1
|
Barletta F, Tappero S, Morra S, Incesu RB, Cano Garcia C, Piccinelli ML, Scheipner L, Tian Z, Gandaglia G, Stabile A, Mazzone E, Terrone C, Longo N, Tilki D, Chun FKH, de Cobelli O, Ahyai S, Saad F, Shariat SF, Montorsi F, Briganti A, Karakiewicz PI. Identifying low cancer-specific mortality risk lymph node-positive radical prostatectomy patients. J Surg Oncol 2024; 129:1305-1310. [PMID: 38470523 DOI: 10.1002/jso.27612] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 03/13/2023] [Revised: 01/20/2024] [Accepted: 02/11/2024] [Indexed: 03/14/2024]
Abstract
OBJECTIVES To identify low cancer-specific mortality (CSM) risk lymph node-positive (pN1) radical prostatectomy (RP) patients. METHODS Within Surveillance, Epidemiology and End Results database (2010-2015) pN1 RP patients were identified. Kaplan-Meier plots and multivariable Cox-regression (MCR) models were used. Pathological characteristics were used to identify patients at lowest CSM risk. RESULTS Overall, 2197 pN1 RP patients were identified. Overall, 5-year cancer-specific survival (CSS) rate was 93.3%. In MCR models ISUP GG1-2 (hazard ratio [HR]: 0.12, p < 0.001), GG3 (HR: 0.14, p < 0.001), GG4 (HR: 0.35, p = 0.002), pT2 (HR: 0.27, p = 0.012), pT3a (HR: 0.28, p = 0.003), pT3b (HR: 0.39, p = 0.009), and 1-2 positive lymph nodes (HR: 0.64, p = 0.04) independently predicted lower CSM. Pathological characteristics subgroups with the most protective hazard ratios were used to identify low-risk (ISUP GG1-3 and pT2-3a and 1-2 positive lymph nodes) patients versus others (ISUP GG4-5 or pT3b-4 or ≥3 positive lymph nodes). In Kaplan-Meier analyses, 5-year CSS rates were 99.3% for low-risk (n = 480, 21.8%) versus 91.8% (p < 0.001) for others (n = 1717, 78.2%). CONCLUSIONS Lymph node-positive RP patients exhibit variable CSS rates. Within this heterogeneous group, those at very low risk of CSM may be identified based on pathological characteristics, namely ISUP GG1-3, pT2-3a, and 1-2 positive lymph nodes. Such stratification scheme might be of value for individual patients counseling, as well as in design of clinical trials.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Francesco Barletta
- Cancer Prognostics and Health Outcomes Unit, Division of Urology, University of Montréal Health Center, Montréal, Québec, Canada
- Unit of Urology/Division of Oncology, Gianfranco Soldera Prostate Cancer Lab, IRCCS San Raffaele Scientific Institute, Vita-Salute San Raffaele University, Milan, Italy
| | - Stefano Tappero
- Cancer Prognostics and Health Outcomes Unit, Division of Urology, University of Montréal Health Center, Montréal, Québec, Canada
- Department of Urology, IRCCS Policlinico San Martino, Genova, Italy
- Department of Surgical and Diagnostic Integrated Sciences (DISC), University of Genova, Genova, Italy
| | - Simone Morra
- Cancer Prognostics and Health Outcomes Unit, Division of Urology, University of Montréal Health Center, Montréal, Québec, Canada
- Department of Neurosciences, Science of Reproduction and Odontostomatology, University of Naples Federico II, Naples, Italy
| | - Reha-Baris Incesu
- Cancer Prognostics and Health Outcomes Unit, Division of Urology, University of Montréal Health Center, Montréal, Québec, Canada
- Martini-Klinik Prostate Cancer Center, University Hospital Hamburg-Eppendorf, Hamburg, Germany
| | - Cristina Cano Garcia
- Cancer Prognostics and Health Outcomes Unit, Division of Urology, University of Montréal Health Center, Montréal, Québec, Canada
- Department of Urology, University Hospital Frankfurt, Goethe University Frankfurt am Main, Frankfurt am Main, Germany
| | - Mattia L Piccinelli
- Cancer Prognostics and Health Outcomes Unit, Division of Urology, University of Montréal Health Center, Montréal, Québec, Canada
- Department of Urology, IEO European Institute of Oncology, IRCCS, Milan, Italy
| | - Lukas Scheipner
- Cancer Prognostics and Health Outcomes Unit, Division of Urology, University of Montréal Health Center, Montréal, Québec, Canada
- Department of Urology, Medical University of Graz, Graz, Austria
| | - Zhe Tian
- Cancer Prognostics and Health Outcomes Unit, Division of Urology, University of Montréal Health Center, Montréal, Québec, Canada
| | - Giorgio Gandaglia
- Unit of Urology/Division of Oncology, Gianfranco Soldera Prostate Cancer Lab, IRCCS San Raffaele Scientific Institute, Vita-Salute San Raffaele University, Milan, Italy
| | - Armando Stabile
- Unit of Urology/Division of Oncology, Gianfranco Soldera Prostate Cancer Lab, IRCCS San Raffaele Scientific Institute, Vita-Salute San Raffaele University, Milan, Italy
| | - Elio Mazzone
- Unit of Urology/Division of Oncology, Gianfranco Soldera Prostate Cancer Lab, IRCCS San Raffaele Scientific Institute, Vita-Salute San Raffaele University, Milan, Italy
| | - Carlo Terrone
- Department of Urology, IRCCS Policlinico San Martino, Genova, Italy
- Department of Surgical and Diagnostic Integrated Sciences (DISC), University of Genova, Genova, Italy
| | - Nicola Longo
- Department of Neurosciences, Science of Reproduction and Odontostomatology, University of Naples Federico II, Naples, Italy
| | - Derya Tilki
- Martini-Klinik Prostate Cancer Center, University Hospital Hamburg-Eppendorf, Hamburg, Germany
- Department of Urology, University Hospital Hamburg-Eppendorf, Hamburg, Germany
- Department of Urology, Koc University Hospital, Istanbul, Turkey
| | - Felix K H Chun
- Department of Urology, University Hospital Frankfurt, Goethe University Frankfurt am Main, Frankfurt am Main, Germany
| | - Ottavio de Cobelli
- Department of Urology, IEO European Institute of Oncology, IRCCS, Milan, Italy
| | - Sascha Ahyai
- Department of Urology, Medical University of Graz, Graz, Austria
| | - Fred Saad
- Cancer Prognostics and Health Outcomes Unit, Division of Urology, University of Montréal Health Center, Montréal, Québec, Canada
| | - Shahrokh F Shariat
- Department of Urology, Comprehensive Cancer Center, Medical University of Vienna, Vienna, Austria
- Department of Urology, Weill Cornell Medical College, New York, New York, USA
- Department of Urology, University of Texas Southwestern, Dallas, Texas, USA
- Hourani Center for Applied Scientific Research, Al-Ahliyya Amman University, Amman, Jordan
| | - Francesco Montorsi
- Unit of Urology/Division of Oncology, Gianfranco Soldera Prostate Cancer Lab, IRCCS San Raffaele Scientific Institute, Vita-Salute San Raffaele University, Milan, Italy
| | - Alberto Briganti
- Unit of Urology/Division of Oncology, Gianfranco Soldera Prostate Cancer Lab, IRCCS San Raffaele Scientific Institute, Vita-Salute San Raffaele University, Milan, Italy
| | - Pierre I Karakiewicz
- Cancer Prognostics and Health Outcomes Unit, Division of Urology, University of Montréal Health Center, Montréal, Québec, Canada
| |
Collapse
|
2
|
Karwacki J, Łątkowska M, Jarocki M, Jaworski A, Szuba P, Poterek A, Lemiński A, Kaczmarek K, Hałoń A, Szydełko T, Małkiewicz B. The clinical meaning of lymphovascular invasion: preoperative predictors and postoperative implications in prostate cancer - a retrospective study. Front Oncol 2024; 14:1349536. [PMID: 38764583 PMCID: PMC11099271 DOI: 10.3389/fonc.2024.1349536] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 12/04/2023] [Accepted: 04/22/2024] [Indexed: 05/21/2024] Open
Abstract
Introduction Lymphovascular invasion (LVI) is a pivotal histopathological parameter in prostate cancer (PCa), holding significant prognostic implications. Our study pursued a dual objective: firstly, to identify preoperative factors associated with LVI, aiming to unveil markers facilitating the recognition of patients prone to LVI during postoperative examination; and secondly, to assess postoperative outcomes correlated with LVI. Methods We retrospectively analyzed 861 nonmetastatic PCa patients who underwent radical prostatectomy (RP), investigating preoperative factors and postoperative outcomes. Surgical specimens were processed following established guidelines. Statistical analyses utilized non-parametric tests to assess the association between LVI and both pre- and postoperative factors. Furthermore, logistic regression analyses were utilized to develop models aimed at identifying the most significant predictors of LVI and pN1 status, respectively. Results Numerous preoperative factors exhibited significant correlations with LVI, offering valuable clinical insights. Logistic regression identified magnetic resonance imaging (MRI)-based clinical tumor stage (cT) 3-4, biopsy Gleason Grading Group (GGG) 3-5, preoperative prostate specific antigen (PSA) ≥20 and percentage of positive biopsy cores (PPBC) ≥50% as the strongest preoperative predictors of LVI. Additionally, the study uncovered an association between LVI and postoperative outcomes, including postoperative PSA (p value <0.001), extracapsular extension (ECE) (<0.001), positive surgical margins (PSM) (<0.001), perineural invasion (PNI) (<0.001), pathological tumor stage (pT) (<0.001), pathological lymph node status (pN) (<0.001), postoperative GGG (<0.001), and operative time (0.023). Notably, the study revealed a novel and substantial association between LVI and an increased number of positive lymph nodes in pN+ patients in the univariate analysis (<0.001). Furthermore, we have found an association between LVI and pN1 status in the logistic regression analysis (odds ratio [OR] = 23.905; p <0.001). Conclusion Our findings underscore the pivotal role of LVI in influencing the prognosis of prostate cancer (PCa). The study acknowledges the challenges associated with preoperative LVI assessment and emphasizes the need for future research to unravel the factors associated with this histopathological finding. Significantly, our research stands out as the first, to the best of our knowledge, to reveal the association between LVI and the number of positive lymph nodes in pN+ patients.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Jakub Karwacki
- Department of Minimally Invasive and Robotic Urology, University Center of Excellence in Urology, Wrocław Medical University, Wrocław, Poland
| | | | - Michał Jarocki
- Department of Minimally Invasive and Robotic Urology, University Center of Excellence in Urology, Wrocław Medical University, Wrocław, Poland
| | - Arkadiusz Jaworski
- Department of Minimally Invasive and Robotic Urology, University Center of Excellence in Urology, Wrocław Medical University, Wrocław, Poland
| | - Przemysław Szuba
- Faculty of Economics in Opole, WSB University in Wroclaw, Wroclaw, Poland
| | - Adrian Poterek
- Department of Minimally Invasive and Robotic Urology, University Center of Excellence in Urology, Wrocław Medical University, Wrocław, Poland
| | - Artur Lemiński
- Department of General and Oncologic Urology, Independent Public Regional Hospital in Szczecin, Szczecin, Poland
- Department of Biochemical Sciences, Pomorenian Medical University, Szczecin, Poland
| | - Krystian Kaczmarek
- Department of General and Oncologic Urology, Independent Public Regional Hospital in Szczecin, Szczecin, Poland
| | - Agnieszka Hałoń
- Department of Clinical and Experimental Pathology, Wroclaw Medical University, Wroclaw, Poland
| | - Tomasz Szydełko
- University Center of Excellence in Urology, Wrocław Medical University, Wrocław, Poland
| | - Bartosz Małkiewicz
- Department of Minimally Invasive and Robotic Urology, University Center of Excellence in Urology, Wrocław Medical University, Wrocław, Poland
| |
Collapse
|
3
|
Karwacki J, Gurwin A, Jaworski A, Jarocki M, Stodolak M, Dłubak A, Szuba P, Lemiński A, Kaczmarek K, Hałoń A, Szydełko T, Małkiewicz B. Association of Lymphovascular Invasion with Lymph Node Metastases in Prostate Cancer-Lateralization Concept. Cancers (Basel) 2024; 16:925. [PMID: 38473287 DOI: 10.3390/cancers16050925] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 01/10/2024] [Revised: 02/11/2024] [Accepted: 02/23/2024] [Indexed: 03/14/2024] Open
Abstract
BACKGROUND Lymphovascular invasion (LVI) is a vital but often overlooked prognostic factor in prostate cancer. As debates on lymphadenectomy's overtreatment emerge, understanding LVI laterality gains importance. This study pioneers the investigation into PCa, aiming to uncover patterns that could influence tailored surgical strategies in the future. METHODS Data from 96 patients with both LVI and lymph node invasion (LNI) were retrospectively analyzed. All participants underwent radical prostatectomy (RP) with modified-extended pelvic lymph node dissection (mePLND). All specimens underwent histopathological examination. The assessment of LVI was conducted separately for the right and left lobes of the prostate. Associations within subgroups were assessed using U-Mann-Whitney and Kruskal-Wallis tests, as well as Kendall's tau-b coefficient, yielding p-values and odds ratios (ORs). RESULTS Out of the 96 patients, 61 (63.5%) exhibited exclusive left-sided lymphovascular invasion (LVI), 24 (25.0%) had exclusive right-sided LVI, and 11 (11.5%) showed bilateral LVI. Regarding nodal involvement, 23 patients (24.0%) had LNI solely on the left, 25 (26.0%) exclusively on the right, and 48 (50.0%) on both sides. A significant correlation was observed between lateralized LVI and lateralized LNI (p < 0.001), particularly in patients with right-sided LVI only. LN-positive patients with left-sided LVI tended to have higher pT stages (p = 0.047) and increased odds ratios (OR) of bilateral LNI (OR = 2.795; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.231-6.348) compared to those with exclusive right-sided LVI (OR = 0.692; 95% CI: 0.525-0.913). CONCLUSIONS Unilateral LVI correlates with ipsilateral LNI in PCa patients with positive LNs, notably in cases of exclusively right-sided LVI. Left-sided LVI associates with higher pT stages and a higher percentage of bilateral LNI cases.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Jakub Karwacki
- University Center of Excellence in Urology, Department of Minimally Invasive and Robotic Urology, Wroclaw Medical University, Borowska 213, 50-556 Wroclaw, Poland
| | - Adam Gurwin
- University Center of Excellence in Urology, Department of Minimally Invasive and Robotic Urology, Wroclaw Medical University, Borowska 213, 50-556 Wroclaw, Poland
| | - Arkadiusz Jaworski
- University Center of Excellence in Urology, Department of Minimally Invasive and Robotic Urology, Wroclaw Medical University, Borowska 213, 50-556 Wroclaw, Poland
| | - Michał Jarocki
- University Center of Excellence in Urology, Department of Minimally Invasive and Robotic Urology, Wroclaw Medical University, Borowska 213, 50-556 Wroclaw, Poland
| | - Marcel Stodolak
- University Center of Excellence in Urology, Department of Minimally Invasive and Robotic Urology, Wroclaw Medical University, Borowska 213, 50-556 Wroclaw, Poland
| | - Andrzej Dłubak
- University Center of Excellence in Urology, Department of Minimally Invasive and Robotic Urology, Wroclaw Medical University, Borowska 213, 50-556 Wroclaw, Poland
| | - Przemysław Szuba
- Faculty of Economics in Opole, The WSB University in Wroclaw, Fabryczna 29-31, 53-609 Wroclaw, Poland
| | - Artur Lemiński
- Department of Urology and Urological Oncology, Pomeranian Medical University, Powstańców Wielkopolskich 72, 70-111 Szczecin, Poland
- Department of Biochemical Sciences, Pomeranian Medical University, Władysława Broniewskiego 24, 71-460 Szczecin, Poland
| | - Krystian Kaczmarek
- Department of Urology and Urological Oncology, Pomeranian Medical University, Powstańców Wielkopolskich 72, 70-111 Szczecin, Poland
| | - Agnieszka Hałoń
- Department of Clinical and Experimental Pathology, Wroclaw Medical University, Borowska 213, 50-556 Wroclaw, Poland
| | - Tomasz Szydełko
- University Center of Excellence in Urology, Wroclaw Medical University, Borowska 213, 50-556 Wroclaw, Poland
| | - Bartosz Małkiewicz
- University Center of Excellence in Urology, Department of Minimally Invasive and Robotic Urology, Wroclaw Medical University, Borowska 213, 50-556 Wroclaw, Poland
| |
Collapse
|
4
|
Barletta F, Tappero S, Morra S, Incesu RB, Cano Garcia C, Piccinelli ML, Scheipner L, Baudo A, Tian Z, Gandaglia G, Stabile A, Mazzone E, Terrone C, Longo N, Tilki D, Chun FKH, de Cobelli O, Ahyai S, Carmignani L, Saad F, Shariat SF, Montorsi F, Briganti A, Karakiewicz PI. Cancer-Specific Mortality Differences in Specimen-Confined Radical Prostatectomy Patients According to Lymph Node Invasion. Clin Genitourin Cancer 2023; 21:e461-e466.e1. [PMID: 37365054 DOI: 10.1016/j.clgc.2023.05.010] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 04/06/2023] [Revised: 05/14/2023] [Accepted: 05/15/2023] [Indexed: 06/28/2023]
Abstract
PURPOSE To test cancer-specific mortality (CSM) differences in specimen-confined (pT2) prostate cancer (PCa) at radical prostatectomy (RP) with lymph node dissection (LND) according to lymph node invasion (LNI). METHODS RP + LND pT2 PCa patients were identified (surveillance, epidemiology, and end results 2010-2015). CSM-FS rates were tested in Kaplan-Meier plots and multivariable Cox-regression (MCR) models. Sensitivity analyses respectively addressing patients with 6 or more lymph nodes analyzed and pT2 pN1 patients were performed. RESULTS Overall, 32,258 patients with pT2 PCa at RP + LND were identified. Of these, 448 (1.4%) patients harbored LNI. Five-year CSM-free estimates were 99.6% for pN0 vs. 96.4% for pN1 (P < .001). In MCR models, pN1 (HR: 3.4, P < .001) independently predicted higher CSM. In sensitivity analyses addressing patients with 6 or more lymph nodes analyzed (n = 15,437), 328 (2.1%) pN1 patients were identified. In this subgroup, 5-year CSM-free estimates were 99.6% for pN0 vs. 96.3% for pN1 (P < .001) and, in MCR models, pN1 independently predicted higher CSM (HR: 4.4, P < .001). In sensitivity analyses addressing pT2 pN1 patients, 5-year CSM-free estimates were 99.3, 100 and 84.8% for ISUP GG 1-3 vs. 4 vs. 5, respectively (P < .001). CONCLUSIONS In patients with pT2 PCa a small proportion harbor LNI (1.4%-2.1%). In such patients, CSM rate is higher (HR 3.4-4.4, P < .001). This higher CSM risk seems to virtually exclusively apply to ISUP GG5 patients (84.8% 5-year CSM-free rate).
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Francesco Barletta
- Division of Urology, Cancer Prognostics and Health Outcomes Unit, University of Montréal Health Center, Montréal, Québec, Canada; Unit of Urology/Division of Oncology, Gianfranco Soldera Prostate Cancer Lab, IRCCS San Raffaele Scientific Institute, Milan, Italy, Vita-Salute San Raffaele University, Milan, Italy.
| | - Stefano Tappero
- Division of Urology, Cancer Prognostics and Health Outcomes Unit, University of Montréal Health Center, Montréal, Québec, Canada; Department of Urology, IRCCS Policlinico San Martino, Genova, Italy; Department of Surgical and Diagnostic Integrated Sciences (DISC), University of Genova, Genova, Italy
| | - Simone Morra
- Division of Urology, Cancer Prognostics and Health Outcomes Unit, University of Montréal Health Center, Montréal, Québec, Canada; Department of Neurosciences, Science of Reproduction and Odontostomatology, University of Naples Federico II, Naples, Italy
| | - Reha-Baris Incesu
- Division of Urology, Cancer Prognostics and Health Outcomes Unit, University of Montréal Health Center, Montréal, Québec, Canada; Martini-Klinik Prostate Cancer Center, University Hospital Hamburg-Eppendorf, Hamburg, Germany
| | - Cristina Cano Garcia
- Division of Urology, Cancer Prognostics and Health Outcomes Unit, University of Montréal Health Center, Montréal, Québec, Canada; Department of Urology, University Hospital Frankfurt, Goethe University Frankfurt am Main, Frankfurt am Main, Germany
| | - Mattia Luca Piccinelli
- Division of Urology, Cancer Prognostics and Health Outcomes Unit, University of Montréal Health Center, Montréal, Québec, Canada; Department of Urology, IEO European Institute of Oncology, IRCCS, Milan, Italy
| | - Lukas Scheipner
- Division of Urology, Cancer Prognostics and Health Outcomes Unit, University of Montréal Health Center, Montréal, Québec, Canada; Department of Urology, Medical University of Graz, Graz, Austria
| | - Andrea Baudo
- Division of Urology, Cancer Prognostics and Health Outcomes Unit, University of Montréal Health Center, Montréal, Québec, Canada; Department of Urology, IRCCS Ospedale Galeazzi - Sant'Ambrogio, Milan, Italy; Department of Urology, IRCCS Policlinico San Donato, Milan, Italy
| | - Zhe Tian
- Division of Urology, Cancer Prognostics and Health Outcomes Unit, University of Montréal Health Center, Montréal, Québec, Canada
| | - Giorgio Gandaglia
- Unit of Urology/Division of Oncology, Gianfranco Soldera Prostate Cancer Lab, IRCCS San Raffaele Scientific Institute, Milan, Italy, Vita-Salute San Raffaele University, Milan, Italy
| | - Armando Stabile
- Unit of Urology/Division of Oncology, Gianfranco Soldera Prostate Cancer Lab, IRCCS San Raffaele Scientific Institute, Milan, Italy, Vita-Salute San Raffaele University, Milan, Italy
| | - Elio Mazzone
- Unit of Urology/Division of Oncology, Gianfranco Soldera Prostate Cancer Lab, IRCCS San Raffaele Scientific Institute, Milan, Italy, Vita-Salute San Raffaele University, Milan, Italy
| | - Carlo Terrone
- Department of Urology, IRCCS Policlinico San Martino, Genova, Italy; Department of Surgical and Diagnostic Integrated Sciences (DISC), University of Genova, Genova, Italy
| | - Nicola Longo
- Department of Neurosciences, Science of Reproduction and Odontostomatology, University of Naples Federico II, Naples, Italy
| | - Derya Tilki
- Martini-Klinik Prostate Cancer Center, University Hospital Hamburg-Eppendorf, Hamburg, Germany; Department of Urology, University Hospital Hamburg-Eppendorf, Hamburg, Germany; Department of Urology, Koc University Hospital, Istanbul, Turkey
| | - Felix K H Chun
- Department of Urology, University Hospital Frankfurt, Goethe University Frankfurt am Main, Frankfurt am Main, Germany
| | - Ottavio de Cobelli
- Department of Urology, IEO European Institute of Oncology, IRCCS, Milan, Italy
| | - Sascha Ahyai
- Department of Urology, Medical University of Graz, Graz, Austria
| | - Luca Carmignani
- Department of Urology, IRCCS Ospedale Galeazzi - Sant'Ambrogio, Milan, Italy; Department of Urology, IRCCS Policlinico San Donato, Milan, Italy
| | - Fred Saad
- Division of Urology, Cancer Prognostics and Health Outcomes Unit, University of Montréal Health Center, Montréal, Québec, Canada
| | - Shahrokh F Shariat
- Department of Urology, Comprehensive Cancer Center, Medical University of Vienna, Vienna, Austria; Department of Urology, Weill Cornell Medical College, New York, NY; Department of Urology, University of Texas Southwestern, Dallas, TX; Hourani Center for Applied Scientific Research, Al-Ahliyya Amman University, Amman, Jordan
| | - Francesco Montorsi
- Unit of Urology/Division of Oncology, Gianfranco Soldera Prostate Cancer Lab, IRCCS San Raffaele Scientific Institute, Milan, Italy, Vita-Salute San Raffaele University, Milan, Italy
| | - Alberto Briganti
- Unit of Urology/Division of Oncology, Gianfranco Soldera Prostate Cancer Lab, IRCCS San Raffaele Scientific Institute, Milan, Italy, Vita-Salute San Raffaele University, Milan, Italy
| | - Pierre I Karakiewicz
- Division of Urology, Cancer Prognostics and Health Outcomes Unit, University of Montréal Health Center, Montréal, Québec, Canada
| |
Collapse
|
5
|
Peng ZH, Tian JH, Chen BH, Zhou HB, Bi H, He MX, Li MR, Zheng XY, Wang YW, Chong T, Li ZL. Development of machine learning prognostic models for overall survival of prostate cancer patients with lymph node-positive. Sci Rep 2023; 13:18424. [PMID: 37891423 PMCID: PMC10611782 DOI: 10.1038/s41598-023-45804-x] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 06/02/2023] [Accepted: 10/24/2023] [Indexed: 10/29/2023] Open
Abstract
Prostate cancer (PCa) patients with lymph node involvement (LNI) constitute a single-risk group with varied prognoses. Existing studies on this group have focused solely on those who underwent prostatectomy (RP), using statistical models to predict prognosis. This study aimed to develop an easily accessible individual survival prediction tool based on multiple machine learning (ML) algorithms to predict survival probability for PCa patients with LNI. A total of 3280 PCa patients with LNI were identified from the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER) database, covering the years 2000-2019. The primary endpoint was overall survival (OS). Gradient Boosting Survival Analysis (GBSA), Random Survival Forest (RSF), and Extra Survival Trees (EST) were used to develop prognosis models, which were compared to Cox regression. Discrimination was evaluated using the time-dependent areas under the receiver operating characteristic curve (time-dependent AUC) and the concordance index (c-index). Calibration was assessed using the time-dependent Brier score (time-dependent BS) and the integrated Brier score (IBS). Moreover, the beeswarm summary plot in SHAP (SHapley Additive exPlanations) was used to display the contribution of variables to the results. The 3280 patients were randomly split into a training cohort (n = 2624) and a validation cohort (n = 656). Nine variables including age at diagnosis, race, marital status, clinical T stage, prostate-specific antigen (PSA) level at diagnosis, Gleason Score (GS), number of positive lymph nodes, radical prostatectomy (RP), and radiotherapy (RT) were used to develop models. The mean time-dependent AUC for GBSA, RSF, and EST was 0.782 (95% confidence interval [CI] 0.779-0.783), 0.779 (95% CI 0.776-0.780), and 0.781 (95% CI 0.778-0.782), respectively, which were higher than the Cox regression model of 0.770 (95% CI 0.769-0.773). Additionally, all models demonstrated almost similar calibration, with low IBS. A web-based prediction tool was developed using the best-performing GBSA, which is accessible at https://pengzihexjtu-pca-n1.streamlit.app/ . ML algorithms showed better performance compared with Cox regression and we developed a web-based tool, which may help to guide patient treatment and follow-up.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Zi-He Peng
- Department of Urology, The Second Affiliated Hospital of Xi'an Jiaotong University, Xi'an, Shaanxi, China
- Health Science Center, Xi'an Jiaotong University, Xi'an, Shaanxi, China
| | - Juan-Hua Tian
- Department of Urology, The Second Affiliated Hospital of Xi'an Jiaotong University, Xi'an, Shaanxi, China
- Health Science Center, Xi'an Jiaotong University, Xi'an, Shaanxi, China
| | - Bo-Hong Chen
- Department of Urology, The First Affiliated Hospital of Xi'an Jiaotong University, Xi'an, Shaanxi, China
- Health Science Center, Xi'an Jiaotong University, Xi'an, Shaanxi, China
| | - Hai-Bin Zhou
- Department of Urology, The Second Affiliated Hospital of Xi'an Jiaotong University, Xi'an, Shaanxi, China
- Health Science Center, Xi'an Jiaotong University, Xi'an, Shaanxi, China
| | - Hang Bi
- Department of Urology, The Second Affiliated Hospital of Xi'an Jiaotong University, Xi'an, Shaanxi, China
- Health Science Center, Xi'an Jiaotong University, Xi'an, Shaanxi, China
| | - Min-Xin He
- Department of Urology, The Second Affiliated Hospital of Xi'an Jiaotong University, Xi'an, Shaanxi, China
- Health Science Center, Xi'an Jiaotong University, Xi'an, Shaanxi, China
| | - Ming-Rui Li
- Department of Urology, The Second Affiliated Hospital of Xi'an Jiaotong University, Xi'an, Shaanxi, China
- Health Science Center, Xi'an Jiaotong University, Xi'an, Shaanxi, China
| | - Xin-Yu Zheng
- Department of Urology, The First Affiliated Hospital of Xi'an Jiaotong University, Xi'an, Shaanxi, China
- Health Science Center, Xi'an Jiaotong University, Xi'an, Shaanxi, China
| | - Ya-Wen Wang
- Health Science Center, Xi'an Jiaotong University, Xi'an, Shaanxi, China
| | - Tie Chong
- Department of Urology, The Second Affiliated Hospital of Xi'an Jiaotong University, Xi'an, Shaanxi, China.
| | - Zhao-Lun Li
- Department of Urology, The Second Affiliated Hospital of Xi'an Jiaotong University, Xi'an, Shaanxi, China.
| |
Collapse
|
6
|
Meijer D, Ettema RH, van Leeuwen PJ, van der Kwast TH, van der Poel HG, Donswijk ML, Oprea-Lager DE, Bekers EM, Vis AN. The prognostic value of lymph node staging with prostate-specific membrane antigen (PSMA) positron emission tomography/computed tomography (PET/CT) and extended pelvic lymph node dissection in node-positive patients with prostate cancer. BJU Int 2023; 131:330-338. [PMID: 36069585 DOI: 10.1111/bju.15881] [Citation(s) in RCA: 8] [Impact Index Per Article: 8.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 12/24/2022]
Abstract
OBJECTIVES To investigate whether patients with suspected pelvic lymph node metastases (molecular imaging [mi] N1) on staging prostate-specific membrane antigen (PSMA) positron emission tomography/computed tomography (PET/CT) had a different oncological outcome compared to those in whom the PSMA PET/CT did not reveal any pelvic lymph node metastases (miN0). PATIENTS AND METHODS All patients with pelvic lymph node metastatic (pN1) disease after robot-assisted radical prostatectomy (RARP) and extended pelvic lymph node dissection (ePLND) between January 2017 and December 2020 were included. To assess predictors of biochemical progression of disease after RARP, a multivariable Cox regression analysis was performed, including number of tumour-positive lymph nodes, diameter of the largest nodal metastasis, and extranodal extension. RESULTS In total, 145 patients were diagnosed with pN1 disease after ePLND. The median biochemical progression-free survival in patients with miN0 on PSMA PET/CT was 13.7 months, compared to 7.9 months in patients with miN1 disease (P = 0.006). On multivariable Cox regression analysis, both number of tumour-positive lymph nodes (>2 vs 1-2: hazard ratio [HR] 1.97; P = 0.005) and diameter of the largest nodal metastasis (HR 1.12; P < 0.001) were significant independent predictors of biochemical progression of disease. CONCLUSION Patients in whom pelvic lymph node metastases were suspected on preoperative PSMA imaging (miN1), patients diagnosed with >2 tumour-positive lymph nodes, and patients with a larger diameter of the largest nodal metastasis had a significantly increased risk of biochemical disease progression after surgery.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Dennie Meijer
- Department of Urology, Prostate Cancer Network Netherlands, Amsterdam University Medical Center, VU University, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.,Department of Radiology & Nuclear Medicine, Cancer Center Amsterdam, Amsterdam University Medical Center, VU University, Amsterdam, The Netherlands
| | - Rosemarijn H Ettema
- Department of Urology, Prostate Cancer Network Netherlands, Amsterdam University Medical Center, VU University, Amsterdam, The Netherlands
| | - Pim J van Leeuwen
- Department of Urology, Prostate Cancer Network Netherlands, The Netherlands Cancer Institute, Amsterdam, The Netherlands
| | | | - Henk G van der Poel
- Department of Urology, Prostate Cancer Network Netherlands, The Netherlands Cancer Institute, Amsterdam, The Netherlands
| | - Maarten L Donswijk
- Department of Nuclear Medicine, The Netherlands Cancer Institute, Amsterdam, The Netherlands
| | - Daniela E Oprea-Lager
- Department of Radiology & Nuclear Medicine, Cancer Center Amsterdam, Amsterdam University Medical Center, VU University, Amsterdam, The Netherlands
| | - Elise M Bekers
- Department of Pathology, The Netherlands Cancer Institute, Amsterdam, The Netherlands
| | - André N Vis
- Department of Urology, Prostate Cancer Network Netherlands, Amsterdam University Medical Center, VU University, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.,Department of Urology, Prostate Cancer Network Netherlands, The Netherlands Cancer Institute, Amsterdam, The Netherlands
| |
Collapse
|
7
|
Laine C, Gandaglia G, Valerio M, Heidegger I, Tsaur I, Olivier J, Ceci F, van den Bergh RCN, Kretschmer A, Thibault C, Chiu PK, Tilki D, Kasivisvanathan V, Preisser F, Zattoni F, Fankhauser C, Kesch C, Puche-Sanz I, Moschini M, Pradere B, Ploussard G, Marra G. Features and management of men with pN1 cM0 prostate cancer after radical prostatectomy and lymphadenectomy: a systematic review of population-based evidence. Curr Opin Urol 2022; 32:69-84. [PMID: 34812201 DOI: 10.1097/mou.0000000000000946] [Citation(s) in RCA: 5] [Impact Index Per Article: 2.5] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 12/14/2022]
Abstract
PURPOSE OF REVIEW To investigate the features and optimal management of pN+ cM0 prostate cancer (PCa) according to registry-based studies. RECENT FINDINGS Up to 15% of PCa patients harbor lymph node invasion (pN+) at radical prostatectomy plus lymph node dissection. Nonetheless, the optimal management strategy in this setting is not well characterized. SUMMARY We performed a systematic review including n = 13 studies. Management strategies comprised 13 536 men undergoing observation, 11 149 adjuvant androgen deprivation therapy (aADT), 7,075 adjuvant radiotherapy (aRT) +aADT and 705 aRT. Baseline features showed aggressive PCa in the majority of men. At a median follow-up ranging 48-134months, Cancer-related death was 5% and overall-mortality 16.6%. aADT and aRT alone had no cancer-specific survival or overall survival advantages over observation only and over not performing aRT, respectively. aADT plus aRT yielded a survival benefit compared to observation and aADT, which in one study, were limited to certain intermediate-risk categories. Age, Gleason, Charlson score, positive surgical margins, pathological stage, and positive nodes number, but not prostate specific antigen, were most relevant prognostic factors. Our work further confirmed pN+ PCa is a multifaceted disease and will help future research in defining its optimal management based on different risk categories to maximize survival and patient's quality of life.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Charles Laine
- Department of Urology, Institut Mutualiste Montsouris, Paris, France
| | - Giorgio Gandaglia
- Department of Urology, San Raffaele Hospital and Scientific Institute, Milan, Italy
| | - Massimo Valerio
- Department of Urology, Lausanne University Hospital, Lausanne, Switzerland
| | - Isabel Heidegger
- Department of Urology, Medical University Innsbruck, Innsbruck, Austria
| | - Igor Tsaur
- Department of Urology and Pediatric Urology, Mainz University Medicine, Mainz, Germany
| | | | - Francesco Ceci
- Department of Nuclear Medicine, European Institute of Oncology, Milan, Italy
| | | | | | - Constance Thibault
- Department of Medical Oncology, Hôpital Européen Georges-Pompidou, Paris, France
| | - Peter K Chiu
- Division of Urology, Department of Surgery, The Chinese University of Hong Kong, Hong Kong, China
| | - Derya Tilki
- Department of Urology, Martini-Klinik Prostate Cancer Center, University Hospital Hamburg-Eppendorf, Hamburg, Germany
| | | | - Felix Preisser
- Department of Urology, Goethe University, Frankfurt, Germany
| | - Fabio Zattoni
- Urology Unit, Santa Maria della Misericordia University Hospital, Udine, Italy
| | | | - Claudia Kesch
- West German Cancer Center; Department of Urology, University of Duisburg-Essen and German Cancer Consortium (DKTK)-University Hospital Essen, Essen, Germany
| | - Ignacio Puche-Sanz
- Department of Urology, Bio-Health Research Institute, Hospital Universitario Virgen de las Nieves, University of Granada Granada, Spain
| | - Marco Moschini
- Department of Urology, San Raffaele Hospital and Scientific Institute, Milan, Italy
| | - Benjamin Pradere
- Department of Urology, Medical University of Vienna, Vienna, Austria
| | - Guillaume Ploussard
- Department of Urology, La Croix du Sud Hospital, Toulouse, France and Institut Universitaire du Cancer Toulouse - Oncopole, Toulouse, France
| | - Giancarlo Marra
- Department of Urology, Institut Mutualiste Montsouris, Paris, France
- Department of Urology, San Giovanni Battista Hospital, University of Turin, Turin, Italy
- Department of Urology and Clinical Research Group on Predictive Onco-Urology, APHP, Sorbonne University, Paris, France
| |
Collapse
|
8
|
Würnschimmel C, Wenzel M, Wang N, Tian Z, Karakiewicz PI, Graefen M, Huland H, Tilki D. Radical prostatectomy for localized prostate cancer: 20-year oncological outcomes from a German high-volume center. Urol Oncol 2021; 39:830.e17-830.e26. [PMID: 34092484 DOI: 10.1016/j.urolonc.2021.04.031] [Citation(s) in RCA: 12] [Impact Index Per Article: 4.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 02/04/2021] [Revised: 03/23/2021] [Accepted: 04/23/2021] [Indexed: 10/21/2022]
Abstract
INTRODUCTION Long-term outcomes of prostate cancer (CaP) patients treated with radical prostatectomy (RP) from European cohorts are under-reported. We report on 22,843 RP patients from the Martini-Klinik Prostate Cancer Centre treated between 1992 and 2017. PATIENTS AND METHODS Biochemical recurrence (BCR) free survival, metastasis free survival (MFS), and cancer specific survival (CSS) were stratified according to National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN) risk categories, pT, and pN stages, RP Gleason Grade Groups (GGG), and surgical margin status (R0/R1). For time to event analyses, uni- and multivariable Cox's proportional hazards models and univariable Kaplan-Meier analyses were applied. RESULTS Median follow up was 68 months. Most favourable 20-year survival rates were exhibited in NCCN low risk (78.7% BCR-free, 96.8% MFS, 90.1% CSS) and pT2, GGG 1 to 2, R0 patients (83.1% BCR-free, 96.7% MFS, 92.6% CSS). 20-year follow up was not constantly reached in patients with aggressive CaP features. For example, NCCN very high-risk patients exhibited 15-year BCR-free survival of 30.5%, while 20-year MFS and CSS in these individuals was reached (64.1% and 60.8%, respectively). Lowest 10-year BCR-free survival (35.6%) was exhibited in pT3b, GGG 4 to 5, R0. Lowest 10-year MFS (49.5%) was exhibited in pT2, GGG 4 to 5, R1. Lowest 10-year CSS (69.8%) was exhibited in pT3b, GGG 4 to 5, R1 patients. In separate pN1 analyses, lowest 10-year BCR-free survival (14.5%), MFS (56.9%), and CSS (71.9%) were exhibited in patients with 3 or more positive lymph nodes. CONCLUSION Oncological outcomes after RP can be excellent for individuals with favorable CaP characteristics, also after 20 years of follow up.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Christoph Würnschimmel
- Martini-Klinik Prostate Cancer Center, University Hospital Hamburg-Eppendorf, Hamburg, Germany; Division of Urology, Cancer Prognostics and Health Outcomes Unit, University of Montréal Health Center, Montréal, Canada.
| | - Mike Wenzel
- Division of Urology, Cancer Prognostics and Health Outcomes Unit, University of Montréal Health Center, Montréal, Canada; Department of Urology, University Hospital Frankfurt, Frankfurt am Main, Germany
| | - Nuowei Wang
- Martini-Klinik Prostate Cancer Center, University Hospital Hamburg-Eppendorf, Hamburg, Germany
| | - Zhe Tian
- Division of Urology, Cancer Prognostics and Health Outcomes Unit, University of Montréal Health Center, Montréal, Canada
| | - Pierre I Karakiewicz
- Division of Urology, Cancer Prognostics and Health Outcomes Unit, University of Montréal Health Center, Montréal, Canada
| | - Markus Graefen
- Martini-Klinik Prostate Cancer Center, University Hospital Hamburg-Eppendorf, Hamburg, Germany
| | - Hartwig Huland
- Martini-Klinik Prostate Cancer Center, University Hospital Hamburg-Eppendorf, Hamburg, Germany
| | - Derya Tilki
- Martini-Klinik Prostate Cancer Center, University Hospital Hamburg-Eppendorf, Hamburg, Germany; Department of Urology, University Hospital Hamburg-Eppendorf, Hamburg, Germany
| |
Collapse
|
9
|
Oncological outcomes of pathologically organ-confined, lymph node-positive prostate cancer after radical prostatectomy. Urol Oncol 2020; 39:234.e1-234.e7. [PMID: 33097398 DOI: 10.1016/j.urolonc.2020.10.010] [Citation(s) in RCA: 2] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.5] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 05/29/2020] [Revised: 09/20/2020] [Accepted: 10/13/2020] [Indexed: 11/23/2022]
Abstract
BACKGROUND The aim of this study was to investigate the impact of lymph-node involvement on oncological outcomes in patients with pathologically organ-confined prostate cancer (pT2 CaP) after radical prostatectomy (RP). METHODS We retrospectively analyzed 9,631 pT2 CaP patients who underwent RP at a single institution between 1998 and 2018. Kaplan-Meier plots and Cox regression models (CRMs) assessed biochemical recurrence (BCR)-free survival and metastasis-free survival (MFS) according to N-stage. In subgroup analyses of N1 patients, Kaplan-Meier plots and CRMs were stratified according to adjuvant treatment. RESULTS Of 9,631 pT2 staged patients, 241 (2.5%) harbored lymph-node metastases after RP (pN1). The median follow-up was 60.8 months. No pT2 N1-staged patient died due to CaP. The 5-year BCR-free survival rates were 54.7 vs. 88.4% in pT2 N1 vs. pT2 N0 patients, respectively (P < 0.001). The 5-year MFS rates were 92.5 vs. 98.9% in pT2 N1 vs. pT2 N0 patients, respectively (P < 0.001). Within pT2 N1 patients, presence of ≥3 positive lymph nodes was an independent risk factor for BCR (hazard ratio [HR] 3.4, P < 0.001) and for metastatic progression (HR 1.7, P = 0.04). Finally, 3-year BCR-free survival was improved in pT2 N1 patients treated with adjuvant radiation therapy (87.1% vs. 63.7% for patients who received other treatment options [P < 0.001]). CONCLUSION Patients with pathologically organ-confined but lymph node-positive CaP exhibited favorable oncological outcomes after RP. Presence of ≥3 positive LNs predicted higher rates of BCR and metastatic progression. In consequence, in pT2 N1 patients treated with RP with ≥3 positive LNs, adjuvant treatment may be considered.9.
Collapse
|
10
|
Preisser F, Bandini M, Nazzani S, Mazzone E, Marchioni M, Tian Z, Chun FK, Saad F, Briganti A, Haese A, Montorsi F, Huland H, Graefen M, Tilki D, Karakiewicz PI. Development and Validation of a Lookup Table for the Prediction of Metastatic Prostate Cancer According to Prostatic-specific Antigen Value, Clinical Tumor Stage, and Gleason Grade Groups. Eur Urol Oncol 2020; 3:631-639. [DOI: 10.1016/j.euo.2019.03.003] [Citation(s) in RCA: 2] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.5] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 11/24/2018] [Revised: 02/15/2019] [Accepted: 03/08/2019] [Indexed: 10/27/2022]
|
11
|
Marra G, Valerio M, Heidegger I, Tsaur I, Mathieu R, Ceci F, Ploussard G, van den Bergh RCN, Kretschmer A, Thibault C, Ost P, Tilki D, Kasivisvanathan V, Moschini M, Sanchez-Salas R, Gontero P, Karnes RJ, Montorsi F, Gandaglia G. Management of Patients with Node-positive Prostate Cancer at Radical Prostatectomy and Pelvic Lymph Node Dissection: A Systematic Review. Eur Urol Oncol 2020; 3:565-581. [PMID: 32933887 DOI: 10.1016/j.euo.2020.08.005] [Citation(s) in RCA: 43] [Impact Index Per Article: 10.8] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 06/11/2020] [Revised: 07/07/2020] [Accepted: 08/11/2020] [Indexed: 12/16/2022]
Abstract
CONTEXT Optimal management of prostate cancer (PCa) patients with lymph node invasion at radical prostatectomy and pelvic lymph node dissection still remains unclear. OBJECTIVE To assess the effectiveness of postoperative treatment strategies for pathologically node-positive PCa patients. The secondary aim was to identify the most relevant prognostic factors to guide the management of pN1 patients. EVIDENCE ACQUISITION A systematic review was performed in January 2020 using Medline, Embase, and other databases. A total of 5063 articles were screened, and 26 studies including 12 537 men were selected for data synthesis and included in the current review according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses (PRISMA) recommendations. EVIDENCE SYNTHESIS Ten-year biochemical recurrence (BCR)-free, clinical recurrence-free, cancer-specific (CSS), and overall (OS) survival rates ranged from 28% to 56%, 70% to 92%, 72% to 98%, and 60% to 87.6%, respectively. A total of seven, five, and six studies assessed the oncological outcomes of observation, adjuvant radiotherapy (aRT), or adjuvant androgen deprivation therapy (ADT), respectively. Initial observation followed by salvage therapies at the time of recurrence represents a safe option in selected patients with a low disease burden. The use of aRT with or without ADT might improve survival in men with locally advanced disease and a higher number of positive nodes. Risk stratification according to pathological Gleason score, number of positive nodes, pathological stage, and surgical margins status is the key to risk stratification and selection of the optimal postoperative therapy. Limitations of this systematic review are the retrospective design of the studies included and the lack of data on adverse events. CONCLUSIONS While the majority of men with pN1 disease would experience BCR after surgery, long-term disease-free survival has been reported in selected patients. Management options to improve oncological outcomes include observation versus adjuvant therapies such as aRT and/or ADT. Disease characteristics should be used to select the optimal postoperative management for pN1 PCa patients. PATIENT SUMMARY Finding node-positive prostate cancer after a radical prostatectomy often leads to high postoperative prostate-specific antigen levels and is overall a poor prognostic factor. However, this does not necessarily translate into poor survival for all men. Management can be tailored to the severity of disease and options include observation, androgen deprivation therapy, and/or radiotherapy.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Giancarlo Marra
- Department of Urology, San Giovanni Battista Hospital, University of Turin, Turin, Italy.
| | | | - Isabel Heidegger
- Department of Urology, Medical University Innsbruck, Innsbruck, Austria
| | - Igor Tsaur
- Department of Urology and Pediatric Urology, Mainz University Medicine, Mainz, Germany
| | | | - Francesco Ceci
- Nuclear Medicine, Department of Medical Sciences, University of Turin, Italy
| | - Guillaume Ploussard
- Department of Urology, La Croix du Sud Hospital, Toulouse, France; Institut Universitaire du Cancer Toulouse-Oncopole, Toulouse, France
| | | | | | - Constance Thibault
- Department of Oncology, Hopital Europeen Georges Pompidou, Paris, France
| | - Piet Ost
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Ghent University Hospital, Ghent, Belgium
| | - Derya Tilki
- Martini-Klinik Prostate Cancer Center, University Hospital Hamburg-Eppendorf, Hamburg, Germany; Department of Urology, University Hospital Hamburg-Eppendorf, Hamburg, Germany
| | - Veeru Kasivisvanathan
- Division of Surgery and Interventional Science, University College London, London, UK; Department of Urology, University College London Hospital, London, UK
| | - Marco Moschini
- Department of Urology, Institut Mutualiste Montsouris, Paris, France
| | | | - Paolo Gontero
- Department of Urology, San Giovanni Battista Hospital, University of Turin, Turin, Italy
| | | | - Francesco Montorsi
- Division of Oncology/Unit of Urology, Urological Research Institute, IRCCS Ospedale San Raffaele, Milan, Italy
| | - Giorgio Gandaglia
- Division of Oncology/Unit of Urology, Urological Research Institute, IRCCS Ospedale San Raffaele, Milan, Italy
| | | |
Collapse
|
12
|
Liu H, Tang K, Xia D, Wang X, Zhu W, Wang L, Yang W, Peng E, Chen Z. Added Value of Biparametric MRI and TRUS-Guided Systematic Biopsies to Clinical Parameters in Predicting Adverse Pathology in Prostate Cancer. Cancer Manag Res 2020; 12:7761-7770. [PMID: 32922077 PMCID: PMC7457849 DOI: 10.2147/cmar.s260986] [Citation(s) in RCA: 1] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.3] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 05/07/2020] [Accepted: 08/06/2020] [Indexed: 01/22/2023] Open
Abstract
Objective To develop novel models for predicting extracapsular extension (EPE), seminal vesicle invasion (SVI), or upgrading in prostate cancer (PCa) patients using clinical parameters, biparametric magnetic resonance imaging (bp-MRI), and transrectal ultrasonography (TRUS)-guided systematic biopsies. Patients and Methods We retrospectively collected data from PCa patients who underwent standard (12-core) systematic biopsy and radical prostatectomy. To develop predictive models, the following variables were included in multivariable logistic regression analyses: total prostate-specific antigen (TPSA), central transition zone volume (CTZV), prostate-specific antigen (PSAD), maximum diameter of the index lesion at bp-MRI, EPE at bp-MRI, SVI at bp-MRI, biopsy Gleason grade group, and number of positive biopsy cores. Three risk calculators were built based on the coefficients of the logit function. The area under the curve (AUC) was applied to determine the models with the highest discrimination. Decision curve analyses (DCAs) were performed to evaluate the net benefit of each risk calculator. Results A total of 222 patients were included in this study. Overall, 83 (37.4%), 75 (33.8%), and 107 (48.2%) patients had EPE, SVI, and upgrading at final pathology, respectively. The addition of bp-MRI data improved the discrimination of models for predicting SVI (0.807 vs 0.816) and upgrading (0.548 vs 0.625) but not EPE (0.766 vs 0.763). Similarly, models including clinical parameters, bp-MRI data, and information on systematic biopsies achieved the highest AUC in the prediction of EPE (0.842), SVI (0.913), and upgrading (0.794), and the three corresponding risk calculators yielded the highest net benefit. Conclusion We developed three easy-to-use risk calculators for the prediction of adverse pathological features based on patient clinical parameters, bp-MRI data, and information on systematic biopsies. This may be greatly beneficial to urologists in the decision-making process for PCa patients.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Hailang Liu
- Department of Urology, Tongji Hospital, Tongji Medical College, Huazhong University of Science and Technology, Wuhan 430030, Hubei, People's Republic of China
| | - Kun Tang
- Department of Urology, Tongji Hospital, Tongji Medical College, Huazhong University of Science and Technology, Wuhan 430030, Hubei, People's Republic of China
| | - Ding Xia
- Department of Urology, Tongji Hospital, Tongji Medical College, Huazhong University of Science and Technology, Wuhan 430030, Hubei, People's Republic of China
| | - Xinguang Wang
- Department of Urology, Tongji Hospital, Tongji Medical College, Huazhong University of Science and Technology, Wuhan 430030, Hubei, People's Republic of China
| | - Wei Zhu
- Department of Urology, Tongji Hospital, Tongji Medical College, Huazhong University of Science and Technology, Wuhan 430030, Hubei, People's Republic of China
| | - Liang Wang
- Department of Radiology, Tongji Hospital, Tongji Medical College, Huazhong University of Science and Technology, Wuhan 430030, Hubei, People's Republic of China
| | - Weimin Yang
- Department of Urology, Tongji Hospital, Tongji Medical College, Huazhong University of Science and Technology, Wuhan 430030, Hubei, People's Republic of China
| | - Ejun Peng
- Department of Urology, Tongji Hospital, Tongji Medical College, Huazhong University of Science and Technology, Wuhan 430030, Hubei, People's Republic of China
| | - Zhiqiang Chen
- Department of Urology, Tongji Hospital, Tongji Medical College, Huazhong University of Science and Technology, Wuhan 430030, Hubei, People's Republic of China
| |
Collapse
|
13
|
Grivas N, van den Bergh RCN, Brouwer OR, KleinJan GH, Ramirez-Backhaus M, Wilthagen EA, van der Poel HG. Pelvic lymph node distribution and metastases of prostate and bladder cancer: a systematic literature review and template proposal. World J Urol 2020; 39:751-759. [PMID: 32495153 DOI: 10.1007/s00345-020-03281-1] [Citation(s) in RCA: 3] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.8] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 04/17/2020] [Accepted: 05/25/2020] [Indexed: 10/24/2022] Open
Abstract
PURPOSE To systematically review the relevant literature that evaluates the LN topographical distribution and propose a uniform template. METHODS A bibliographic search of PubMed/Medline, Embase and SCOPUS was performed for studies reporting data of LN imaging and/or nodal resection. RESULTS 101 and 26 articles met the inclusion criteria for PCa and BCa, respectively. In PCa, the most common locations of positive LNs for surgical and imaging studies were external iliac (both 38 studies), followed by obturator (38 and 37, respectively). Similarly, in BCa, the most common location of positive nodes for surgical and imaging studies were external iliac (19 and 4, respectively), followed by obturator (15 and 3 studies, respectively). In PCa, median percentages of positive external iliac nodes/patient were 12.2% and 11.6% for surgical and imaging studies, respectively while corresponding rates for BCa were 3.9% and 17.6%. There were high risks of bias across studies as well as high heterogeneity in the definition of the anatomic boundaries of lymphadenectomy templates. CONCLUSIONS This review highlights the lack of detailed information on exact LN templates and metastases location, which in turn hinders generation of high-quality evidence on optimal lymphadenectomy templates. Our proposed template is applicable for both imaging and surgical description and could facilitate the translation of anatomical location from imaging to surgical resection.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Nikolaos Grivas
- Department of Urology, The Netherlands Cancer Institute-Antoni van Leeuwenhoek Hospital, Plesmanlaan 121, 1066 CX, Amsterdam, Netherlands.
| | | | - Oscar R Brouwer
- Department of Urology, The Netherlands Cancer Institute-Antoni van Leeuwenhoek Hospital, Plesmanlaan 121, 1066 CX, Amsterdam, Netherlands
| | - Gijs H KleinJan
- Department of Urology, Leiden University Medical Center, Leiden, Netherlands
| | | | - Erica A Wilthagen
- Scientific Information Service, The Netherlands Cancer Institute, Amsterdam, Netherlands
| | - Henk G van der Poel
- Department of Urology, The Netherlands Cancer Institute-Antoni van Leeuwenhoek Hospital, Plesmanlaan 121, 1066 CX, Amsterdam, Netherlands
| |
Collapse
|
14
|
Bandini M, Preisser F. UICC and AJCC 8th edition tumor-nodes-metastasis (TNM) classifications for patients treated with radical prostatectomy: reliable but not infallible prognostic tools. ANNALS OF TRANSLATIONAL MEDICINE 2019; 7:S41. [PMID: 31032320 PMCID: PMC6462615 DOI: 10.21037/atm.2019.02.26] [Citation(s) in RCA: 3] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.6] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Track Full Text] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 02/07/2019] [Accepted: 02/21/2019] [Indexed: 11/06/2022]
Affiliation(s)
- Marco Bandini
- Urological Research Institute (URI), San Raffaele Hospital, Vita-Salute San Raffaele University, Unit of Urology, Milan, Italy
| | - Felix Preisser
- Department of Urology, University Hospital Frankfurt, Frankfurt, Germany
| |
Collapse
|
15
|
Chalouhy C, Gurram S, Ghavamian R. Current controversies on the role of lymphadenectomy for prostate cancer. Urol Oncol 2018; 37:219-226. [PMID: 30579787 DOI: 10.1016/j.urolonc.2018.11.020] [Citation(s) in RCA: 12] [Impact Index Per Article: 2.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 08/03/2018] [Revised: 10/20/2018] [Accepted: 11/19/2018] [Indexed: 01/11/2023]
Abstract
Lymph node dissection is part of the standard treatment protocol for various cancers, but its role in prostate cancer has been debatable for some time. Pelvic lymphadenectomy has been shown to better help stage prostate cancer patients, but has yet to be definitively proven to be of any benefit for survival. Various templates for lymph node dissections exist, and though some national guidelines have endorsed an extended pelvic node dissection, the choice of template is still controversial. Pelvic lymphadenectomy may lead to a slightly higher rate complications and operative time, and their use must be judiciously applied to patients with a high enough risk of lymph node involvement. We present a comprehensive review of the literature regarding the benefits and harms of lymph node dissection in prostate cancer.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
| | - Sandeep Gurram
- The Smith Institute for Urology, Zucker School of Medicine Hofstra/Northwell, New Hyde Park, NY
| | - Reza Ghavamian
- The Smith Institute for Urology, Zucker School of Medicine Hofstra/Northwell, New Hyde Park, NY.
| |
Collapse
|
16
|
Rayn KN, Bloom JB, Gold SA, Hale GR, Baiocco JA, Mehralivand S, Czarniecki M, Sabarwal VK, Valera V, Wood BJ, Merino MJ, Choyke P, Turkbey B, Pinto PA. Added Value of Multiparametric Magnetic Resonance Imaging to Clinical Nomograms for Predicting Adverse Pathology in Prostate Cancer. J Urol 2018; 200:1041-1047. [PMID: 29852182 DOI: 10.1016/j.juro.2018.05.094] [Citation(s) in RCA: 63] [Impact Index Per Article: 10.5] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Accepted: 05/19/2018] [Indexed: 11/30/2022]
Abstract
PURPOSE We examined the additional value of preoperative prostate multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging and transrectal ultrasound/multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging fusion guided targeted biopsy when performed in combination with clinical nomograms to predict adverse pathology at radical prostatectomy. MATERIALS AND METHODS We identified all patients who underwent 3 Tesla multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging prior to fusion biopsy and radical prostatectomy. The Partin and the MSKCC (Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center) preradical prostatectomy nomograms were applied to estimate the probability of organ confined disease, extraprostatic extension, seminal vesicle invasion and lymph node involvement using transrectal ultrasound guided systematic biopsy and transrectal ultrasound/multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging fusion guided targeted biopsy Gleason scores. With radical prostatectomy pathology as the gold standard we developed multivariable logistic regression models based on these nomograms before and after adding multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging to assess any additional predictive ability. RESULTS A total of 532 patients were included in study. When multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging findings were added to the systematic biopsy based MSKCC nomogram, the AUC increased by 0.10 for organ confined disease (p <0.001), 0.10 for extraprostatic extension (p = 0.003), 0.09 for seminal vesicle invasion (p = 0.011) and 0.06 for lymph node involvement (p = 0.120). Using Gleason scores derived from targeted biopsy compared to systematic biopsy provided an additional predictive value of organ confined disease (Δ AUC 0.07, p = 0.003) and extraprostatic extension (Δ AUC 0.07, p = 0.048) at radical prostatectomy with the MSKCC nomogram. Similar results were obtained using the Partin nomogram. CONCLUSIONS Magnetic resonance imaging alone or in addition to standard clinical nomograms provides significant additional predictive ability of adverse pathology at the time of radical prostatectomy. This information can be greatly beneficial to urologists for preoperative planning and for counseling patients regarding the risks of future therapy.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Kareem N Rayn
- Urologic Oncology Branch, National Cancer Institute, National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, Maryland
| | - Jonathan B Bloom
- Urologic Oncology Branch, National Cancer Institute, National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, Maryland
| | - Samuel A Gold
- Urologic Oncology Branch, National Cancer Institute, National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, Maryland
| | - Graham R Hale
- Urologic Oncology Branch, National Cancer Institute, National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, Maryland
| | - Joseph A Baiocco
- Urologic Oncology Branch, National Cancer Institute, National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, Maryland
| | - Sherif Mehralivand
- Urologic Oncology Branch, National Cancer Institute, National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, Maryland; Molecular Imaging Program, National Cancer Institute, National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, Maryland; Department of Urology and Pediatric Urology, University Medical Center Mainz, Johannes Gutenberg University Mainz, Mainz, Germany
| | - Marcin Czarniecki
- Molecular Imaging Program, National Cancer Institute, National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, Maryland
| | - Vikram K Sabarwal
- Urologic Oncology Branch, National Cancer Institute, National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, Maryland
| | - Vladimir Valera
- Urologic Oncology Branch, National Cancer Institute, National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, Maryland
| | - Bradford J Wood
- Center for Interventional Oncology, National Cancer Institute, National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, Maryland
| | - Maria J Merino
- Laboratory of Pathology, National Cancer Institute, National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, Maryland
| | - Peter Choyke
- Molecular Imaging Program, National Cancer Institute, National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, Maryland
| | - Baris Turkbey
- Molecular Imaging Program, National Cancer Institute, National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, Maryland
| | - Peter A Pinto
- Urologic Oncology Branch, National Cancer Institute, National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, Maryland; Center for Interventional Oncology, National Cancer Institute, National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, Maryland.
| |
Collapse
|