1
|
Wenzel M, Hoeh B, Wagner N, Koll F, Siech C, Humke C, Steuber T, Graefen M, Tilki D, Kluth L, Traumann M, Banek S, Chun FKH, Mandel P. Treatment patterns and oncological outcomes of older adults with metastatic prostate cancer in real-world setting. J Am Geriatr Soc 2024. [PMID: 38922830 DOI: 10.1111/jgs.19045] [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: 04/11/2024] [Revised: 05/22/2024] [Accepted: 05/25/2024] [Indexed: 06/28/2024]
Abstract
BACKGROUND The landscape of systemic therapies for metastatic hormone-sensitive (mHSPC) and castration resistant prostate cancer (mCRPC) extensively improved within the last decades resulting in a significantly prolonged overall survival. However, subgroup analyses of phase III trials suggest potentially different overall survival outcomes for older adults. METHODS We relied on our institutional metastatic prostate cancer database to identify mHSPC and subsequently mCRPC patients. Older adults were stratified according to age groups 70-74 versus ≥75-79 versus ≥80 years at metastatic occurrence. Subsequently, uni- and multivariable time to mCRPC and overall survival analyses were performed. RESULTS Of 494 older adults, 217 (44%) were 70-74 versus 180 (36%) 75-79 versus 97 (20%) ≥80 years old. Rates of local prostate cancer treatment differed significantly between all three groups (p < 0.01). Regarding mHSPC treatment, androgen receptor signaling inhibitors (ARSI) were administered in 30-39% of patients and docetaxel with 9% in age group 70-74 years and 6% and 3% in age groups 75-79 years and ≥80 years. Regarding mCRPC treatment, significant differences between treatment proportions were observed (p < 0.01). Most common treatment was ARSI for all three groups. Conversely, chemotherapy was more frequently administered in patients aged 70-74 (16%), relative to 4% and 3% in 75-79 year and ≥80 year aged patients. In univariable and multivariable time to mCRPC analyses, overall survival in mHSPC and OS in mCRPC analyses, no significant differences between all three age groups were observed (all p ≥ 0.3). CONCLUSIONS Treatment patterns differ significantly between older adults with metastatic prostate cancer. However, these differences may not result in differences of overall life expectancy.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Mike Wenzel
- Department of Urology, University Hospital Frankfurt, Goethe University Frankfurt am Main, Frankfurt, Germany
| | - Benedikt Hoeh
- Department of Urology, University Hospital Frankfurt, Goethe University Frankfurt am Main, Frankfurt, Germany
| | - Nele Wagner
- Department of Urology, University Hospital Frankfurt, Goethe University Frankfurt am Main, Frankfurt, Germany
| | - Florestan Koll
- Department of Urology, University Hospital Frankfurt, Goethe University Frankfurt am Main, Frankfurt, Germany
| | - Carolin Siech
- Department of Urology, University Hospital Frankfurt, Goethe University Frankfurt am Main, Frankfurt, Germany
| | - Clara Humke
- Department of Urology, University Hospital Frankfurt, Goethe University Frankfurt am Main, Frankfurt, Germany
| | - Thomas Steuber
- Martini-Klinik Prostate Cancer Center, University Hospital Hamburg-Eppendorf, Hamburg, Germany
| | - Markus Graefen
- 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
- Department of Urology, Koc University Hospital, Istanbul, Turkey
| | - Luis Kluth
- Department of Urology, University Hospital Frankfurt, Goethe University Frankfurt am Main, Frankfurt, Germany
| | - Miriam Traumann
- Department of Urology, University Hospital Frankfurt, Goethe University Frankfurt am Main, Frankfurt, Germany
| | - Séverine Banek
- Department of Urology, University Hospital Frankfurt, Goethe University Frankfurt am Main, Frankfurt, Germany
| | - Felix K H Chun
- Department of Urology, University Hospital Frankfurt, Goethe University Frankfurt am Main, Frankfurt, Germany
| | - Philipp Mandel
- Department of Urology, University Hospital Frankfurt, Goethe University Frankfurt am Main, Frankfurt, Germany
- Martini-Klinik Prostate Cancer Center, University Hospital Hamburg-Eppendorf, Hamburg, Germany
| |
Collapse
|
2
|
Zheng J, Chen J, Li H, Li Y, Dong W, Jiang X. Predicting prostate adenocarcinoma patients' survival and immune signature: a novel risk model based on telomere-related genes. Discov Oncol 2024; 15:203. [PMID: 38825615 PMCID: PMC11144689 DOI: 10.1007/s12672-024-00986-2] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 10/10/2023] [Accepted: 04/18/2024] [Indexed: 06/04/2024] Open
Abstract
Alterations in telomeres constitute some of the earliest occurrences in the tumourigenesis of prostate adenocarcinoma (PRAD) and persist throughout the progression of the tumour. While the activity of telomerase and the length of telomeres have been demonstrated to correlate with the prognosis of PRAD, the prognostic potential of telomere-related genes (TRGs) in this disease remains unexplored. Utilising mRNA expression data from the Cancer Genome Atlas (TCGA), we devised a risk model and a nomogram to predict the survival outcomes of patients with PRAD. Subsequently, our investigations extended to the relationship between the risk model and immune cell infiltration, sensitivity to chemotherapeutic drugs, and specific signalling pathways. The risk model we developed is predicated on seven key TRGs, and immunohistochemistry results revealed significant differential expression of three TRGs in tumours and paracancerous tissues. Based on the risk scores, PRAD patients were stratified into high-risk and low-risk cohorts. The Receiver operating characteristics (ROC) and Kaplan-Meier survival analyses corroborated the exceptional predictive performance of our novel risk model. Multivariate Cox regression analysis indicated that the risk score was an independent risk factor associated with Overall Survival (OS) and was significantly associated with T and N stages of PRAD patients. Notably, the high-risk group exhibited a greater response to chemotherapy and immunosuppression compared to the low-risk group, offering potential guidance for treatment strategies for high-risk patients. In conclusion, our new risk model, based on TRGs, serves as a reliable prognostic indicator for PRAD. The model holds significant value in guiding the selection of immunotherapy and chemotherapy in the clinical management of PRAD patients.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Jiefang Zheng
- Key Laboratory of Biological Targeting Diagnosis, Therapy and Rehabilitation of Guangdong Higher Education Institutes, Department of Urology, The Fifth Affiliated Hospital of Guangzhou Medical University, Guangzhou, Guangdong, China
| | - Jiahui Chen
- Key Laboratory of Biological Targeting Diagnosis, Therapy and Rehabilitation of Guangdong Higher Education Institutes, Department of Urology, The Fifth Affiliated Hospital of Guangzhou Medical University, Guangzhou, Guangdong, China
| | - Hongxiao Li
- Key Laboratory of Biological Targeting Diagnosis, Therapy and Rehabilitation of Guangdong Higher Education Institutes, Department of Urology, The Fifth Affiliated Hospital of Guangzhou Medical University, Guangzhou, Guangdong, China
| | - Yuanchao Li
- Clinical College of Acupuncture, Moxibustion, and Rehabilitation, Guangzhou University of Chinese Medicine, Guangzhou, Guangdong, China
| | - Weimin Dong
- Key Laboratory of Biological Targeting Diagnosis, Therapy and Rehabilitation of Guangdong Higher Education Institutes, Department of Urology, The Fifth Affiliated Hospital of Guangzhou Medical University, Guangzhou, Guangdong, China.
| | - Xianhan Jiang
- Key Laboratory of Biological Targeting Diagnosis, Therapy and Rehabilitation of Guangdong Higher Education Institutes, Department of Urology, The Fifth Affiliated Hospital of Guangzhou Medical University, Guangzhou, Guangdong, China.
| |
Collapse
|
3
|
Hagens MJ, Ribbert LLA, Jager A, Veerman H, Barwari K, Boodt B, de Bruijn RE, Claessen A, Leter MR, van der Noort V, Smeenge M, Roeleveld TA, Rynja SP, Schaaf M, Weltings S, Vis AN, Bekers E, van Leeuwen PJ, van der Poel HG. Histopathological concordance between prostate biopsies and radical prostatectomy specimens-implications of transrectal and transperineal biopsy approaches. Prostate Cancer Prostatic Dis 2024; 27:312-317. [PMID: 37660218 DOI: 10.1038/s41391-023-00714-x] [Citation(s) in RCA: 2] [Impact Index Per Article: 2.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 03/31/2023] [Revised: 08/01/2023] [Accepted: 08/18/2023] [Indexed: 09/04/2023]
Abstract
BACKGROUND This study aimed to evaluate the histopathological concordance rates between prostate biopsies and radical prostatectomy specimens according to the applied biopsy approach (transrectal or transperineal). METHODS We studied patients who had been newly diagnosed with clinically significant prostate cancer and who underwent a radical prostatectomy between 2018 and 2022. Patients were included if they underwent a prebiopsy magnetic resonance imaging and if they had not been previously treated for prostate cancer. Histopathological grading on prostate biopsies was compared with that on radical prostatectomy specimens. Univariable and multivariable logistic regression analyses were performed to assess the effect of the applied biopsy approach on histopathological concordance. Additional analyses were performed to assess the effect of the applied biopsy approach on American Urological Association risk group migration, defined as any change in risk group after radical prostatectomy. RESULTS In total, 1058 men were studied, of whom 49.3% (522/1058) and 50.7% (536/1058) underwent transrectal and transperineal prostate biopsies, respectively. Histopathological disconcordance was observed in 37.8% (400/1058) of men while American Urological Association risk group migration was observed in 30.2% (320/1058) of men. A transperineal biopsy approach was found to be independently associated with higher histopathological concordance rates (OR 1.33 [95% CI 1.01-1.75], p = 0.04) and less American Urological Association risk group migration (OR 0.70 [95% CI 0.52-0.93], p = 0.01). CONCLUSIONS The use of a transperineal biopsy approach improved histopathological concordance rates compared to the use of a transrectal biopsy approach. A transperineal biopsy approach may provide more accurate risk stratification for clinical decision-making. Despite recent improvements, histopathologic concordance remains suboptimal and should be considered before initiating management.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- M J Hagens
- Department of Urology, Netherlands Cancer Institute - Antoni van Leeuwenhoek Hospital, Amsterdam, the Netherlands.
- Department of Urology, Amsterdam University Medical Centers location Boelelaan, Amsterdam, the Netherlands.
- Prostate Cancer Network the Netherlands, Amsterdam, the Netherlands.
| | - L L A Ribbert
- Department of Urology, Netherlands Cancer Institute - Antoni van Leeuwenhoek Hospital, Amsterdam, the Netherlands
| | - A Jager
- Department of Urology, Amsterdam University Medical Centers location Boelelaan, Amsterdam, the Netherlands
- Prostate Cancer Network the Netherlands, Amsterdam, the Netherlands
| | - H Veerman
- Department of Urology, Netherlands Cancer Institute - Antoni van Leeuwenhoek Hospital, Amsterdam, the Netherlands
- Department of Urology, Amsterdam University Medical Centers location Boelelaan, Amsterdam, the Netherlands
- Prostate Cancer Network the Netherlands, Amsterdam, the Netherlands
| | - K Barwari
- Department of Urology, Netherlands Cancer Institute - Antoni van Leeuwenhoek Hospital, Amsterdam, the Netherlands
- Prostate Cancer Network the Netherlands, Amsterdam, the Netherlands
- Department of Urology, Andros Clinics, Amsterdam, the Netherlands
| | - B Boodt
- Prostate Cancer Network the Netherlands, Amsterdam, the Netherlands
- Department of Urology, Flevoziekenhuis, Almere, the Netherlands
| | - R E de Bruijn
- Prostate Cancer Network the Netherlands, Amsterdam, the Netherlands
- Department of Urology, Ziekenhuis Amstelland, Amstelveen, the Netherlands
| | - A Claessen
- Prostate Cancer Network the Netherlands, Amsterdam, the Netherlands
- Department of Urology, Rode Kruis Ziekenhuis, Beverwijk, the Netherlands
| | - M R Leter
- Prostate Cancer Network the Netherlands, Amsterdam, the Netherlands
- Department of Urology, Dijklander Ziekenhuis, Hoorn, the Netherlands
| | - V van der Noort
- Department of Statistics, Netherlands Cancer Institute - Antoni van Leeuwenhoek Hospital, Amsterdam, the Netherlands
| | - M Smeenge
- Prostate Cancer Network the Netherlands, Amsterdam, the Netherlands
- Department of Urology, St Jansdal Ziekenhuis, Harderwijk, the Netherlands
| | - T A Roeleveld
- Prostate Cancer Network the Netherlands, Amsterdam, the Netherlands
- Department of Urology, Noordwest Ziekenhuisgroep, Alkmaar, the Netherlands
| | - S P Rynja
- Prostate Cancer Network the Netherlands, Amsterdam, the Netherlands
- Department of Urology, Spaarne Gasthuis, Hoofddorp, the Netherlands
| | - M Schaaf
- Prostate Cancer Network the Netherlands, Amsterdam, the Netherlands
- Department of Urology, BovenIJ Ziekenhuis, Amsterdam, the Netherlands
| | - S Weltings
- Prostate Cancer Network the Netherlands, Amsterdam, the Netherlands
- Department of Urology, Zaans Medisch Centrum, Zaandam, the Netherlands
| | - A N Vis
- Department of Urology, Netherlands Cancer Institute - Antoni van Leeuwenhoek Hospital, Amsterdam, the Netherlands
- Department of Urology, Amsterdam University Medical Centers location Boelelaan, Amsterdam, the Netherlands
- Prostate Cancer Network the Netherlands, Amsterdam, the Netherlands
| | - E Bekers
- Department of Pathology, Netherlands Cancer Institute - Antoni van Leeuwenhoek Hospital, Amsterdam, the Netherlands
| | - P J van Leeuwen
- Department of Urology, Netherlands Cancer Institute - Antoni van Leeuwenhoek Hospital, Amsterdam, the Netherlands
- Department of Urology, Amsterdam University Medical Centers location Boelelaan, Amsterdam, the Netherlands
| | - H G van der Poel
- Department of Urology, Netherlands Cancer Institute - Antoni van Leeuwenhoek Hospital, Amsterdam, the Netherlands
- Department of Urology, Amsterdam University Medical Centers location Boelelaan, Amsterdam, the Netherlands
- Prostate Cancer Network the Netherlands, Amsterdam, the Netherlands
| |
Collapse
|
4
|
Egevad L, Micoli C, Samaratunga H, Delahunt B, Garmo H, Stattin P, Eklund M. Prognosis of Gleason Score 9-10 Prostatic Adenocarcinoma in Needle Biopsies: A Nationwide Population-based Study. Eur Urol Oncol 2024; 7:213-221. [PMID: 37978024 DOI: 10.1016/j.euo.2023.11.002] [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: 09/21/2023] [Revised: 10/13/2023] [Accepted: 11/02/2023] [Indexed: 11/19/2023]
Abstract
BACKGROUND Since 2014, prostate cancer is reported using five-tier grouping of Gleason scores. Studies have suggested prognostic heterogeneity within the groups. OBJECTIVE We assessed the risk of prostate cancer death for men diagnosed with Gleason scores 4 + 5, 5 + 4, and 5 + 5 on needle biopsy in a population-based cohort. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS We used the data from Prostate Cancer data Base Sweden (PCBaSe) 4.0 for a survival analysis. Among 199 620 men reported to have prostate cancer in 2000-2020, 172 112 were diagnosed on needle biopsy. The primary treatment was classified as androgen deprivation therapy (66%), deferred treatment (5%), radical prostatectomy (7%), or radical radiotherapy (21%). OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS AND STATISTICAL ANALYSIS The risks of death from prostate cancer in men with Gleason score 9-10 at 5 and 10 yr were used as endpoints. Multivariable Cox regression models controlling for socioeconomic factors and primary treatment were used for time-to-event analyses of death from prostate cancer and death from any causes. RESULTS AND LIMITATIONS A total of 20 419 (12%) men had a Gleason score of 9-10, including Gleason scores of 4 + 5, 5 + 4, and 5 + 5 in 14 333 (70%), 4223 (21%), and 1863 (9%) men, respectively. The risks of prostate cancer death for men with Gleason scores 4 + 5, 5 + 4, and 5 + 5 at 10 yr of follow-up were 0.45 (confidence interval [CI] 0.44-0.46), 0.56 (0.55-0.58), and 0.66 (0.63-0.68), respectively. The risks of death of any cause for men with Gleason scores 4 + 5, 5 + 4, and 5 + 5 at 10 yr were 0.73 (CI 0.72-0.74), 0.81 (0.80-0.83), and 0.87 (0.85-0.89), respectively. CONCLUSIONS We demonstrate in the largest and most complete cohort analyzed to date that collapsing the Gleason scores by grouping results in loss of prognostic information in men with Gleason score 9-10 cancer. PATIENT SUMMARY Survival of prostate cancer patients with the highest tumor grades varies depending on grade composition.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Lars Egevad
- Department of Oncology-Pathology, Karolinska Institutet, Stockholm, Sweden.
| | - Chiara Micoli
- Department of Medical Epidemiology and Biostatistics, Karolinska Institutet, Stockholm, Sweden
| | - Hemamali Samaratunga
- Aquesta Uropathology and University of Queensland, Brisbane, Queensland, Australia
| | - Brett Delahunt
- Department of Oncology-Pathology, Karolinska Institutet, Stockholm, Sweden; Malaghan Institute of Medical Research, Wellington, New Zealand
| | - Hans Garmo
- Regional Cancer Centre, Uppsala University Hospital, Uppsala, Sweden; Department of Surgical Sciences Uppsala University, Uppsala, Sweden
| | - Pär Stattin
- Department of Surgical Sciences Uppsala University, Uppsala, Sweden
| | - Martin Eklund
- Department of Medical Epidemiology and Biostatistics, Karolinska Institutet, Stockholm, Sweden
| |
Collapse
|
5
|
Sasaki T, Ebara S, Tatenuma T, Ikehata Y, Nakayama A, Kawase M, Toide M, Yoneda T, Sakaguchi K, Teishima J, Makiyama K, Kitamura H, Saito K, Koie T, Koga F, Urakami S, Inoue T. Prognostic factors among patients with pathological Grade Group 5 prostate cancer based on robot-associated radical prostatectomy specimens from a large Japanese cohort (MSUG94). World J Urol 2024; 42:152. [PMID: 38483586 DOI: 10.1007/s00345-024-04864-y] [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: 08/18/2023] [Accepted: 02/08/2024] [Indexed: 03/19/2024] Open
Abstract
PURPOSE There are no definitive prognostic factors for patients with pathological Grade Group 5 (pGG 5) prostate cancer (PCa) undergoing robot-associated radical prostatectomy (RARP). This study aimed to explore the prognostic factors among patients with pGG 5 PCa in a large Japanese cohort (MSUG94). METHODS This retrospective, multi-institutional cohort study was conducted between 2012 and 2021 at ten centers in Japan and included 3195 patients. Patients with clinically metastatic PCa (cN1 or cM1) and those receiving neoadjuvant and/or adjuvant therapy were excluded. Finally, 217 patients with pGG5 PCa were analyzed. RESULTS The median follow-up period was 28.0 months. The 3- and 5-year biochemical recurrence-free survival (BCRFS) rates of the overall population were 66.1% and 57.7%, respectively. The optimal threshold value (47.2%) for the percentage of positive cancer cores (PPCC) with any GG by systematic biopsy was chosen based on receiver operating characteristic curve analysis. Univariate analysis revealed that the prostate-specific antigen level at diagnosis, pT, pN, positive surgical margins (PSMs), lymphovascular invasion, and PPCC were independent prognostic factors for BCRFS. A multivariate analysis revealed that PSMs and PPCC were independent prognostic factors for BCRFS. Using these two predictors, we stratified BCRFS, metastasis-free survival (MFS), and castration-resistant PCa-free survival (CRPC-FS) among patients with pGG 5 PCa. CONCLUSION The combination of PSMs and PPCC may be an important predictor of BCRFS, MFS, and CRPC-FS in patients with pGG 5 PCa undergoing RARP.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Takeshi Sasaki
- Department of Nephro-Urologic Surgery and Andrology, Mie University Graduate School of Medicine, 2-174 Edobashi, Tsu, Mie, 514-8507, Japan
| | - Shin Ebara
- Department of Urology, Hiroshima City Hiroshima Citizens Hospital, Hiroshima, Japan
| | | | | | - Akinori Nakayama
- Department of Urology, Dokkyo Medical University Saitama Medical Center, Saitama, Japan
| | - Makoto Kawase
- Department of Urology, Gifu University Graduate School of Medicine, Gifu, Japan
| | - Masahiro Toide
- Department of Urology, Tokyo Metropolitan Cancer and Infectious Diseases Center Komagome Hospital, Tokyo, Japan
| | - Tatsuaki Yoneda
- Department of Urology, Seirei Hamamatsu General Hospital, Shizuoka, Japan
| | | | - Jun Teishima
- Department of Urology, Kobe University Graduate School of Medicine, Hyogo, Japan
| | | | | | - Kazutaka Saito
- Department of Urology, Dokkyo Medical University Saitama Medical Center, Saitama, Japan
| | - Takuya Koie
- Department of Urology, Gifu University Graduate School of Medicine, Gifu, Japan
| | - Fumitaka Koga
- Department of Urology, Tokyo Metropolitan Cancer and Infectious Diseases Center Komagome Hospital, Tokyo, Japan
| | | | - Takahiro Inoue
- Department of Nephro-Urologic Surgery and Andrology, Mie University Graduate School of Medicine, 2-174 Edobashi, Tsu, Mie, 514-8507, Japan.
| |
Collapse
|
6
|
Cano Garcia C, Wenzel M, Piccinelli ML, Hoeh B, Landmann L, Tian Z, Humke C, Incesu RB, Köllermann J, Wild PJ, Würnschimmel C, Graefen M, Tilki D, Karakiewicz PI, Kluth LA, Chun FKH, Mandel P. External Tertiary-Care-Hospital Validation of the Epidemiological SEER-Based Nomogram Predicting Downgrading in High-Risk Prostate Cancer Patients Treated with Radical Prostatectomy. Diagnostics (Basel) 2023; 13:diagnostics13091614. [PMID: 37175005 PMCID: PMC10178748 DOI: 10.3390/diagnostics13091614] [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: 03/02/2023] [Revised: 04/06/2023] [Accepted: 04/26/2023] [Indexed: 05/15/2023] Open
Abstract
We aimed to externally validate the SEER-based nomogram used to predict downgrading in biopsied high-risk prostate cancer patients treated with radical prostatectomy (RP) in a contemporary European tertiary-care-hospital cohort. We relied on an institutional tertiary-care database to identify biopsied high-risk prostate cancer patients in the National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN) who underwent RP between January 2014 and December 2022. The model's downgrading performance was evaluated using accuracy and calibration. The net benefit of the nomogram was tested with decision-curve analyses. Overall, 241 biopsied high-risk prostate cancer patients were identified. In total, 51% were downgraded at RP. Moreover, of the 99 patients with a biopsy Gleason pattern of 5, 43% were significantly downgraded to RP Gleason pattern ≤ 4 + 4. The nomogram predicted the downgrading with 72% accuracy. A high level of agreement between the predicted and observed downgrading rates was observed. In the prediction of significant downgrading from a biopsy Gleason pattern of 5 to a RP Gleason pattern ≤ 4 + 4, the accuracy was 71%. Deviations from the ideal predictions were noted for predicted probabilities between 30% and 50%, where the nomogram overestimated the observed rate of significant downgrading. This external validation of the SEER-based nomogram confirmed its ability to predict the downgrading of biopsy high-risk prostate cancer patients and its accurate use for patient counseling in high-volume RP centers.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Cristina Cano Garcia
- Department of Urology, University Hospital Frankfurt, Goethe University Frankfurt, 39120 Frankfurt am Main, Germany
- Cancer Prognostics and Health Outcomes Unit, Division of Urology, University of Montréal Health Center, Montreal, QC H2X 0A9, Canada
| | - Mike Wenzel
- Department of Urology, University Hospital Frankfurt, Goethe University Frankfurt, 39120 Frankfurt am Main, Germany
| | - Mattia Luca Piccinelli
- Cancer Prognostics and Health Outcomes Unit, Division of Urology, University of Montréal Health Center, Montreal, QC H2X 0A9, Canada
- Department of Urology, IEO European Institute of Oncology, Istituto Di Ricovero e Cura a Carattere Scientifico (IRCCS), 20141 Milan, Italy
| | - Benedikt Hoeh
- Department of Urology, University Hospital Frankfurt, Goethe University Frankfurt, 39120 Frankfurt am Main, Germany
| | - Lea Landmann
- Department of Urology, University Hospital Frankfurt, Goethe University Frankfurt, 39120 Frankfurt am Main, Germany
| | - Zhe Tian
- Cancer Prognostics and Health Outcomes Unit, Division of Urology, University of Montréal Health Center, Montreal, QC H2X 0A9, Canada
| | - Clara Humke
- Department of Urology, University Hospital Frankfurt, Goethe University Frankfurt, 39120 Frankfurt am Main, Germany
| | - Reha-Baris Incesu
- Cancer Prognostics and Health Outcomes Unit, Division of Urology, University of Montréal Health Center, Montreal, QC H2X 0A9, Canada
- Martini-Klinik Prostate Cancer Center, University Hospital Hamburg-Eppendorf, 20246 Hamburg, Germany
| | - Jens Köllermann
- Dr. Senckenberg Institute of Pathology, University Hospital Frankfurt, 60590 Frankfurt am Main, Germany
| | - Peter J Wild
- Dr. Senckenberg Institute of Pathology, University Hospital Frankfurt, 60590 Frankfurt am Main, Germany
- LOEWE Center Frankfurt Cancer Institute (FCI), Goethe University Frankfurt, 60439 Frankfurt am Main, Germany
| | | | - Markus Graefen
- Martini-Klinik Prostate Cancer Center, University Hospital Hamburg-Eppendorf, 20246 Hamburg, Germany
| | - Derya Tilki
- Martini-Klinik Prostate Cancer Center, University Hospital Hamburg-Eppendorf, 20246 Hamburg, Germany
- Department of Urology, University Hospital Hamburg-Eppendorf, 20246 Hamburg, Germany
- Department of Urology, Koc University Hospital, 34010 Istanbul, Turkey
| | - Pierre I Karakiewicz
- Cancer Prognostics and Health Outcomes Unit, Division of Urology, University of Montréal Health Center, Montreal, QC H2X 0A9, Canada
| | - Luis A Kluth
- Department of Urology, University Hospital Frankfurt, Goethe University Frankfurt, 39120 Frankfurt am Main, Germany
| | - Felix K H Chun
- Department of Urology, University Hospital Frankfurt, Goethe University Frankfurt, 39120 Frankfurt am Main, Germany
| | - Philipp Mandel
- Department of Urology, University Hospital Frankfurt, Goethe University Frankfurt, 39120 Frankfurt am Main, Germany
| |
Collapse
|
7
|
Chierigo F, Flammia RS, Sorce G, Hoeh B, Hohenhorst L, Tian Z, Saad F, Graefen M, Gallucci M, Briganti A, Montorsi F, Chun FKH, Shariat SF, Guano G, Mantica G, Borghesi M, Suardi N, Terrone C, Karakiewicz PI. The association of type and number of high-risk criteria with cancer specific mortality in prostate cancer patients treated with radiotherapy. Prostate 2023; 83:695-700. [PMID: 36919872 DOI: 10.1002/pros.24505] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 06/18/2022] [Revised: 10/06/2022] [Accepted: 02/22/2023] [Indexed: 03/16/2023]
Abstract
BACKGROUND To assess the association between of type and number of D'Amico high-risk criteria (DHRCs) with rates of cancer-specific mortality (CSM) in prostate cancer (PCa) patients treated with external beam radiotherapy (RT). METHODS In the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results database (2004-2016), we identified 34,908 RT patients with at least one DHRCs, namely prostate-specific antigen (PSA) >20 ng/dL (hrPSA), biopsy Grade Group (hrGG) 4-5, clinical T stage (hrcT) ≥T2c. Multivariable Cox regression models (CRM), as well as competing risks regression (CRR) model, which further adjust for other cause mortality, tested the association between DHRCs and 5-year CSM. RESULTS Of 34,908 patients, 14,777 (42%) exclusively harbored hrGG, 5641 (16%) hrPSA, 4390 (13%) had hrcT. Only 8238 (23.7%) harbored any combination of two DHRCs and 1862 (5.3%) had all three DHRCs. Five-year CSM rates ranged from 2.4% to 5.0% when any individual DHRC was present (hrcT, hrPSA, hrGG, in that order), versus 5.2% to 10.5% when two DHRCs were present (hrPSA+hrcT, hrcT+hrGG, hrPSA+hrGG, in that order) versus 14.4% when all three DHRCs were identified. In multivariable CRM hazard ratios relative to hrcT ranged from 1.07 to 1.76 for one DHRC, 2.20 to 3.83 for combinations of two DHRCs, and 5.11 for all three DHRCs. Multivariable CRR yielded to virtually the same results. CONCLUSIONS Our study indicates a stimulus-response effect according to the type and number of DHRCs. This indicates potential for risk-stratification within HR PCa patients that could be applied in clinical decision making to increase or reduce treatment intensity.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Francesco Chierigo
- IRCCS Ospedale Policlinico San Martino, Genova, Italy
- Cancer Prognostics and Health Outcomes Unit, Division of Urology, University of Montréal Health Center, Montréal, Québec, Canada
- Department of Surgical and Diagnostic Integrated Sciences (DISC), University of Genova, Genova, Italy
| | - Rocco Simone Flammia
- Cancer Prognostics and Health Outcomes Unit, Division of Urology, University of Montréal Health Center, Montréal, Québec, Canada
- Department of Maternal-Child and Urological Sciences, Policlinico Umberto I Hospital, Sapienza Rome University, Rome, Italy
| | - Gabriele Sorce
- Cancer Prognostics and Health Outcomes Unit, Division of Urology, University of Montréal Health Center, Montréal, Québec, Canada
- Division of Experimental Oncology/Unit of Urology, URI, Urological Research Institute, IRCCS San Raffaele Scientific Institute, Milan, Italy
| | - Benedikt Hoeh
- Cancer Prognostics and Health Outcomes Unit, Division of Urology, University of Montréal Health Center, Montréal, Québec, Canada
- Department of Urology, University Hospital Frankfurt, Frankfurt am Main, Germany
| | - Lukas Hohenhorst
- 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
| | - Zhe Tian
- Cancer Prognostics and Health Outcomes Unit, Division of Urology, University of Montréal Health Center, Montréal, Québec, Canada
| | - Fred Saad
- Cancer Prognostics and Health Outcomes Unit, Division of Urology, University of Montréal Health Center, Montréal, Québec, Canada
| | - Marcus Graefen
- Martini-Klinik Prostate Cancer Center, University Hospital Hamburg-Eppendorf, Hamburg, Germany
| | - Michele Gallucci
- Department of Maternal-Child and Urological Sciences, Policlinico Umberto I Hospital, Sapienza Rome University, Rome, Italy
| | - Alberto Briganti
- Division of Experimental Oncology/Unit of Urology, URI, Urological Research Institute, IRCCS San Raffaele Scientific Institute, Milan, Italy
| | - Francesco Montorsi
- Division of Experimental Oncology/Unit of Urology, URI, Urological Research Institute, IRCCS San Raffaele Scientific Institute, Milan, Italy
| | - Felix K H Chun
- Department of Urology, University Hospital Frankfurt, Frankfurt am Main, Germany
| | - Shahrokh F Shariat
- Department of Urology, Comprehensive Cancer Center, Medical University of Vienna, Vienna, Austria
- Departments of Urology, Weill Cornell Medical College, New York City, New York, USA
- Department of Urology, University of Texas Southwestern, Dallas, Texas, USA
- Department of Urology, Second Faculty of Medicine, Charles University, Prague, Czech Republic
- Institute for Urology and Reproductive Health, I.M. Sechenov First Moscow State Medical University, Moscow, Russia
- Division of Urology, Department of Special Surgery, Jordan University Hospital, The University of Jordan, Amman, Jordan
| | - Giovanni Guano
- IRCCS Ospedale Policlinico San Martino, Genova, Italy
- Department of Surgical and Diagnostic Integrated Sciences (DISC), University of Genova, Genova, Italy
| | - Guglielmo Mantica
- IRCCS Ospedale Policlinico San Martino, Genova, Italy
- Department of Surgical and Diagnostic Integrated Sciences (DISC), University of Genova, Genova, Italy
| | - Marco Borghesi
- IRCCS Ospedale Policlinico San Martino, Genova, Italy
- Department of Surgical and Diagnostic Integrated Sciences (DISC), University of Genova, Genova, Italy
| | - Nazareno Suardi
- IRCCS Ospedale Policlinico San Martino, Genova, Italy
- Department of Surgical and Diagnostic Integrated Sciences (DISC), University of Genova, Genova, Italy
| | - Carlo Terrone
- IRCCS Ospedale Policlinico San Martino, Genova, Italy
- Department of Surgical and Diagnostic Integrated Sciences (DISC), University of Genova, Genova, Italy
| | - Pierre I Karakiewicz
- Cancer Prognostics and Health Outcomes Unit, Division of Urology, University of Montréal Health Center, Montréal, Québec, Canada
| |
Collapse
|
8
|
Impact of Stain Normalization on Pathologist Assessment of Prostate Cancer: A Comparative Study. Cancers (Basel) 2023; 15:cancers15051503. [PMID: 36900293 PMCID: PMC10000688 DOI: 10.3390/cancers15051503] [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: 01/24/2023] [Revised: 02/17/2023] [Accepted: 02/23/2023] [Indexed: 03/04/2023] Open
Abstract
In clinical routine, the quality of whole-slide images plays a key role in the pathologist's diagnosis, and suboptimal staining may be a limiting factor. The stain normalization process helps to solve this problem through the standardization of color appearance of a source image with respect to a target image with optimal chromatic features. The analysis is focused on the evaluation of the following parameters assessed by two experts on original and normalized slides: (i) perceived color quality, (ii) diagnosis for the patient, (iii) diagnostic confidence and (iv) time required for diagnosis. Results show a statistically significant increase in color quality in the normalized images for both experts (p < 0.0001). Regarding prostate cancer assessment, the average times for diagnosis are significantly lower for normalized images than original ones (first expert: 69.9 s vs. 77.9 s with p < 0.0001; second expert: 37.4 s vs. 52.7 s with p < 0.0001), and at the same time, a statistically significant increase in diagnostic confidence is proven. The improvement of poor-quality images and greater clarity of diagnostically important details in normalized slides demonstrate the potential of stain normalization in the routine practice of prostate cancer assessment.
Collapse
|
9
|
Chierigo F, Flammia RS, Sorce G, Hoeh B, Hohenhorst L, Panunzio A, Tian Z, Saad F, Graefen M, Gallucci M, Briganti A, Montorsi F, Chun FK, Shariat SF, Antonelli A, Guano G, Mantica G, Borghesi M, Suardi N, Terrone C, Karakiewicz PI. Racial/ethnic disparities in the distribution and effect of type and number of high-risk criteria on mortality in prostate cancer patients treated with radiotherapy. Arab J Urol 2022; 21:135-141. [PMID: 37521449 PMCID: PMC10373609 DOI: 10.1080/2090598x.2022.2148867] [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: 05/08/2022] [Accepted: 11/13/2022] [Indexed: 11/24/2022] Open
Abstract
Objective To assess differences in the distribution of type and number of D'Amico high-risk criteria (DHRCs) according to race/ethnicity (R/E) and their effect on cancer-specific mortality (CSM) in prostate cancer (PCa) patients treated with external beam radiotherapy (RT). Methods In the SEER database (2004-2016), we identified 31,002 PCa patients treated with RT with at least one DHRCs, namely PSA >20 ng/dL, biopsy Gleason Grade Group 4-5, and clinical T stage ≥T2c. Competing risks regression (CRR) model tested the association between DHRCs and 5-year CSM in all R/E subgroups. Results Of 31,002 patients, 20,894 (67%) were Caucasian, 5256 (17%) were African American, 2868 (9.3%) were Hispanic-Latino, and 1984 (6.4%) were Asian. The distributions of individual DHRCs and combinations of two DHRCs differed according to R/E, but not for the combination of three DHRCs. The effect related to the presence of a single DHRC, and combinations of two or three DHRCs on absolute CSM rates was lowest in Asians (1.2-6.8%), followed by in African Americans (2.3-12.2%) and Caucasians (2.3-12.1%), and highest in Hispanic/Latinos (1.7-13.8%). However, the opposite effect was observed in CRR, where hazard ratios were highest in Asians vs. other R/Es: Asians 1.00-2.59 vs. others 0.5-1.83 for one DHRC, Asians 3.4-4.75 vs. others 0.66-3.66 for two DHRCs, and Asians 7.22 vs. others 3.03-4.99 for all three DHRCs. Conclusions R/E affects the proportions of DHRCs. Moreover, within the four examined R/E groups, the effect of DHRCs on absolute and relative CSM metrics also differed. Therefore, R/E-specific considerations may be warranted in high-risk PCa patients treated with RT.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Francesco Chierigo
- Department of Urology, IRCCS Ospedale Policlinico San Martino, Genova, Italy
- Cancer Prognostics and Health Outcomes Unit, Division of Urology, University of Montréal Health Center, Montréal, Québec, Canada
- Department of Surgical and Diagnostic Integrated Sciences (DISC), University of Genova, Genova, Italy
| | - Rocco Simone Flammia
- Cancer Prognostics and Health Outcomes Unit, Division of Urology, University of Montréal Health Center, Montréal, Québec, Canada
- Department of Maternal-Child and Urological Sciences, Sapienza Rome University, Policlinico Umberto I Hospital, Rome, Italy
| | - Gabriele Sorce
- Cancer Prognostics and Health Outcomes Unit, Division of Urology, University of Montréal Health Center, Montréal, Québec, Canada
- Division of Experimental Oncology/Unit of Urology, URI, Urological Research Institute, IRCCS San Raffaele Scientific Institute, Milan, Italy
| | - Benedikt Hoeh
- Cancer Prognostics and Health Outcomes Unit, Division of Urology, University of Montréal Health Center, Montréal, Québec, Canada
- Department of Urology, University Hospital Frankfurt, Frankfurt am Main, Germany
| | - Lukas Hohenhorst
- 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
| | - Andrea Panunzio
- Cancer Prognostics and Health Outcomes Unit, Division of Urology, University of Montréal Health Center, Montréal, Québec, Canada
- Department of Urology, University of Verona, Azienda Ospedaliera Universitaria Integrata di Verona
| | - Zhe Tian
- Cancer Prognostics and Health Outcomes Unit, Division of Urology, University of Montréal Health Center, Montréal, Québec, Canada
| | - Fred Saad
- Cancer Prognostics and Health Outcomes Unit, Division of Urology, University of Montréal Health Center, Montréal, Québec, Canada
| | - Markus Graefen
- Martini-Klinik Prostate Cancer Center, University Hospital Hamburg-Eppendorf, Hamburg, Germany
| | - Michele Gallucci
- Department of Maternal-Child and Urological Sciences, Sapienza Rome University, Policlinico Umberto I Hospital, Rome, Italy
| | - Alberto Briganti
- Division of Experimental Oncology/Unit of Urology, URI, Urological Research Institute, IRCCS San Raffaele Scientific Institute, Milan, Italy
| | - Francesco Montorsi
- Division of Experimental Oncology/Unit of Urology, URI, Urological Research Institute, IRCCS San Raffaele Scientific Institute, Milan, Italy
| | - Felix K.H. Chun
- Department of Urology, University Hospital Frankfurt, Frankfurt am Main, Germany
| | - Shahrokh F. Shariat
- Department of Urology, Comprehensive Cancer Center, Medical University of Vienna, Vienna, Austria
- Departments of Urology, Weill Cornell Medical College, New York, NY, USA
- Department of Urology, University of Texas Southwestern, Dallas, Texas, USA
- Department of Urology, Second Faculty of Medicine, Charles University, Prague, Czech Republic
- Institute for Urology and Reproductive Health, I.M. Sechenov First Moscow State Medical University, Moscow, Russia
- Division of Urology, Department of Special Surgery, Jordan University Hospital, The University of Jordan, Amman, Jordan
| | - Alessandro Antonelli
- Department of Urology, University of Verona, Azienda Ospedaliera Universitaria Integrata di Verona
| | - Giovanni Guano
- Department of Urology, IRCCS Ospedale Policlinico San Martino, Genova, Italy
- Department of Surgical and Diagnostic Integrated Sciences (DISC), University of Genova, Genova, Italy
| | - Guglielmo Mantica
- Department of Urology, IRCCS Ospedale Policlinico San Martino, Genova, Italy
- Department of Surgical and Diagnostic Integrated Sciences (DISC), University of Genova, Genova, Italy
| | - Marco Borghesi
- Department of Urology, IRCCS Ospedale Policlinico San Martino, Genova, Italy
- Department of Surgical and Diagnostic Integrated Sciences (DISC), University of Genova, Genova, Italy
| | - Nazareno Suardi
- Department of Urology, IRCCS Ospedale Policlinico San Martino, Genova, Italy
- Department of Surgical and Diagnostic Integrated Sciences (DISC), University of Genova, Genova, Italy
| | - Carlo Terrone
- Department of Urology, IRCCS Ospedale Policlinico San Martino, Genova, Italy
- Department of Surgical and Diagnostic Integrated Sciences (DISC), University of Genova, Genova, Italy
| | - Pierre I. Karakiewicz
- Cancer Prognostics and Health Outcomes Unit, Division of Urology, University of Montréal Health Center, Montréal, Québec, Canada
| |
Collapse
|
10
|
Wenzel M, Würnschimmel C, Chierigo F, Flammia RS, Tian Z, Shariat SF, Gallucci M, Terrone C, Saad F, Tilki D, Graefen M, Becker A, Kluth LA, Mandel P, Chun FKH, Karakiewicz PI. Nomogram Predicting Downgrading in National Comprehensive Cancer Network High-risk Prostate Cancer Patients Treated with Radical Prostatectomy. Eur Urol Focus 2022; 8:1133-1140. [PMID: 34334344 DOI: 10.1016/j.euf.2021.07.008] [Citation(s) in RCA: 10] [Impact Index Per Article: 5.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 06/03/2021] [Revised: 06/25/2021] [Accepted: 07/21/2021] [Indexed: 12/16/2022]
Abstract
BACKGROUND Some high-risk prostate cancer (PCa) patients may show more favorable Gleason pattern at radical prostatectomy (RP) than at biopsy. OBJECTIVE To test whether downgrading could be predicted accurately. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS Within the Surveillance, Epidemiology and End Results database (2010-2016), 6690 National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN) high-risk PCa patients were identified. OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS AND STATISTICAL ANALYSES We randomly split the overall cohort between development and validation cohorts (both n = 3345, 50%). Multivariable logistic regression models used biopsy Gleason, prostate-specific antigen, number of positive prostate biopsy cores, and cT stage to predict downgrading. Accuracy, calibration, and decision curve analysis (DCA) tested the model in the external validation cohort. RESULTS AND LIMITATIONS Of 6690 patients, 50.3% were downgraded at RP, and of 2315 patients with any biopsy pattern 5, 44.1% were downgraded to RP Gleason pattern ≤4 + 4. Downgrading rates were highest in biopsy Gleason pattern 5 + 5 (84.1%) and lowest in 3 + 4 (4.0%). In the validation cohort, the logistic regression model-derived nomogram predicted downgrading with 71.0% accuracy, with marginal departures (±3.3%) from ideal predictions in calibration. In DCA, a net benefit throughout all threshold probabilities was recorded, relative to treat-all or treat-none strategies and an algorithm based on an average downgrading rate of 50.3%. All steps were repeated in the subgroup with any biopsy Gleason pattern 5, to predict RP Gleason pattern ≤4 + 4. Here, a second nomogram (n = 2315) yielded 68.0% accuracy, maximal departures from ideal prediction of ±5.7%, and virtually the same DCA pattern as the main nomogram. CONCLUSIONS Downgrading affects half of all high-risk PCa patients. Its presence may be predicted accurately and may help with better treatment planning. PATIENT SUMMARY Downgrading occurs in every second high-risk prostate cancer patients. The nomograms developed by us can predict these probabilities accurately.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Mike Wenzel
- Department of Urology, University Hospital Frankfurt, Frankfurt am Main, Germany; Cancer Prognostics and Health Outcomes Unit, Division of Urology, University of Montréal Health Center, Montréal, Québec, Canada.
| | - Christoph Würnschimmel
- 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
| | - Francesco Chierigo
- Cancer Prognostics and Health Outcomes Unit, Division of Urology, University of Montréal Health Center, Montréal, Québec, Canada; Department of Urology, Policlinico San Martino Hospital, University of Genova, Genova, Italy
| | - Rocco Simone Flammia
- Cancer Prognostics and Health Outcomes Unit, Division of Urology, University of Montréal Health Center, Montréal, Québec, Canada; Department of Maternal-Child and Urological Sciences, Sapienza Rome University, Policlinico Umberto I Hospital, Rome, Italy
| | - Zhe Tian
- 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; Departments of Urology, Weill Cornell Medical College, New York, NY, USA; Department of Urology, University of Texas Southwestern, Dallas, TX, USA; Department of Urology, Second Faculty of Medicine, Charles University, Prague, Czech Republic; Institute for Urology and Reproductive Health, I.M. Sechenov First Moscow State Medical University, Moscow, Russia; Division of Urology, Department of Special Surgery, Jordan University Hospital, The University of Jordan, Amman, Jordan
| | - Michele Gallucci
- Department of Maternal-Child and Urological Sciences, Sapienza Rome University, Policlinico Umberto I Hospital, Rome, Italy
| | - Carlo Terrone
- Department of Urology, Policlinico San Martino Hospital, University of Genova, Genova, Italy
| | - Fred Saad
- Cancer Prognostics and Health Outcomes Unit, Division of Urology, University of Montréal Health Center, Montréal, Québec, Canada
| | - Derya Tilki
- Martini-Klinik Prostate Cancer Center, University Hospital Hamburg-Eppendorf, Hamburg, Germany; Department of Urology, University Hospital Hamburg-Eppendorf, Hamburg, Germany
| | - Markus Graefen
- Martini-Klinik Prostate Cancer Center, University Hospital Hamburg-Eppendorf, Hamburg, Germany
| | - Andreas Becker
- Department of Urology, University Hospital Frankfurt, Frankfurt am Main, Germany
| | - Luis A Kluth
- Department of Urology, University Hospital Frankfurt, Frankfurt am Main, Germany
| | - Philipp Mandel
- Department of Urology, University Hospital Frankfurt, Frankfurt am Main, Germany
| | - Felix K H Chun
- Department of Urology, University Hospital Frankfurt, Frankfurt am Main, Germany
| | - Pierre I Karakiewicz
- Cancer Prognostics and Health Outcomes Unit, Division of Urology, University of Montréal Health Center, Montréal, Québec, Canada
| |
Collapse
|
11
|
Wenzel M, Nocera L, Würnschimmel C, Collà Ruvolo C, Tian Z, Saad F, Briganti A, Tilki D, Graefen M, Becker A, Roos FC, Chun FKH, Karakiewicz PI. The Effect of 10 Most Common Nonurological Primary Cancers on Survival in Men With Secondary Prostate Cancer. Front Oncol 2021; 11:754996. [PMID: 34692543 PMCID: PMC8526938 DOI: 10.3389/fonc.2021.754996] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 08/07/2021] [Accepted: 09/20/2021] [Indexed: 12/09/2022] Open
Abstract
Background This study aims to test the effect of the 10 most common nonurological primary cancers (skin, rectal, colon, lymphoma, leukemia, pancreas, stomach, esophagus, liver, lung) on overall mortality (OM) after secondary prostate cancer (PCa). Material and Methods Within the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER) database, patients with 10 most common primary cancers and concomitant secondary PCa (diagnosed 2004–2016) were identified and were matched in 1:4 fashion (age, year at diagnosis, race/ethnicity, treatment type, TNM stage) with primary PCa controls. OM was compared between secondary and primary PCa patients and was stratified according to primary cancer type, as well as according to time interval between primary cancer vs. secondary PCa diagnoses. Results We identified 24,848 secondary PCa patients (skin, n = 3,871; rectal, n = 798; colon, n = 3,665; lymphoma, n = 2,583; leukemia, n = 1,102; pancreatic, n = 118; stomach, n = 361; esophagus, n = 219; liver, n = 160; lung, n = 1,328) vs. 531,732 primary PCa patients. Secondary PCa characteristics were less favorable than those of primary PCa patients (PSA and grade), and smaller proportions of secondary PCa patients received active treatment. After 1:4 matching, all secondary PCa exhibited worse OM than primary PCa patients. Finally, subgroup analyses showed that the survival disadvantage of secondary PCa patients decreased with longer time interval since primary cancer diagnosis and subsequent secondary PCa. Conclusion Patients with secondary PCa are diagnosed with less favorable PSA and grade. Even after matching for PCa characteristics, secondary PCa patients still exhibit worse survival. However, the survival disadvantage is attenuated, when secondary PCa diagnosis is made after longer time interval, since primary cancer diagnosis.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Mike Wenzel
- Department of Urology, University Hospital Frankfurt, Frankfurt am Main, Germany.,Cancer Prognostics and Health Outcomes Unit, Division of Urology, University of Montréal Health Center, Montréal, QC, Canada
| | - Luigi Nocera
- Cancer Prognostics and Health Outcomes Unit, Division of Urology, University of Montréal Health Center, Montréal, QC, Canada.,Department of Urology and Division of Experimental Oncology, Urological Research Institute (URI), Istituto di Ricovero e Cura a Carattere Scientifico (IRCCS) San Raffaele Scientific Institute, Milan, Italy
| | - Christoph Würnschimmel
- Cancer Prognostics and Health Outcomes Unit, Division of Urology, University of Montréal Health Center, Montréal, QC, Canada.,Martini-Klinik Prostate Cancer Center, University Hospital Hamburg-Eppendorf, Hamburg, Germany
| | - Claudia Collà Ruvolo
- Cancer Prognostics and Health Outcomes Unit, Division of Urology, University of Montréal Health Center, Montréal, QC, Canada.,Department of Neurosciences, University of Naples Federico II Reproductive Sciences and Odontostomatology, Naples, Italy
| | - Zhe Tian
- Cancer Prognostics and Health Outcomes Unit, Division of Urology, University of Montréal Health Center, Montréal, QC, Canada
| | - Fred Saad
- Cancer Prognostics and Health Outcomes Unit, Division of Urology, University of Montréal Health Center, Montréal, QC, Canada
| | - Alberto Briganti
- Department of Urology and Division of Experimental Oncology, Urological Research Institute (URI), Istituto di Ricovero e Cura a Carattere Scientifico (IRCCS) San Raffaele Scientific Institute, Milan, Italy
| | - Derya Tilki
- Martini-Klinik Prostate Cancer Center, University Hospital Hamburg-Eppendorf, Hamburg, Germany.,Department of Urology, University Hospital Hamburg-Eppendorf, Hamburg, Germany
| | - Markus Graefen
- Martini-Klinik Prostate Cancer Center, University Hospital Hamburg-Eppendorf, Hamburg, Germany
| | - Andreas Becker
- Department of Urology, University Hospital Frankfurt, Frankfurt am Main, Germany
| | - Frederik C Roos
- Department of Urology, University Hospital Frankfurt, Frankfurt am Main, Germany
| | - Felix K H Chun
- Department of Urology, University Hospital Frankfurt, Frankfurt am Main, Germany
| | - Pierre I Karakiewicz
- Cancer Prognostics and Health Outcomes Unit, Division of Urology, University of Montréal Health Center, Montréal, QC, Canada
| |
Collapse
|
12
|
Würnschimmel C, Wenzel M, Chierigo F, Flammia RS, Mori K, Tian Z, Shariat SF, Saad F, Briganti A, Suardi N, Terrone C, Gallucci M, Chun FKH, Tilki D, Graefen M, Karakiewicz PI. Presence of biopsy Gleason pattern 5 + 3 is associated with higher mortality after radical prostatectomy but not after external beam radiotherapy compared to other Gleason Grade Group IV patterns. Prostate 2021; 81:778-784. [PMID: 34057220 DOI: 10.1002/pros.24175] [Citation(s) in RCA: 1] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.3] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 04/23/2021] [Revised: 05/12/2021] [Accepted: 05/20/2021] [Indexed: 12/27/2022]
Abstract
BACKGROUND We hypothesized that Gleason Grade Group (GGG) IV patients treated with radical prostatectomy (RP) or external beam radiotherapy (EBRT) exhibit different cancer-specific mortality (CSM) rates according to underlying Gleason patterns (GP): 4 + 4 versus 3 + 5 versus 5 + 3. MATERIALS AND METHODS We identified all GGG IV patients treated with either RP or EBRT within the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results 2004-2016 database. The effect of biopsy GP on CSM (3 + 5 vs. 4 + 4 vs. 5 + 3) was tested in Kaplan-Meier and multivariable competing risks regression models (adjusted for PSA, age at diagnosis, cT-, and cN-stage). RESULTS Of 26,458 GGG IV patients, 14,203 (53.7%) were treated with EBRT and 12,255 (46.3%) with RP. Of RP patients, 15.3 versus 81.2 versus 3.4% exhibited biopsy GP 3 + 5 versus 4 + 4 versus 5 + 3 and respective 10-year CSM rates were 6.5 versus 6.2 versus 12.6% (p < .001). In multivariable analyses addressing RP patients, GP 5 + 3 was associated with two-fold higher CSM rate than GP 4 + 4 (p < .001), but not GP 3 + 5 (p = .1). Of EBRT patients, 7.6 versus 89.8 versus 2.6% exhibited biopsy GP 3 + 5 versus 4 + 4 versus 5 + 3 and respective 10-year CSM rates were 12.2 versus 13.8 versus 17.8% (p < .001). In multivariable analyses addressing EBRT patients, no CSM differences according to GP were observed (all p ≥ .4). CONCLUSION In GGG IV RP candidates, the presence of biopsy GP 5 + 3 purports a significantly higher CSM than in GP 4 + 4 or 3 + 5. In GGG IV EBRT candidates, no significant CSM differences according to GP were recorded.
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, Québec, Canada
| | - Mike Wenzel
- Division of Urology, Cancer Prognostics and Health Outcomes Unit, University of Montréal Health Center, Montréal, Québec, Canada
- Department of Urology, University Hospital Frankfurt, Frankfurt am Main, Germany
| | - Francesco Chierigo
- Division of Urology, Cancer Prognostics and Health Outcomes Unit, University of Montréal Health Center, Montréal, Québec, Canada
- Department of Urology, Policlinico San Martino Hospital, University of Genova, Genova, Italy
| | - Rocco S Flammia
- Division of Urology, Cancer Prognostics and Health Outcomes Unit, University of Montréal Health Center, Montréal, Québec, Canada
- Department of Maternal-Child and Urological Sciences, Policlinico Umberto I Hospital, Sapienza Rome University, Rome, Italy
| | - Keiichiro Mori
- Department of Urology, Comprehensive Cancer Center, Medical University of Vienna, Vienna, Austria
- Department of Urology, The Jikei University School of Medicine, Tokyo, Japan
| | - Zhe Tian
- 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
- Departments of Urology, Weill Cornell Medical College, New York City, New York, USA
- Department of Urology, University of Texas Southwestern, Dallas, Texas, USA
- Department of Urology, Second Faculty of Medicine, Charles University, Prag, Czech Republic
- Institute for Urology and Reproductive Health, I. M. Sechenov First Moscow State Medical University, Moscow, Russia
- Division of Urology, Department of Special Surgery, Jordan University Hospital, The University of Jordan, Amman, Jordan
| | - Fred Saad
- Division of Urology, Cancer Prognostics and Health Outcomes Unit, University of Montréal Health Center, Montréal, Québec, Canada
| | - Alberto Briganti
- Division of Experimental Oncology, Department of Urology, Urological Research Institute, IRCCS San Raffaele Scientific Institute, Milan, Italy
| | - Nazareno Suardi
- Department of Urology, Policlinico San Martino Hospital, University of Genova, Genova, Italy
| | - Carlo Terrone
- Department of Urology, Policlinico San Martino Hospital, University of Genova, Genova, Italy
| | - Michele Gallucci
- Department of Maternal-Child and Urological Sciences, Policlinico Umberto I Hospital, Sapienza Rome University, Rome, Italy
| | - Felix K H Chun
- Department of Urology, University Hospital Frankfurt, Frankfurt am Main, Germany
| | - Derya Tilki
- Martini-Klinik Prostate Cancer Center, University Hospital Hamburg-Eppendorf, Hamburg, Germany
- Department of Urology, University Hospital Hamburg-Eppendorf, Hamburg, Germany
| | - Markus Graefen
- Martini-Klinik Prostate Cancer Center, University Hospital Hamburg-Eppendorf, Hamburg, Germany
| | - Pierre I Karakiewicz
- Division of Urology, Cancer Prognostics and Health Outcomes Unit, University of Montréal Health Center, Montréal, Québec, Canada
| |
Collapse
|
13
|
Wenzel M, Yu H, Uhlig A, Würnschimmel C, Wallbach M, Becker A, Fisch M, Chun FKH, Meyer CP, Leitsmann M. Cystatin C predicts renal function impairment after partial or radical tumor nephrectomy. Int Urol Nephrol 2021; 53:2041-2049. [PMID: 34269968 PMCID: PMC8463386 DOI: 10.1007/s11255-021-02957-w] [Citation(s) in RCA: 2] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.7] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 06/03/2021] [Accepted: 07/09/2021] [Indexed: 11/28/2022]
Abstract
Purpose To test the value of preoperative and postoperative cystatin C (CysC) as a predictor on kidney function after partial (PN) or radical nephrectomy (RN) in renal cell carcinoma (RCC) patients with normal preoperative renal function. Methods From 01/2011 to 12/2014, 195 consecutive RCC patients with a preoperative estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) > 60 ml/min/1.73m2 underwent surgical RCC treatment with either PN or RN. Logistic and linear regression models tested for the effect of CysC as a predictor of new-onset chronic kidney disease in follow-up (eGFR < 60 ml/min/1.73m2). Moreover, postoperative CysC and creatinine values were compared for kidney function estimation. Results Of 195 patients, 129 (66.2%) underwent PN. In postoperative and in follow-up setting (median 14 months, IQR 10–20), rates of eGFR < 60 ml/min/1.73m2 were 55.9 and 30.2%. In multivariable logistic regression models, preoperative CysC [odds ratio (OR): 18.3] and RN (OR: 13.5) were independent predictors for a reduced eGFR < 60 ml/min/1.73m2 in follow-up (both p < 0.01), while creatinine was not. In multivariable linear regression models, a difference of the preoperative CysC level of 0.1 mg/dl estimated an eGFR decline in follow-up of about 5.8 ml/min/1.73m2. Finally, we observed a plateau of postoperative creatinine values in the range of 1.2–1.3 mg/dl, when graphically depicted vs. postoperative CysC values (‘creatinine blind area’). Conclusion Preoperative CysC predicts renal function impairment following RCC surgery. Furthermore, CysC might be superior to creatinine for renal function monitoring in the early postoperative setting.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Mike Wenzel
- Department of Urology, University Hospital Frankfurt, Goethe University Frankfurt, Frankfurt, Germany. .,Cancer Prognostics and Health Outcomes Unit, Division of Urology, University of Montreal Health Center, Montreal, QC, Canada.
| | - Hang Yu
- Department of Urology, University Medical Center Hamburg-Eppendorf, Hamburg, Germany
| | - Annemarie Uhlig
- Department of Urology, University Medical Center Göttingen, Göttingen, Germany
| | - Christoph Würnschimmel
- Cancer Prognostics and Health Outcomes Unit, Division of Urology, University of Montreal Health Center, Montreal, QC, Canada.,Martini-Klinik Prostate Cancer Center, University Hospital Hamburg-Eppendorf, Hamburg, Germany
| | - Manuel Wallbach
- Department of Nephrology, University Medical Center Göttingen, Göttingen, Germany
| | - Andreas Becker
- Department of Urology, University Hospital Frankfurt, Goethe University Frankfurt, Frankfurt, Germany
| | - Margit Fisch
- Department of Urology, University Medical Center Hamburg-Eppendorf, Hamburg, Germany
| | - Felix K H Chun
- Department of Urology, University Hospital Frankfurt, Goethe University Frankfurt, Frankfurt, Germany
| | - Christian P Meyer
- Department of Urology, University Medical Center Hamburg-Eppendorf, Hamburg, Germany
| | - Marianne Leitsmann
- Department of Urology, University Medical Center Göttingen, Göttingen, Germany
| |
Collapse
|