Minimal impact of clinical stage on prostate cancer prognosis among contemporary patients with clinically localized disease

Clinical stage provides useful prognostic information even after pathological stage is known for prostate cancer in the PSA era

BACKGROUND

Pathological and clinical stage are associated with prostate cancer-specific survival after prostatectomy. With PSA screening, the post-surgery prognostic utility of clinical stage is debatable in studies seeking to identify new biomarkers. Few studies have investigated clinical stage and lethal prostate cancer association after accounting for pathological stage. We hypothesize that clinical stage provides prognostic information beyond pathological stage in the PSA era.

METHODS

Cox regression models tested associations between clinical and pathological stage and lethal prostate cancer among 3,064 participants from the Health Professionals Follow-Up Study and Physicians' Health Study (HPFS/PHS) who underwent prostatectomy. Likelihood ratio tests and c-statistics were used to assess the models' prognostic utility. Equivalent analyses were performed in 16,134 men who underwent prostatectomy at Johns Hopkins.

RESULTS

Independently, clinical and pathological stage were associated (p<0.0001 for both) with rate of lethal prostate cancer in HPFS/PHS. The model with clinical and pathological stage fit significantly better than the model with only pathological stage in all men (p = 0.01) and in men diagnosed during the PSA era (p = 0.04). The mutually adjusted model also improved discriminatory ability. In the Johns Hopkins cohort, the model with clinical and pathological stage improved discriminatory ability and fit significantly better overall (p<0.0001) and in the PSA era (p<0.0001).

CONCLUSIONS

Despite stage migration resulting from widespread PSA screening, clinical stage remains associated with progression to lethal prostate cancer independent of pathological stage. Future studies evaluating associations between new factors and poor outcome following prostatectomy should consider including both clinical and pathological stages since the data is already available.

Risk stratification for prostate cancer management: value of the Cambridge Prognostic Group classification for assessing treatment allocation

BACKGROUND

The five-tiered Cambridge Prognostic Group (CPG) classification is a better predictor of prostate cancer-specific mortality than the traditional three-tiered classification (low, intermediate, and high risk). We investigated radical treatment rates according to CPG in men diagnosed with non-metastatic prostate cancer in England between 2014 and 2017.

METHODS

Patients diagnosed with non-metastatic prostate cancer were identified from the National Prostate Cancer Audit database. Men were risk stratified according to the CPG classification. Risk ratios (RR) were estimated for undergoing radical treatment according to CPG and for receiving radiotherapy for those treated radically. Funnel plots were used to display variation in radical treatment rates across hospitals.

RESULTS

A total of 61,999 men were included with 10,963 (17.7%) in CPG1 (lowest risk group), 13,588 (21.9%) in CPG2, 9452 (15.2%) in CPG3, 12,831 (20.7%) in CPG4, and 15,165 (24.5%) in CPG5 (highest risk group). The proportion of men receiving radical treatment increased from 11.3% in CPG1 to 78.8% in CGP4, and 73.3% in CPG5. Men in CPG3 were more likely to receive radical treatment than men in CPG2 (66.3% versus 48.4%; adjusted RR 1.44; 95% CI 1.36-1.53; P < 0.001). Radically treated men in CPG3 were also more likely to receive radiotherapy than men in CPG2 (59.2% versus 43.9%; adjusted RR, 1.18; 95% CI 1.10-1.26). Although radical treatment rates were similar in CPG4 and CPG5 (78.8% versus 73.3%; adjusted RR 1.01; 95% CI 0.98-1.04), more men in CPG5 had radiotherapy than men in CPG4 (79.9% versus 59.1%, adjusted RR 1.26; 95% CI 1.12-1.40).

CONCLUSIONS

The CPG classification distributes men in five risk groups that are about equal in size. It reveals differences in treatment practices in men with intermediate-risk disease (CPG2 and CPG3) and in men with high-risk disease (CPG4 and CPGP5) that are not visible when using the traditional three-tiered risk classification.

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

BACKGROUND

We aimed to validate Decipher to predict adverse pathology (AP) at radical prostatectomy (RP) in men with National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN) favorable-intermediate risk (F-IR) prostate cancer (PCa), and to better select F-IR candidates for active surveillance (AS).

METHODS

In all, 647 patients diagnosed with NCCN very low/low risk (VL/LR) or F-IR prostate cancer were identified from a multi-institutional PCa biopsy database; all underwent RP with complete postoperative clinicopathological information and Decipher genomic risk scores. The performance of all risk assessment tools was evaluated using logistic regression model for the endpoint of AP, defined as grade group 3-5, pT3b or higher, or lymph node invasion.

RESULTS

The median age was 61 years (interquartile range 56-66) for 220 patients with NCCN F-IR disease, 53% classified as low-risk by Cancer of the Prostate Risk Assessment (CAPRA 0-2) and 47% as intermediate-risk (CAPRA 3-5). Decipher classified 79%, 13% and 8% of men as low-, intermediate- and high-risk with 13%, 10%, and 41% rate of AP, respectively. Decipher was an independent predictor of AP with an odds ratio of 1.34 per 0.1 unit increased (p value = 0.002) and remained significant when adjusting by CAPRA. Notably, F-IR with Decipher low or intermediate score did not associate with significantly higher odds of AP compared to VL/LR.

CONCLUSIONS

NCCN risk groups, including F-IR, are highly heterogeneous and should be replaced with multivariable risk-stratification. In particular, incorporating Decipher may be useful for safely expanding the use of AS in this patient population.

The GP Score, a Simplified Formula (Bioptic Gleason Score Times Prostate Specific Antigen) as a Predictor for Biochemical Failure after Prostatectomy in Prostate Cancer

Objectives

We used a new GP score (Gleason score multiplied by prostate-specific antigen) without the T stage as a predictive value for biochemical failure (BCF) after prostatectomy.

Materials and Methods

We assessed 459 prostate cancer patients who underwent prostatectomies at our institution. Three sub-groups were defined in terms of D'Amico classification risk (low, intermediate, and high) and Gleason score (low, < 50; intermediate, 50-100; and high GP score, > 100). Risk factors for BCF were evaluated by multivariate analysis with a Cox hazard model. A log-rank test was used to compare the BCF rate in the 2 groups.

Results

There was nosignificant difference in the non-BCF rate between the lowrisk and low GP score subgroups or the intermediate risk andintermediate GP score subgroups. In contrast, the non-BCFrate of the high GP score subgroup (42.1%) was significantlylower than that of the high-risk subgroup (66.1%, log-rankp = 0.008). Based on multivariate analysis, a high GP score(p = 0.001; HR 3.78; 95%CI 1.95-7.35) was a significant independent risk factor for BCF after prostatectomy.

Conclusion

The GP score, consisting of two absolute numbers, may be a valuable predictive factor for BCF after prostatectomy, especially in the high-risk failure group.

Interpolation to define clinical tumor stage in prostate cancer using clinical description of digital rectal examination

AIM

This study aims to assess characteristics of patients with prostate cancer for whom clinical T stage category (cT) was not documented in the medical record and assess whether specialists had concordant conclusions regarding cT based on digital rectal examination (DRE) notes.

METHODS

Data from the Prostate Cancer Outcome Registry - Victoria (PCOR-Vic) were interrogated. Four specialists independently assigned cT to DRE notes. Words, or part thereof, associated with agreement between clinicians were identified.

RESULTS

Of the 10 587 men, cT was documented in 8758 (82.7%) cases. Multivariate analysis indicated that poor cT documentation was associated with older patient age (odds ratio [OR] 0.80, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.66-0.99 if 75.1-85 years; OR 0.50, 95%CI 0.36-0.72 if >85 years); diagnosis via transperineal compared to transrectal ultrasound-guided biopsy (TRUS) (OR 0.68, 95%CI 0.51-0.91); diagnosed in a private hospital (OR 0.85, 95%CI 0.75-0.96); and a diagnostic Gleason score of >8 compared to ≤6 (OR 0.59, 95%CI = 0.48-0.73). cT was more likely documented in men diagnosed via transurethral resection of prostate (OR 2.06, 95%CI 1.64-2.58) compared to TRUS and/or if receiving treatment in a radiotherapy center (OR 3.44, 95%CI 2.80-4.23 for external beam radiotherapy; OR 3.57 95%CI 2.44-5.23 for brachytherapy and OR 1.34, 95%CI 1.06-1.69 for combination surgery and radiotherapy) compared to those undergoing radical prostatectomy. Agreement in cT assignment ranged from kappa of 0.158 to 0.582. Stem word components in DRE notes associated with poorest level of agreement were "abnorm," "hard," "nodul" and those with highest level of agreement were terms "benign" and "smooth."

CONCLUSIONS

Mode of diagnosis/subsequent treatment, and cancer characteristics were associated with cT documentation. Third party interpretation of clinical notes is problematic.

The Within-Group Discrimination Ability of the Cancer of the Prostate Risk Assessment Score for Men with Intermediate-Risk Prostate Cancer

BACKGROUND

Significant clinical heterogeneity within contemporary risk group is well known, particularly for those with intermediate-risk prostate cancer (IRPCa). Our study aimed to analyze the ability of the Cancer of the Prostate Risk Assessment (CAPRA) score to discern between favorable and non-favorable risk in patients with IRPCa.

METHODS

We retrospectively reviewed the data of 203 IRPCa patients who underwent extraperitoneal robot-assisted radical prostatectomy (RARP) performed by a single surgeon. Pathologic favorable IRPCa was defined as a Gleason score ≤ 6 and organ-confined stage at surgical pathology. The CAPRA score was compared with two established criteria for the within-group discrimination ability.

RESULTS

Overall, 38 patients (18.7% of the IRPCa cohort) had favorable pathologic features after RARP. The CAPRA score significantly correlated with established criteria I and II and was inversely associated with favorable pathology (all P < 0.001). The area under the receiver operating characteristic curve for the discriminative ability between favorable and non-favorable pathology was 0.679 for the CAPRA score and 0.610 and 0.661 for established criteria I and II, respectively. During a median 37.8 (interquartile range, 24.6-60.2) months of follow-up, 66 patients (32.5%) experienced biochemical recurrence (BCR). Cox regression analysis revealed that the CAPRA score, as a continuous sum score model or 3-group risk model, was an independent predictor of BCR after RARP.

CONCLUSION

The within-group discrimination ability of preoperative CAPRA score might help in patient counseling and selecting optimal treatments for those with IRPCa.

Tissue microarray analysis indicates hedgehog signaling as a potential prognostic factor in intermediate-risk prostate cancer

BACKGROUND

Prostate cancer (PCa) is a heterogeneous disease with a variable natural history, genetics, and treatment outcome. The Hedgehog (Hh) signaling pathway is increasingly recognized as being potentially important for the development and progression of PCa. In this retrospective study, we compared the activation status of the Hh signaling pathway between benign and tumor tissue, and evaluated the clinical significance of Hh signaling in PCa.

METHODS

In this tissue microarray (TMA) study, the protein expression of several Hh signaling components and Hh target proteins, along with microvessel density, were compared between benign (n = 64) and malignant (n = 170) prostate tissue, and correlated with PCa clinicopathological characteristics and biochemical recurrence (BCR).

RESULTS

The Hh signaling pathway appeared to be more active in PCa than in benign prostate tissue, as demonstrated by lower expression of the negative regulators PTCH1 and GLI3 in the tumor tissue compared to benign. In addition, high epithelial GLI2 expression correlated with higher pathological Gleason score. Overall, higher epithelial GLI3 expression in the tumor was shown to be an independent marker of a favorable prognosis.

CONCLUSION

Hh signaling activation might reflect aggressive tumoral behavior, since high epithelial GLI2 expression positively correlates with a higher pathological Gleason score. Moreover, higher epithelial GLI3 expression is an independent marker of a more favorable prognosis.

Improving Clinical Risk Stratification at Diagnosis in Primary Prostate Cancer: A Prognostic Modelling Study

INTRODUCTION

Over 80% of the nearly 1 million men diagnosed with prostate cancer annually worldwide present with localised or locally advanced non-metastatic disease. Risk stratification is the cornerstone for clinical decision making and treatment selection for these men. The most widely applied stratification systems use presenting prostate-specific antigen (PSA) concentration, biopsy Gleason grade, and clinical stage to classify patients as low, intermediate, or high risk. There is, however, significant heterogeneity in outcomes within these standard groupings. The International Society of Urological Pathology (ISUP) has recently adopted a prognosis-based pathological classification that has yet to be included within a risk stratification system. Here we developed and tested a new stratification system based on the number of individual risk factors and incorporating the new ISUP prognostic score.

METHODS AND FINDINGS

Diagnostic clinicopathological data from 10,139 men with non-metastatic prostate cancer were available for this study from the Public Health England National Cancer Registration Service Eastern Office. This cohort was divided into a training set (n = 6,026; 1,557 total deaths, with 462 from prostate cancer) and a testing set (n = 4,113; 1,053 total deaths, with 327 from prostate cancer). The median follow-up was 6.9 y, and the primary outcome measure was prostate-cancer-specific mortality (PCSM). An external validation cohort (n = 1,706) was also used. Patients were first categorised as low, intermediate, or high risk using the current three-stratum stratification system endorsed by the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) guidelines. The variables used to define the groups (PSA concentration, Gleason grading, and clinical stage) were then used to sub-stratify within each risk category by testing the individual and then combined number of risk factors. In addition, we incorporated the new ISUP prognostic score as a discriminator. Using this approach, a new five-stratum risk stratification system was produced, and its prognostic power was compared against the current system, with PCSM as the outcome. The results were analysed using a Cox hazards model, the log-rank test, Kaplan-Meier curves, competing-risks regression, and concordance indices. In the training set, the new risk stratification system identified distinct subgroups with different risks of PCSM in pair-wise comparison (p < 0.0001). Specifically, the new classification identified a very low-risk group (Group 1), a subgroup of intermediate-risk cancers with a low PCSM risk (Group 2, hazard ratio [HR] 1.62 [95% CI 0.96-2.75]), and a subgroup of intermediate-risk cancers with an increased PCSM risk (Group 3, HR 3.35 [95% CI 2.04-5.49]) (p < 0.0001). High-risk cancers were also sub-classified by the new system into subgroups with lower and higher PCSM risk: Group 4 (HR 5.03 [95% CI 3.25-7.80]) and Group 5 (HR 17.28 [95% CI 11.2-26.67]) (p < 0.0001), respectively. These results were recapitulated in the testing set and remained robust after inclusion of competing risks. In comparison to the current risk stratification system, the new system demonstrated improved prognostic performance, with a concordance index of 0.75 (95% CI 0.72-0.77) versus 0.69 (95% CI 0.66-0.71) (p < 0.0001). In an external cohort, the new system achieved a concordance index of 0.79 (95% CI 0.75-0.84) for predicting PCSM versus 0.66 (95% CI 0.63-0.69) (p < 0.0001) for the current NICE risk stratification system. The main limitations of the study were that it was registry based and that follow-up was relatively short.

CONCLUSIONS

A novel and simple five-stratum risk stratification system outperforms the standard three-stratum risk stratification system in predicting the risk of PCSM at diagnosis in men with primary non-metastatic prostate cancer, even when accounting for competing risks. This model also allows delineation of new clinically relevant subgroups of men who might potentially receive more appropriate therapy for their disease. Future research will seek to validate our results in external datasets and will explore the value of including additional variables in the system in order in improve prognostic performance.

Analysis of expanded criteria to select candidates for active surveillance of low-risk prostate cancer

We aimed to analyze the value of each criterion for clinically insignificant prostate cancer (PCa) in the selection of men for active surveillance (AS) of low-risk PCa. We identified 532 men who were treated with radical prostatectomy from 2006 to 2013 who met 4 or all 5 of the criteria for clinically insignificant PCa (clinical stage ≤ T1, prostate specific antigen [PSA] density ≤ 0.15, biopsy Gleason score ≤ 6, number of positive biopsy cores ≤ 2, and no core with > 50% involvement) and analyzed their pathologic and biochemical outcomes. Patients who met all 5 criteria for clinically insignificant PCa were designated as group A (n = 172), and those who met 4 of 5 criteria were designated as group B (n = 360). The association of each criterion with adverse pathologic features was assessed via logistic regression analyses. Comparison of group A and B and also logistic regression analyses showed that PSA density > 0.15 ng ml⁻¹ and high (≥7) biopsy Gleason score were associated with adverse pathologic features. Higher (> T1c) clinical stage was not associated with any adverse pathologic features. Although ≤ 3 positive cores were not associated with any adverse pathology, ≥4 positive cores were associated with higher risk of extracapsular extension. Among potential candidates for AS, PSA density > 0.15 ng ml⁻¹ and biopsy Gleason score > 6 pose significantly higher risks of harboring more aggressive disease. The eligibility criteria for AS may be expanded to include men with clinical stage T2 tumor and 3 positive cores.

Expectant management for men with early stage prostate cancer

Since the dissemination of prostate-specific antigen screening, most men with prostate cancer are now diagnosed with localized, low-risk prostate cancer that is unlikely to be lethal. Nevertheless, nearly all of these men undergo primary treatment with surgery or radiation, placing them at risk for longstanding side effects, including erectile dysfunction and impaired urinary function. Active surveillance and other observational strategies (ie, expectant management) have produced excellent long-term disease-specific survival and minimal morbidity for men with prostate cancer. Despite this, expectant management remains underused for men with localized prostate cancer. In this review, various approaches to the expectant management of men with prostate cancer are summarized, including watchful waiting and active surveillance strategies. Contemporary cancer-specific and health care quality-of-life outcomes are described for each of these approaches. Finally, contemporary patterns of use, potential disparities in care, and ongoing research and controversies surrounding expectant management of men with localized prostate cancer are discussed.

Is clinical stage T2c prostate cancer an intermediate- or high-risk disease?

BACKGROUND

Clinical stage T2c (cT2c) is an indeterminate factor in prostate cancer (PC) risk stratification. According to the D'Amico grouping and American Urological Association guidelines, cT2c is a high risk, whereas the National Comprehensive Cancer Network and the European Urological Association classify cT2c as an intermediate risk. This study assessed whether cT2c tumors without other high-risk factors (clinical stage T2c, not otherwise specified [cT2c-NOS]) behaved as an intermediate or high risk through an analysis of biochemical recurrence (BCR) after radical prostatectomy.

METHODS

Two thousand seven hundred fifty-nine men from the Shared Equal Access Regional Cancer Hospital (SEARCH) Database and 12,900 men from Johns Hopkins Hospital (JHH) from 1988-2011 and 1982-2012, respectively, were analyzed. Patients were grouped into low-risk (prostate-specific antigen [PSA] < 10 ng/mL, Gleason sum ≤ 6, and cT1-T2a), intermediate-risk (PSA = 10-20 ng/mL, Gleason sum = 7, or cT2b), and high-risk PC categories (PSA > 20 ng/mL, Gleason sum = 8-10, or cT3). Men with cT2c tumors who were not otherwise at high risk (ie, PSA< 20 ng/mL and Gleason sum < 8) were placed into a separate category termed cT2c-NOS. Associations between cT2c-NOS and intermediate- and high-risk patients and BCR were tested with the log-rank test and Cox proportional analysis models.

RESULTS

Ninety-nine men (4%) from SEARCH and 202 men (2%) from JHH had tumors classified as cT2c-NOS. The cT2c-NOS patients had a BCR risk similar to that of the intermediate-risk patients (SEARCH, P = .27; JHH, P = .23) but a significantly lower BCR risk in comparison with the high-risk patients (SEARCH, P < .001; JHH, P < .001). When they were specifically compared with intermediate- and high-risk patients, after adjustments for year and center, cT2c-NOS patients had outcomes comparable to those of intermediate-risk patients (SEARCH, P = .53; JHH, P = .54) but significantly better than those of high-risk patients (SEARCH, P = .003; JHH, P < .001).

CONCLUSIONS

Patients with cT2c disease without other high-risk features had outcomes similar to the outcomes of patients with intermediate-risk PC and significantly better than the outcomes of patients with high-risk PC. These findings suggest that men with cT2c disease should be considered to be at intermediate risk.

Seventh Joint Meeting of K-J-CaP and CaPSURE: extending the global initiative to improve prostate cancer management

This report summarizes the presentations and discussions that took place at the Seventh Joint Meeting of the Korea–Japan Study Group of Prostate Cancer (K-J-CaP) and the Cancer of the Prostate Strategic Urologic Research Endeavor (CaPSURE) held in Seoul, Korea, in September 2013. The original J-CaP and CaPSURE Joint Initiative has now been established since 2007 and since the initial collaboration between research teams in the United States (US) and Japan, the project has expanded to include several other Asian countries. The objective of the initiative is to analyze and compare data for prostate cancer patients in the participating countries, looking at similarities and differences in patient management and outcomes. Until now the focus has been primarily on data generated within J-CaP and CaPSURE, both large-scale, longitudinal, observational databases of prostate cancer patients in Japan and the US, respectively. This year’s meeting was hosted for the first time in Korea which has recently established its own national database–K-CaP–to add to the wealth of data generated by J-CaP and CaPSURE. As a newly-developed database, K-CaP has also provided a valuable ‘template’ for other countries, such as China and Indonesia, planning to establish their own national databases and this will ultimately allow greater opportunities for international data comparisons. A range of topics was discussed at this Seventh Joint Meeting including comparison of outcomes following androgen deprivation therapy or radical prostatectomy in patients with localized prostate cancer, the use of active surveillance as a treatment option and the triggers for intervention when employing this regimen, patient quality of life during treatment, the impact of comorbidities on outcomes, and a comparison of recent outcomes data between J-CaP and CaPSURE. The participants recognized that prostate cancer was now a global disease and therefore major insights into understanding and improving the management of this condition would arise from global interactions such as this joint initiative.

Expanded criteria to identify men eligible for active surveillance of low risk prostate cancer at Johns Hopkins: a preliminary analysis

PURPOSE

At our institution the eligibility criteria used to enroll patients in active surveillance are clinical stage T1, prostate specific antigen density less than 0.15 ng/ml, biopsy Gleason score 6 or less, 2 or fewer positive biopsy cores and 50% or less involvement of any biopsy core. We hypothesized that these criteria may be excessively strict, precluding many men from active surveillance.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

We studied pathological outcomes in men treated with radical prostatectomy between 1995 and 2012 who met 4 or more of the 5 active surveillance criteria. Outcomes included a definition of significant tumor (pathological Gleason 7 or greater, or nonorgan confined). We compared adverse pathology rates between men who met all 5 vs 4 of 5 active surveillance criteria.

RESULTS

Of 8,261 men 1,890 (22.9%) met all active surveillance eligibility criteria and 2,133 (25.8%) met 4. Men with values exceeding prostate specific antigen density and biopsy Gleason criteria were at increased risk for adverse pathological outcomes. Clinical stage greater than T1 was not associated with adverse pathological findings. The risk of significant tumors in men with clinical stage T2 lesions, 3 or fewer positive biopsy cores and less than 60% core involvement was comparable to that of men who met all active surveillance criteria.

CONCLUSIONS

Prostate specific antigen density greater than 0.15 ng/ml and biopsy Gleason score 7 or greater are strongly associated with adverse pathological findings at radical prostatectomy. Our findings suggest that active surveillance criteria should be expanded to include men with clinical stage T2 lesions and a greater number of positive biopsy cores of low grade. Based on these preliminary findings, we are in the process of reassessing active surveillance eligibility criteria using more detailed pathological analysis.

The Prostate Cancer Registry: monitoring patterns and quality of care for men diagnosed with prostate cancer

OBJECTIVE

To establish a pilot population-based clinical registry with the aim of monitoring the quality of care provided to men diagnosed with prostate cancer.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

All men aged >18 years from the contributing hospitals in Victoria, Australia, who have a diagnosis of prostate cancer confirmed by histopathology report notified to the Victorian Cancer Registry are eligible for inclusion in the Prostate Cancer Registry (PCR). A literature review was undertaken aiming to identify existing quality indicators and source evidence-based guidelines from both Australia and internationally.

RESULTS

A Steering Committee was established to determine the minimum dataset, select quality indicators to be reported back to clinicians, identify the most effective recruitment strategy, and provide a governance structure for data requests; collection, analysis and reporting of data; and managing outliers. A minimum dataset comprising 72 data items is collected by the PCR, enabling ten quality indicators to be collected and reported. Outcome measures are risk adjusted according to the established National Comprehensive Cancer Network and Cancer of the Prostate Risk Assessment Score (surgery only) risk stratification model. Recruitment to the PCR occurs concurrently with mandatory notification to the state-based Cancer Registry. The PCR adopts an opt-out consent process to maximize recruitment. The data collection approach is standardized, using a hybrid of data linkage and manual collection, and data collection forms are electronically scanned into the PCR. A data access policy and escalation policy for mortality outliers has been developed.

CONCLUSIONS

The PCR provides potential for high-quality population-based data to be collected and managed within a clinician-led governance framework. This approach satisfies the requirement for health services to establish quality assessment, at the same time as providing clinically credible data to clinicians to drive practice improvement.

Contemporary evaluation of the National Comprehensive Cancer Network prostate cancer risk classification system

OBJECTIVE

To analyze the National Comprehensive Cancer Network prostate cancer guidelines pretreatment risk groups in a contemporary series of patients treated with radical prostatectomy.

METHODS

We analyzed our institutional radical prostatectomy database, including all patients with clinically localized disease treated from 2000 to 2010. Using the National Comprehensive Cancer Network guidelines, the patients were classified into low-, intermediate-, or high-risk groups. The pathologic outcomes were assessed, and the biochemical recurrence (BCR)-free survival rates were calculated and compared using the log-rank test and Cox proportional hazards analysis.

RESULTS

A total of 12 821 men met the inclusion criteria. The pathologic and 10-year BCR-free survival rates differed significantly by risk group (low risk, 92.1%; intermediate risk, 71.0%; and high risk, 38.8%; P < .01). Among the intermediate-risk men, the 10-year BCR-free survival was significantly greater for men assigned to the intermediate-risk group by clinical stage (88.8%) than for those deemed intermediate risk by the Gleason score (73.6%) or prostate-specific antigen (PSA) level (79.5%; P = .01). Likewise, in the high-risk men, a trend was seen toward improved 5-year BCR-free survival for patients with clinical stage T3a tumors (77.8%) compared with those considered high risk because of the Gleason score (53.7%) or PSA level (41.0%; P = .13). On multivariate analysis, clinical stage, Gleason score, and PSA level were all significantly associated with BCR.

CONCLUSION

We observed heterogeneous outcomes among patients within the National Comprehensive Cancer Network intermediate- and high-risk groups. The BCR-free survival rates were superior for men with an advanced clinical stage compared with those with an advanced Gleason score or elevated PSA level. This within-group heterogeneity must be considered when choosing the treatment modality and predicting an individual patient's prognosis.

Prognostic factors for the development of biochemical recurrence after radical prostatectomy

Prostate cancer is one of the most common cancers in Western countries and is associated with a considerable risk of mortality. Biochemical recurrence following radical prostatectomy is a relatively common finding, affecting approximately 25% of cases. The aim of our paper was to identify factors that can predict the occurrence of biochemical recurrence, so the patient can be properly counselled pre- and postoperatively. Medline review of the literatures was done followed by a group discussion on the chosen publications and their valuable influence. Preoperative serum total PSA and clinical stage, together with prostatectomy Gleason grade, tumour volume, and perineural and vascular invasions, were the most important variables found to influence outcome.

High-risk prostate cancer: the role of radical prostatectomy for local therapy

The management of high-risk prostate cancer can pose a unique challenge to the urologic oncologist. High-risk prostate cancer remains a real entity, especially in the inner-city urban population centers with high-risk ethnic groups. Although the role of radical prostatectomy is well defined for localized, low-to-intermediate-risk prostate cancer, its role in high-risk disease is more controversial. This is compounded by a lack of a universally accepted definition for ‘high-risk’ disease and the stage migration that has occurred in prostate cancer in the PSA era, rendering some historical perspectives less relevant. However, what has been accepted is the role of multimodal therapy in the management of this challenging group of patients. This article offers the reader an up-to-date detailed review of this topic, with specific emphasis on the role of radical prostatectomy in this clinical setting, including surgical considerations and outcomes. The advantages in terms of accurate pathologic staging with radical prostatectomy are presented. The role of robotic radical prostatectomy, which is increasingly utilized in the USA for the surgical treatment of prostate cancer in this clinical scenario, is discussed. In addition, we address the shortcomings of adequate clinical staging in this group of patients and discuss advances in imaging that might improve our capabilities in the future.

Inaccuracies in assignment of clinical stage for localized prostate cancer

BACKGROUND

Recent data have suggested that clinical T stage is not independently associated with biochemical recurrence of localized prostate cancer after radical prostatectomy. One explanation for this lack of predictive power may be the inaccurate application of staging criteria.

METHODS

Data from men in the Cancer of the Prostate Strategic Urologic Research Endeavor (CaPSURE) database with localized prostate cancer (clinical T1-T2) were analyzed. Correct stage was determined by digital rectal examination (DRE) and transrectal ultrasound (TRUS) findings and was compared with the clinical stage reported directly by the practitioner. DRE/TRUS findings and biopsy results were evaluated to determine factors influencing staging errors. The ability of corrected stage to predict biochemical disease recurrence after prostatectomy was assessed using multivariable analysis.

RESULTS

Clinical stage was assigned incorrectly in 1370 of 3875 men (35.4%). Errors more commonly resulted in patient downstaging than upstaging (55.1% vs 44.9%; P < .001). Patients with TRUS lesions were more likely to be staged incorrectly than those with abnormal DRE findings (65.8% vs 38.2%; P < .001). Biopsy laterality was found to strongly influence stage assignment. Even after correction of staging errors, there was no association noted between clinical stage and biochemical disease recurrence after radical prostatectomy.

CONCLUSIONS

Errors in applying clinical staging criteria for localized prostate cancer are common. TRUS findings are frequently disregarded, and practitioners incorrectly incorporate biopsy results when assigning stage. However, staging errors do not appear to account for the inconsistent reliability of clinical stage in predicting prostate cancer outcomes. These findings further challenge the utility of a DRE-based and/or TRUS-based staging system for risk assessment of localized prostate cancer.