workflow increased the number of PSA tests, SBx procedures, and PCa deaths by ≤0.03%, and slightly reduced PCa incidence and overdiagnosis. AI would reduce the proportion of biopsy cores evaluated by a pathologist by 80%. At a cost of €10 per case, the AI-assisted workflow would cost less and result in <0.001% lower QALYs in comparison to a pathologist alone. The results were sensitive to the AI cost. CONCLUSIONS AND CLINICAL IMPLICATIONS: According to our model, AI-assisted pathology would significantly decrease the workload of pathologists, would not affect patient quality of life, and would yield cost savings in Sweden when compared to a human pathologist alone. PATIENT SUMMARY: We compared outcomes for prostate cancer patients and relevant costs for two methods of assessing prostate biopsies in Sweden: (1) artificial intelligence (AI) technology and review of positive biopsies by a human pathologist; and (2) a human pathologist alone for all biopsies. We found that addition of AI would reduce the pathology workload and save money, and would not affect patient outcomes when compared to a human pathologist alone. The results suggest that adding AI to prostate pathology in Sweden would save costs.

Assessing the Impact of Positive Surgical Margins on Mortality in Patients Who Underwent Robotic Radical Prostatectomy: 20 Years' Report from the EAU Robotic Urology Section Scientific Working Group.

BACKGROUND: Positive surgical margins (PSMs) are frequent in patients undergoing radical prostatectomy (RP). The impact of PSMs on cancer-specific (CSM) and overall (OM) mortality has not yet been proved definitively. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate whether the presence and the features of PSMs were associated with CSM and OM in patients who underwent robotic-assisted RP. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: A cohort of 8141 patients underwent robotic-assisted RP with >10 yr of follow-up. OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS AND STATISTICAL ANALYSIS: Cox multivariable analyses assessed the impact of margin status (positive vs negative) and PSM features (negative vs <3 mm vs >3 mm vs multifocal) on the risk of CSM, OM, and biochemical recurrence (BCR) after adjusting for potential confounders. We repeated our analyses after stratifying patients according to clinical (Cancer of the Prostate Risk Assessment [CAPRA] categories) and pathological characteristics (adverse: pT 3-4 and/or grade group [GG] 4-5 and/or pN1 and/or prostate-specific antigen [PSA] persistence). RESULTS AND LIMITATIONS: PSMs were found in 1348 patients (16%). Among these, 48 (3.6%) patients had multifocal PSMs. Overall, 1550 men experienced BCR and 898 men died, including 130 for prostate cancer. At Cox multivariable analyses, PSMs were associated with CSM in patients with adverse clinical (Intermediate risk: hazard ratio [HR]: 1.71, p = 0.048; high risk: HR: 2.20, p = 0.009) and pathological (HR: 1.79, p = 0.005) characteristics. Only multifocal PSMs were associated with CSM and OM in the whole population (HR for CSM: 4.68, p < 0.001; HR for OM: 1.82, p = 0.037) and in patients with adverse clinical (intermediate risk: HR for CSM: 7.26, p = 0.006; high risk: HR for CSM: 9.26, p < 0.001; HR for OM: 2.97, p = 0.006) and pathological (HR for CSM: 9.50, p < 0.001; HR for OM: 2.59, p = 0.001) characteristics. Potential limitations include a selection bias and a lack of information on the Gleason score at PSM location. CONCLUSIONS: We did not find an association between unifocal PSMs and mortality. Conversely, our results underscore the importance of avoiding multifocal PSMs in patients with adverse clinical (intermediate- and high-risk CAPRA score) and pathological (GG ≥4, pT ≥3, pN1, or PSA persistence) characteristics, to enhance overall survival and reduce CSM. PATIENT SUMMARY: In this study, we evaluated whether the presence and the characteristics of positive surgical margins were associated with mortality in patients who underwent robotic-assisted radical prostatectomy. We found that the presence of positive surgical margins, particularly multifocal margins, was associated with mortality only in patients with adverse clinical and pathological characteristics.