Independent Validation of the American Joint Committee on Cancer 8th Edition Prostate Cancer Staging Classification

Emerging Role of Nuclear Medicine in Prostate Cancer: Current State and Future Perspectives

Prostate cancer is the most frequent epithelial neoplasia after skin cancer in men starting from 50 years and prostate-specific antigen (PSA) dosage can be used as an early screening tool. Prostate cancer imaging includes several radiological modalities, ranging from ultrasonography, computed tomography (CT), and magnetic resonance to nuclear medicine hybrid techniques such as single-photon emission computed tomography (SPECT)/CT and positron emission tomography (PET)/CT. Innovation in radiopharmaceutical compounds has introduced specific tracers with diagnostic and therapeutic indications, opening the horizons to targeted and very effective clinical care for patients with prostate cancer. The aim of the present review is to illustrate the current knowledge and future perspectives of nuclear medicine, including stand-alone diagnostic techniques and theragnostic approaches, in the clinical management of patients with prostate cancer from initial staging to advanced disease.

Analysis of the surgical approach in prostate cancer staging: results from the surveillance, epidemiology and end results program

Surgery is not used as a criterion for staging prostate cancer, although there is evidence that the number of analyzed and affected lymph nodes have prognosis value. The aim of this study was to determine whether there are significant differences in staging criteria in patients who underwent prostatectomy compared to those who did not, and whether the number of affected and analyzed lymph nodes (LN) plays a prognostic role. In this retrospective study, a test cohort consisting of 404,210 newly diagnosed men with prostate cancer, between 2004 and 2010, was obtained from the 17 registries (Nov 2021 submission); a validation consisting of 147,719 newly diagnosed men with prostate cancer between 2004 and 2019 was obtained from the 8 registries (Nov 2021 submission). Prostate cancer-specific survival was analyzed by Kaplan-Meier curves, survival tables and Cox regression; overall survival was analyzed only to compare Harrell's C-index between different staging criteria. In initial analyses, it was observed that the prognostic value of lymph node metastasis changes according to the type of staging (clinical or pathological), which is linked to the surgical approach (prostatectomy). Compared with T4/N0/M0 patients, which are also classified as stage IVA, N1/M0 patients had a shorter [adjusted HR: 1.767 (1429-2184), p < 0.0005] and a longer [adjusted HR: 0.832 (0.740-0.935), p = 0.002] specific survival when submitted to prostatectomy or not, respectively. Analyzing separately the patients who were submitted to prostatectomy and those who were not, it was possible to obtain new LN metastasis classifications (N1: 1 + LN; N2: 2 + LNs; N3: > 2 + LNs). This new (pathological) classification of N allowed the reclassification of patients based on T and Gleason grade groups, mainly those with T3 and T4 disease. In the validation group, this new staging criterion was proven to be superior [specific survival C-index: 0.908 (0.906-0.911); overall survival C-index: 0.788 (0.786-0.791)] compared to that currently used by the AJCC [8th edition; specific survival C-index: 0.892 (0.889-0.895); overall survival C-index: 0.744 (0.741-0.747)]. In addition, an adequate number of dissected lymph nodes results in a 39% reduction in death risk [adjusted HR: 0.610 (0.498-0.747), p < 0.0005]. As main conclusion, the surgery has a major impact on prostate cancer staging, mainly modifying the effect of N on survival, and enabling the stratification of pathological N according to the number of affected LN. Such a factor, when considered as staging criteria, improves the prognosis classification.

Radiomic-based machine learning model for the accurate prediction of prostate cancer risk stratification

OBJECTIVES

To precisely predict prostate cancer (PCa) risk stratification, we constructed a machine learning (ML) model based on magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) radiomic features.

METHODS

Between August 2016 and May 2021, patients with histologically proven PCa who underwent pre-operative MRI and prostate-specific antigen screening were included. The patients were grouped into different risk categories as defined by the European Association of Urology-European Association of Nuclear Medicine-European Society for Radiotherapy and Oncology-European Society of Urogenital Radiology-International Society of Geriatric Oncology guidelines. Using Artificial Intelligence Kit software, PCa regions of interest were delineated and radiomic features were extracted. Subsequently, predictable models were built by utilising five traditional ML approaches: support vector machine, logistic regression, gradient boosting decision tree, k-nearest neighbour and random forest (RF) classifiers. The classification capacity of the developed models was assessed by area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC) analysis.

RESULTS

A total of 213 patients were enrolled, including 16 low-risk, 65 intermediate-risk, and 132 high-risk PCa patients. The risk stratification of PCa could be revealed by MRI radiomic features, and second-order features accounted for most of the selected features. Among the five established ML models, the RF model showed the best overall predictive performance (AUC = 0.87). After further analysis of the subgroups based on the RF model, the prediction of the high-risk group was the best (AUC = 0.89).

CONCLUSION

This study demonstrated that the MR radiomics-based ML method could be a promising tool for predicting PCa risk stratification precisely.

ADVANCES IN KNOWLEDGE

The ML models have valuable prospect for accurate PCa risk assessment, which might contribute to customize treatment and surveillance strategies.

Perioperative Morbidity of Radical Prostatectomy After Intensive Neoadjuvant Androgen Blockade in Men With High-Risk Prostate Cancer: Results of Phase II Trial Compared to a Control Group

INTRODUCTION

Recent studies about intense neoadjuvant therapy followed by Radical Prostatectomy (RP) lack standardized criteria regarding surgical complications and comparison to a group of patients who underwent RP without the use of neoadjuvant therapy. The aim of this study is to describe and compare the perioperative complication rates.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

This was a prospective, single-center phase II trial in patients with high-risk prostate cancer (HRPCa). The control group included HRPCa patients who underwent RP outside the clinical trial during the same study recruitment period. The interventional group was randomized (1:1) to receive neoadjuvant androgen deprivation therapy plus abiraterone with or without apalutamide followed by RP. Complications observed up to 30 days of surgery were classified based on the Clavien-Dindo classification. Uni- and multivariate analyses were carried out to assess predictive factors associated with perioperative complications.

RESULTS

In total, 124 patients with HRPCa were underwent to RP between May 27, 2019 and August 6, 2021, including 61 patients in the intervention group and 63 patients in the control group. The general and major complications in the intervention group reached 29.6% and 6.6%, respectively, and 39.7% and 7.9% in the control group, respectively. There was no significant difference between groups. We observed 4.9% of thromboembolic event in the neoadjuvant group.

CONCLUSIONS

There was no significant increase in morbidity rate in RP after intense neoadjuvant therapy. The association of intense androgen deprivation neoadjuvant therapy with RP and extended pelvic lymphadenectomy may increase the risk of a perioperative thromboembolic events.

Modified the 8th AJCC staging system for patients with advanced prostate cancer: a study based on SEER database

Background

The American Joint Committee on Cancer (AJCC) 8th staging system of prostate cancer may be insufficient in predicting the prognosis of some staged patients. This study aimed to modify the AJCC 8th staging system in patients with advanced prostate cancer.

Methods

Data of patients with advanced prostate cancer from the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER) database between 2004 and 2016 were enrolled in this cohort study. All patients were divided into the training set and the testing set with a ratio of 6:4. Multivariate Cox survival model was utilized to obtain the nomogram score for each stage variable. The modified staging system was based on the total nomogram score. The C-index and Kaplan-Meier (K-M) curves were used to show the prognostic prediction effect of patients with different staging systems.

Results

A total of 28,006 patients were included for analysis. T stage, N stage, M stage, primary Gleason pattern score, secondary Gleason pattern score, and PSA level were included as stage variables. Patients with AJCC stage III C [hazard ratio (HR) = 4.17, 95% confidence interval (CI), 3.39–5.13] and AJCC stage IV B (HR = 3.19, 95%CI, 1.79–5.69) were associated with worse prognosis compared with those of AJCC stage III B, while no statistical significance was found in patients with stage IV A (P > 0.05). In terms of the modified staging system, patients with modified stage III C (HR = 2.06, 95%CI, 1.46–2.92), modified stage IV A (HR = 6.91, 95%CI, 4.81–9.94), and modified stage IV B (HR = 21.89, 95%CI, 14.76–32.46) were associated with a poorer prognosis compared with patients with modified stage III B. The prognostic ability (C-index) of the modified staging system (0.789; 95%CI, 0.777–0.801) was better than that of the AJCC 8th edition system (0.762; 95%CI, 0.748–0.776) (0.789 vs. 0.762, P = 0.004). The K-M curves indicated that the modified staging system may be distinguished prognostic differences in patients with different stages.

Conclusion

Modified staging system may be better than AJCC 8th staging system for predicting prognosis in prostate cancer patients. The AJCC 8th staging system should be further optimized.

Prostate cancer incidence and survival in relation to prostate cancer as second cancer in relatives

Objectives

To investigate if the risk of prostate cancer (PC) differs based on the order of primary PC diagnosed in first‐degree relatives (FDRs) given possibly different risk factors for PC as first primary cancer (PCa‐1) and second primary cancer (PCa‐2).

Subjects and Methods

In this Swedish nationwide cohort, PC diagnosis was followed for among 149,985 men with one FDR affected by PCa‐1, 10,972 with one FDR affected by PCa‐2 and 2,896,561 without any FDRs affected by cancer in a maximum of 57 years. PC patients were further followed for death due to PC since diagnosis. Relative risk (RR) of PC was estimated with Poisson regression and hazard ratio (HR) with Cox proportional hazard model.

Results

Compared to men without any FDRs affected by cancer, the RRs of PC in men with one FDR affected by PCa‐1 and PCa‐2 were 2.12 (95% confidence interval [CI]: 2.07–2.17) and 1.69 (1.54–1.85), respectively. The risk in men with one FDR affected by PCa‐2 was significantly lower than those with one FDR affected by PCa‐1 after additionally adjusting for family relationship (father‐son and brothers) and age at diagnosis of PC in FDR (RR _{PCa‐2 vs PCa‐1}, 0.85, 95% CI, 0.78–0.94). PC patients with a family history of PCa‐2 were more likely to be detected at late‐stage and less likely to be diagnosed by screening, compared to those with a family history of PCa‐1. Patients whose PC was diagnosed after the diagnosis of PCa‐1 in FDRs had a better survival than those without a family history of cancer (HR, 0.88, 95% CI, 0.80–0.97), but no such association was observed among patients with a family history of PCa‐2.

Conclusion

Our study indicates a discrepancy between PC risks associated with a family history of PCa‐1 and PC‐2 and the reason behind it may be multifactorial.

PSMA-ligand uptake can serve as a novel biomarker in primary prostate cancer to predict outcome after radical prostatectomy

Background

The prostate-specific membrane antigen (PSMA) is a relevant target in prostate cancer, and immunohistochemistry studies showed associations with outcome. PSMA-ligand positron emission tomography (PET) is increasingly used for primary prostate cancer staging, and the molecular imaging TNM classification (miTNM) standardizes its reporting. We aimed to investigate the potential of PET-imaging to serve as a noninvasive imaging biomarker to predict disease outcome in primary prostate cancer after radical prostatectomy (RP).

Methods

In this retrospective analysis, 186 primary prostate cancer patients treated with RP who had undergone a ⁶⁸Ga-PSMA-11 PET up to three months prior to the surgery were included. Maximum standardized uptake value (SUV_max), SUV_mean, tumor volume (TV) and total lesion (TL) were collected from PET-imaging. Moreover, clinicopathological information, including age, serum prostate-specific antigen (PSA) level, and pathological characteristics, was assessed for disease outcome prediction. A stage group system for PET-imaging findings based on the miTNM framework was developed.

Results

At a median follow-up after RP of 38 months (interquartile range (IQR) 22–53), biochemical recurrence (BCR) was observed in 58 patients during the follow-up period. A significant association between a positive surgical margin and miN status (miN1 vs. miN0, odds ratio (OR): 5.428, p = 0.004) was detected. miT status (miT ≥ 3a vs. miT < 3, OR: 2.696, p = 0.003) was identified as an independent predictor for Gleason score (GS) ≥ 8. Multivariate Cox regression analysis indicated that PSA level (hazard ratio (HR): 1.024, p = 0.014), advanced GS (GS ≥ 8 vs. GS < 8, HR: 3.253, p < 0.001) and miT status (miT ≥ 3a vs. miT < 3, HR: 1.941, p = 0.035) were independent predictors for BCR. For stage I disease as determined by PET-imaging, a shorter BCR-free survival was observed in the patients with higher SUV_max (IA vs. IB stage, log-rank, p = 0.022).

Conclusion

Preoperative miTNM classification from ⁶⁸Ga-PSMA-11 PET correlates with postoperative GS, surgical margin status and time to BCR. The association between miTNM staging and outcome proposes ⁶⁸Ga-PSMA-11 PET as a novel non-invasive imaging biomarker and potentially serves for ancillary pre-treatment stratification.

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s13550-021-00818-2.

Transcriptome sequencing and multi-plex imaging of prostate cancer microenvironment reveals a dominant role for monocytic cells in progression

BACKGROUND

Prostate cancer is caused by genomic aberrations in normal epithelial cells, however clinical translation of findings from analyses of cancer cells alone has been very limited. A deeper understanding of the tumour microenvironment is needed to identify the key drivers of disease progression and reveal novel therapeutic opportunities.

RESULTS

In this study, the experimental enrichment of selected cell-types, the development of a Bayesian inference model for continuous differential transcript abundance, and multiplex immunohistochemistry permitted us to define the transcriptional landscape of the prostate cancer microenvironment along the disease progression axis. An important role of monocytes and macrophages in prostate cancer progression and disease recurrence was uncovered, supported by both transcriptional landscape findings and by differential tissue composition analyses. These findings were corroborated and validated by spatial analyses at the single-cell level using multiplex immunohistochemistry.

CONCLUSIONS

This study advances our knowledge concerning the role of monocyte-derived recruitment in primary prostate cancer, and supports their key role in disease progression, patient survival and prostate microenvironment immune modulation.

Impact of Pathogenic Germline DNA Damage Repair alterations on Response to Intense Neoadjuvant Androgen Deprivation Therapy in High-risk Localized Prostate Cancer

BACKGROUND

Intense neoadjuvant androgen deprivation therapy (ADT) before radical prostatectomy (RP) is an investigational approach to reduce recurrence rates in men with high-risk localized prostate cancer (PCa). The impact of germline DNA damage repair (gDDR) gene alterations on response to intense neoadjuvant ADT is not known.

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate the prevalence of gDDR alterations among men with localized PCa at high risk of recurrence and evaluate their impact on response to intense neoadjuvant ADT.

DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS

We performed germline panel sequencing for 201 men with intermediate- and high-risk localized PCa from five randomized multicenter clinical trials of intense neoadjuvant ADT before RP.

INTERVENTION

Intense neoadjuvant ADT followed by RP.

OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS AND STATISTICAL ANALYSIS

The prevalence of pathogenic gDDR alterations and their association with exceptional pathologic response (complete response or minimal residual disease, defined as residual tumor with the largest cross-section dimension ≤5 mm) to intense neoadjuvant ADT and rates of post-RP biochemical recurrence.

RESULTS AND LIMITATIONS

Pathogenic gDDR alterations were detected in 19 (9.5%) of the 201 PCa patients. The most frequently altered genes were BRCA2 (n = 6; 3.0%) and ATM (n = 4; 2.0%). Patients with gDDR alterations exhibited similar rates of exceptional pathologic response (26% vs 22%), pT3 disease (42% vs 53%), lymph node involvement (5.3% vs 10%), extraprostatic extension (35% vs 54%), and positive margins (5.3% vs 13%) to patients without gDDR alterations (all p > 0.05). The 3-yr biochemical recurrence-free survival was also similar at 45% (95% confidence interval 7.9-78%) for men with gDDR alterations and 55% (95% confidence interval 44-64%) for men without gDDR alterations.

CONCLUSIONS

gDDR alterations are common among men with intermediate- and high-risk localized PCa. Men with gDDR alterations appear to have a comparable response to intense neoadjuvant ADT to that among men without gDDR alterations and should not be excluded from consideration for this treatment approach.

PATIENT SUMMARY

Intense therapy to inhibit the production of androgen hormones (eg, testosterone) before surgery may minimize the risk of cancer recurrence for men with high-risk localized prostate cancer. Inherited mutations in certain DNA repair genes are associated with particularly high rates of recurrence. We found that men with these mutations respond equally well to this intense androgen inhibition before surgery as men without the mutations.

Updates in Staging and Reporting of Genitourinary Malignancies

CONTEXT.—

The 8th edition of the American Joint Committee on Cancer (AJCC) staging manual changed the tumor, node, metastasis (TNM) classification systems of genitourinary malignancies in 2017. However, some of the changes appear not well appreciated or recognized by practicing pathologists.

OBJECTIVE.—

To review the major changes compared with the 7th edition in cancers of the prostate, penis, testis, bladder, urethra, renal pelvis/ureter, and kidney and discuss the challenges that pathologists may encounter.

DATA SOURCES.—

Peer-reviewed publications and the 8th and 7th editions of the AJCC Cancer Staging Manual.

CONCLUSIONS.—

This article summarizes the updated staging of genitourinary malignancies, specifically highlighting changes from the 7th edition that are relevant to the pathologic staging system. Pathologists should be aware of the updates made in hopes of providing clarification and the remaining diagnostic challenges associated with these changes.

Validation of the updated eighth edition of AJCC for prostate cancer: Removal of pT2 substages - Does extent of tumor involvement matter?

BACKGROUND

Updates in the eighth edition of the AJCC prostate cancer staging manual include removal of the organ-confined (pT2) substages.

METHODS

Retrospective analyses of 12,028 pT2 patients that underwent radical prostatectomy between 2003 and 2016 and did not receive neo- or adjuvant treatments. Kaplan-Meier curves as well as multivariable Cox-regression analyses compared biochemical recurrence (BCR), metastatic progression (MP) and overall mortality (OM) between the 3 subcategories (pT2a, pT2b and pT2c).

RESULTS

After surgery, 1,441 patients were classified as pT2a, 126 as pT2b and 10.495 as pT2c. Five-year BFS rates for pT2a, pT2b and pT2c were 92.0% vs. 97.4% vs. 88.0%. For the same groups, 5-year MP-FS rates were 99.5% vs. 100% vs. 99.0% and 5-year OS rates were 98.0% vs. 98.2% vs. 97.7%. In multivariable analyses pT2 substratification did not reach independent predictor status for biochemical recurrence, MP or overall mortality.

CONCLUSIONS

Substratification of pT2 prostate cancer was not predictive for further disease progression. Therefore, removing the substages simplifies the staging system without loss of important information.

In Organ-confined Prostate Cancer, Tumor Quantitation Not Found to Aid in Prediction of Biochemical Recurrence

In the eighth edition AJCC staging, all organ-confined disease is assigned pathologic stage T2, without subclassification. We investigated whether total tumor volume (TTV) and/or maximum tumor diameter (MTD) of the index lesion are useful in improving prediction of biochemical recurrence (BCR) in pT2 patients. We identified 1657 patients with digital tumor maps and quantification of TTV/MTD who had pT2 disease on radical prostatectomy (RP). Multivariable Cox regression models were used to assess whether TTV and/or MTD are independent predictors of BCR when adjusting for a base model incorporating age, preoperative prostate-specific antigen, RP grade group, and surgical margin status. If either tumor quantification added significantly, we calculated and reported the c-index. Ninety-five patients experienced BCR after RP; median follow-up for patients without BCR was 5.7 years. The c-index was 0.737 for the base model. Although there was some evidence of an association between TTV and BCR (P=0.088), this did not meet conventional levels of statistical significance and only provided a limited increase in discrimination (0.743; c-index improvement: 0.006). MTD was not associated with BCR (P>0.9). In analyses excluding patients with grade group 1 on biopsy who would be less likely to undergo RP in contemporary practice (622 patients; 59 with BCR), TTV/MTD was not a statistically significant predictor (P=0.4 and 0.8, respectively). Without evidence that tumor quantitation, in the form of either TTV or MTD of the index lesion, is useful for the prediction of BCR in pT2 prostate cancer, we cannot recommend its routine reporting.

Prostate cancer pathology: What has changed in the last 5 years

Prostate cancer is the most frequent non-cutaneous malignancy in men in the United States. In the last few years, many recommendations have been made available from the 2014 International Society of Urologic Pathology consensus conference, 2016 World Health Organization blue book and 2018 8th edition of American Joint Committee on Cancer Staging System. Here, we focus on four topics which are considered relevant on the basis of their common appearance in routine practice, clinical importance and 'need to improve communication between pathology reports and clinicians': prostate cancer classification, prostate cancer grading, prostate cancer staging, and current definition of clinically significant prostate cancer. Tissue biomarkers that can predict significant disease and/or upgrading and tissue-based genomics for the purpose of diagnosis and prognosis are mentioned briefly.

The updated points of TNM classification of urological cancers in the 8th edition of AJCC and UICC

The Tumor-Node-Metastasis (TNM) staging system, jointly developed by the American Joint Commission on Cancer (AJCC) and the Union for International Cancer Control (UICC), is widely employed in clinical practice and research on patients with cancer. The definitions of TNM classification have recently been changed, improving patient stratification for management and prognosis. As the feature of new editions, biomarkers which are necessary for the stratification of patients are included to adapt for personalized medicine. Although it would be ideal for the AJCC and UICC have identical TNM staging systems, there are some differences between these two publications. In this review, we introduce the significant changes and differences in the eighth edition of the AJCC and UICC TNM staging systems for urologic cancers and summarize the evidence supporting these changes.

Evaluation of Intense Androgen Deprivation Before Prostatectomy: A Randomized Phase II Trial of Enzalutamide and Leuprolide With or Without Abiraterone

PURPOSE

Patients with locally advanced prostate cancer have an increased risk of cancer recurrence and mortality. In this phase II trial, we evaluate neoadjuvant enzalutamide and leuprolide (EL) with or without abiraterone and prednisone (ELAP) before radical prostatectomy (RP) in men with locally advanced prostate cancer.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

Eligible patients had a biopsy Gleason score of 4 + 3 = 7 or greater, prostate-specific antigen (PSA) greater than 20 ng/mL, or T3 disease (by prostate magnetic resonance imaging). Lymph nodes were required to be smaller than 20 mm. Patients were randomly assigned 2:1 to ELAP or EL for 24 weeks followed by RP. All specimens underwent central pathology review. The primary end point was pathologic complete response or minimal residual disease (residual tumor ≤ 5 mm). Secondary end points were PSA, surgical staging, positive margins, and safety. Biomarkers associated with pathologic outcomes were explored.

RESULTS

Seventy-five patients were enrolled at four centers. Most patients had high-risk disease by National Comprehensive Cancer Network criteria (n = 65; 87%). The pathologic complete response or minimal residual disease rate was 30% (n = 15 of 50) in ELAP-treated patients and 16% (n = four of 25) in EL-treated patients (two-sided P = .263). Rates of ypT3 disease, positive margins, and positive lymph nodes were similar between arms. Treatment was well-tolerated. Residual tumors in the two arms showed comparable levels of ERG, PTEN, androgen receptor PSA, and glucocorticoid receptor expression. Tumor ERG positivity and PTEN loss were associated with more extensive residual tumors at RP.

CONCLUSION

Neoadjuvant hormone therapy followed by RP in locally advanced prostate cancer resulted in favorable pathologic responses in some patients, with a trend toward improved pathologic outcomes with ELAP. Longer follow-up is necessary to evaluate the impact of therapy on recurrence rates. The potential association of ERG and PTEN alterations with worse outcomes warrants additional investigation.

Combined-modality 125J-seed-brachytherapy, external beam radiation and androgen deprivation therapy of unfavorable-risk prostate cancer: report of outcomes and side-effects

PURPOSE

To analyze outcomes and complication rates in an unselected cohort of men with unfavorable (NCCN intermediate and high-risk) PCa receiving combined-modality radiation treatment (CRT).

METHODS

Patients received androgen deprivation therapy for 1 year and combined-modality radiation treatment (CRT) consisting of external-beam radiotherapy (EBRT, 59.4 Gy, 33 fractions) and ¹²⁵J seed-brachytherapy (S-BT, 100 Gy). Subgroups, including WHO group 3-5, and initial PSA (iPSA) < 20 and > 20 ng/ml were identified. Biochemical recurrence-free (BRFS), metastasis-free (MFS), cancer-specific (CSS) and overall survival (OS) were calculated at 5 and 10 years using the Kaplan-Meier method. Subgroups were compared using log-rank test and Cox proportional hazards regression. Urogenital and gastrointestinal side-effects were reported according to the CTCAE classification.

RESULTS

After a median of 6.9 years (range 2-13) calculated 5- and 10-year rates for the whole cohort of 425 men were 92.8% and 82.5% for BRFS, 95.1%, and 88.8% for MFS, 98.2%, and 95.1 for CSS, and 95.4%, and 80.1% for OS, respectively. Univariate (UVA) and multivariate analysis (MV) identified a group with unfavorable outcome with iPSA > 20 ng/ml, comprising 24% of all patients, in which 55% of recurrences, 54% of metastases and 71% of cancer-specific deaths occurred. Side-effects were limited, with < 5% of patients complaining of genitourinary and 0.5% of gastrointestinal AEs after 5 years.

CONCLUSION

CRT is an excellent treatment option for men with unfavorable PCa. In a subgroup of patients with iPSA > 20 ng/ml further, possibly systemic, treatment options should be identified.

Evolution in Prostate Cancer Staging: Pathology Updates From AJCC 8th Edition and Opportunities That Remain

The Tumor-Nodes-Metastasis system at the core of prognostic staging has been recently updated in the American Joint Committee on Cancer (AJCC) 8th edition, published in 2016. For prostate cancer, significant changes in staging of organ-confined disease, inclusion of a new grade grouping, and provision of levels of evidence for these modifications are part of what differentiates the 8th edition AJCC from prior iterations. Herein, the rationale underlying these changes is detailed. In addition, data elements not well represented in the present system are highlighted as opportunities for fresh study that may impact future AJCC classifications.

Evaluation of clinical staging of the American Joint Committee on Cancer (eighth edition) for prostate cancer

OBJECTIVES

This study aimed to evaluate the eighth edition of the American Joint Committee on Cancer (AJCC) for clinical staging of prostate cancer based upon Surveillance, Epidemiology and, End Results (SEER) database.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Patients diagnosed as prostate adenocarcinoma during 2004-2009 without any surgical treatment to the primary site were selected from the SEER registry. Excluded were cases with incomplete or unavailable staging, PSA and Gleason score information.

RESULTS

A total of 144,443 cases were identified. The median follow-up time was 84 months. The median age at diagnosis was 69 years, and median PSA was 7 ng/ml. CSS at 10th years was 96.2% for cT2a and 86.2% for cT2b/2c, respectively. The survival differences between clinical stage cT2a and cT2b/2c still had statistical significance (P < 0.001). For patients with grade group 1, there was no statistically significant difference for CCS between the cT2a and cT1 (P = 0.310), and between the subgroup of cT1/cT2a with 10 ng/ml ≤ PSA < 20 ng/ml and the subgroup of cT2b/2c with PSA < 20 ng/ml (P = 0.126), respectively. The CSS of IIIA (T1/2 with PSA ≥ 20 ng/ml) was less than IIC (P < 0.001), which has worst prognosis within stage I/II. The prognosis of T1/2 stage with Gleason score grade group 5 and PSA < 20 ng/ml was not only worse than AJCC IIC (P < 0.001) but also worse than AJCC IIIB (P < 0.001).

CONCLUSION

It is necessary to maintain a three-tier system to subdivide T2 disease clinically. For patients with grade group 1, cT2a and cT1 could merge into one group. Organ-confined disease with PSA ≥ 20 ng/ml or grade group 5 should be separated from stage II.