The prostate cancer risk stratification (ProCaRS) project: Recursive partitioning risk stratification analysis

Of Screening, Stratification, and Scores

Technological innovations including risk-stratification algorithms and large databases of longitudinal population health data and genetic data are allowing us to develop a deeper understanding how individual behaviors, characteristics, and genetics are related to health risk. The clinical implementation of risk-stratified screening programmes that utilise risk scores to allocate patients into tiers of health risk is foreseeable in the future. Legal and ethical challenges associated with risk-stratified cancer care must, however, be addressed. Obtaining access to the rich health data that are required to perform risk-stratification, ensuring equitable access to risk-stratified care, ensuring that algorithms that perform risk-scoring are representative of human genetic diversity, and determining the appropriate follow-up to be provided to stratification participants to alert them to changes in their risk score are among the principal ethical and legal challenges. Accounting for the great burden that regulatory requirements could impose on access to risk-scoring technologies is another critical consideration.

Novel Prognostic Index of High-Risk Prostate Cancer Using Simple Summation of Very High-Risk Factors

This study aimed to examine the role of very high-risk (VHR) factors (T3b-4 and Gleason score 9-10) for prognosis of clinically localized high-risk prostate cancer. We reviewed multi-institutional retrospective data of 1413 patients treated with radiotherapy (558 patients treated with external beam radiotherapy (EBRT) and 855 patients treated with brachytherapy (BT) ± EBRT. We introduced an index by simple summation of the number of VHR factors-VHR-0, VHR-1, and VHR-2. With median follow-up of 69.6 months, the 5-year biochemical disease free survival rate (bDFS), prostate cancer-specific mortality (PCSM), and distant metastasis-free survival (DMSF) rates were 59.4%, 7.65%, and 83.2% for the VHR-2 group, respectively; 86.7%, 1.50%, and 95.4% for the VHR-1 group, respectively; and 93.1%, 0.12%, and 98.2% for the VHR-0 group, respectively. The VHR-2 group had significantly worse bDFS, PCSM, and DMSF than the VHR-0 (hazard ratios: 4.55, 9.607, and 7.904, respectively) and VHR-1 (hazard ratios: 1.723, 2.391, and 1.491, respectively) groups. The VHR-2 group could be identified as a super high-risk group compared with other groups, and could be a good candidate for clinical trials using multimodal intensified treatments. Simple summation of the number of VHR factors is an easy and useful predictive index for bDFS, PCSM, and DMSF.

Propensity score matching versus coarsened exact matching in observational comparative effectiveness research

Aim & methods: We compared propensity score matching (PSM) and coarsened exact matching (CEM) in balancing baseline characteristics between treatment groups using observational data obtained from a pan-Canadian prostate cancer radiotherapy database. Changes in effect estimates were evaluated as a function of improvements in balance, using results from randomized clinical trials to guide interpretation. Results: CEM and PSM improved balance between groups in both comparisons, while retaining the majority of original data. Improvements in balance were associated with effect estimates closer to those obtained in randomized clinical trials. Conclusion: CEM and PSM led to substantial improvements in balance between comparison groups, while retaining a considerable proportion of original data. This could lead to improved accuracy in effect estimates obtained using observational data in a variety of clinical situations.

Modeling-Based Decision Support System for Radical Prostatectomy Versus External Beam Radiotherapy for Prostate Cancer Incorporating an In Silico Clinical Trial and a Cost-Utility Study

Simple Summary

Low–intermediate prostate cancer has a number of viable treatment options, such as radical prostatectomy and radiotherapy, with similar survival outcomes but different treatment-related side effects. The aim of this study is to facilitate patient-specific treatment selection by developing a decision support system (DSS) that incorporates predictive models for cancer-free survival and treatment-related side effects. We challenged this DSS by validating it against randomized clinical trials and assessing the benefit through a cost–utility analysis. We aim to expand upon the applications of this DSS by using it as the basis for an in silico clinical trial for an underrepresented patient group. This modeling study shows that DSS-based treatment decisions will result in a clinically relevant increase in the patients’ quality of life and can be used for in silico trials.

Abstract

The aim of this study is to build a decision support system (DSS) to select radical prostatectomy (RP) or external beam radiotherapy (EBRT) for low- to intermediate-risk prostate cancer patients. We used an individual state-transition model based on predictive models for estimating tumor control and toxicity probabilities. We performed analyses on a synthetically generated dataset of 1000 patients with realistic clinical parameters, externally validated by comparison to randomized clinical trials, and set up an in silico clinical trial for elderly patients. We assessed the cost-effectiveness (CE) of the DSS for treatment selection by comparing it to randomized treatment allotment. Using the DSS, 47.8% of synthetic patients were selected for RP and 52.2% for EBRT. During validation, differences with the simulations of late toxicity and biochemical failure never exceeded 2%. The in silico trial showed that for elderly patients, toxicity has more influence on the decision than TCP, and the predicted QoL depends on the initial erectile function. The DSS is estimated to result in cost savings (EUR 323 (95% CI: EUR 213–433)) and more quality-adjusted life years (QALYs; 0.11 years, 95% CI: 0.00–0.22) than randomized treatment selection.

Favorable intermediate risk prostate cancer with biopsy Gleason score of 6

BACKGROUND

To identify potential prognostic factors among patients with favorable intermediate risk prostate cancer with a biopsy Gleason score 6.

METHODS

From 2003 to 2019, favorable intermediate risk patients who underwent radical prostatectomy were included in this study. All patients were evaluated preoperatively with MRI. Using PI-RADS scores, patients were divided into two groups, and clinic-pathological outcomes were compared. The impact of preoperative factors on significant pathologic Gleason score upgrading (≥ 4 + 3) and biochemical recurrence were assessed via multivariate analysis. Subgroup analysis was performed in patients with PI-RADS ≤ 2.

RESULTS

Among the 239 patients, 116 (48.5%) were MRI-negative (PI-RADS ≤ 3) and 123 (51.5%) were MRI-positive (PI-RADS > 3). Six patients in the MRI-negative group (5.2%) were characterized as requiring significant pathologic Gleason score upgrading compared with 34 patients (27.6%) in the MRI-positive group (p < 0.001). PI-RADS score was shown to be a significant predictor of significant pathologic Gleason score upgrading (OR = 6.246, p < 0.001) and biochemical recurrence (HR = 2.595, p = 0.043). 10-years biochemical recurrence-free survival was estimated to be 84.4% and 72.6% in the MRI-negative and MRI-positive groups (p = 0.035). In the 79 patients with PI-RADS ≤ 2, tumor length in biopsy cores was identified as a significant predictor of pathologic Gleason score (OR = 11.336, p = 0.014).

CONCLUSIONS

Among the patients with favorable intermediate risk prostate cancer with a biopsy Gleason score 6, preoperative MRI was capable of predicting significant pathologic Gleason score upgrading and biochemical recurrence. Especially, the patients with PI-RADS ≤ 2 and low biopsy tumor length could be a potential candidate to active surveillance.

Does adding local salvage ablation therapy provide survival advantage for patients with locally recurrent prostate cancer following radiotherapy? Whole gland salvage ablation post-radiation failure in prostate cancer

INTRODUCTION

Some men who experience prostate cancer recurrence post-radiotherapy may be candidates for local salvage therapy, avoiding and delaying systemic treatments. Our aim was to assess the impact of clinical outcomes of adding salvage local treatment in prostate cancer patients who have failed radiation therapy.

METHODS

Following radiation biochemical failure, salvage transperineal cryotherapy (sCT, n=186), transrectal high intensity focused ultrasound ablation (sHIFU, n=113), or no salvage treatment (NST, identified from the pan-Canadian Prostate Cancer Risk Stratification [ProCaRS] database, n=982) were compared with propensity-score matching. Primary endpoints were cancer-specific survival (CSS) and overall survival (OS).

RESULTS

Median followup was 11.6, 25.1, and 14.3 years following NST, sCT, and sHIFU, respectively. Two propensity score-matched analyses were performed: 1) 196 NST vs. 98 sCT; and 2) 177 NST vs. 59 sHIFU. In the first comparison, there were 78 deaths and 49 prostate cancer deaths for NST vs. 80 deaths and 24 prostate cancer deaths for sCT. There were significant benefits in CSS (p<0.001) and OS (p<0.001) favoring sCT. In the second comparison, there were 52 deaths (31 from prostate cancer) for NST vs. 18 deaths (nine from prostate cancer) for sHIFU. There were no significant differences in CSS or OS possibility attributed to reduced sample size and shorter followup of sHIFU cohort.

CONCLUSIONS

In select men with recurrent prostate cancer post-radiation, further local treatment may lead to benefits in CSS. These hypothesis-generating findings should ideally be validated in a prospective clinical trial setting.

Analysis of outcomes after non-contour-based dose painting of dominant intra-epithelial lesion in intra-operative low-dose rate brachytherapy

Purpose

To compare the outcomes of patients with intermediate risk prostate cancer (IR-PCa) treated with low-dose rate I-125 seed brachytherapy (LDR-BT) and targeted dose painting of a histologic dominant intra-epithelial lesion (DIL) to those without a DIL.

Methods

455 patients with IR-PCa were treated at a single center with intra-operatively planned LDR-BT, each following the same in-house dose constraints. Patients with a DIL on pathology had hot spots localized to that region but no specific contouring during the procedure.

Results

396 (87%) patients had a DIL. Baseline tumor characteristics and overall prostate dosimetry were similar between patients with and without DIL except the median number of biopsy cores taken: 10 (10–12) vs 12 (10–12) (p = 0.002).

19 (5%) and 18 (5%) of patients with and 1 (2%) and 0 (0%) of those without DIL experienced CTCAE grade 2 and 3 toxicity respectively. Overall, toxicity grade did not significantly correlate with presence of DIL (p = 0.10).

Estimated 7-year freedom from biochemical failure (FFBF) was 84% (95% confidence interval: 79–89) and 70% (54–89) in patients with and without a DIL (log-rank p = 0.315). In DIL patients, cox regression revealed location of DIL (“Base” vs “Apex” HR: 1.03; 1.00–1.06; p = 0.03) and older age (70 vs 60 HR: 1.62; 1.06–2.49; p = 0.03) was associated with poor FFBF.

Conclusions

Targeting DIL through dose painting during intraoperatively planned LDR-BT provided no statistically significant change in FFBF. Patients with DILs in the prostate base had slightly lower FFBF despite DIL boost.

Active treatment in low-risk prostate cancer: a population-based study

Background

Active surveillance instead of active treatment (at) is preferred for patients with low-risk prostate cancer (lr-pca), but practice varies widely. We conducted a population-based study to assess the proportion of patients who underwent at between January 2011 and December 2014, and to evaluate factors associated with at.

Methods

The provincial cancer registry was linked to administrative health datasets to identify patients with lr-pca and to acquire demographic, tumour, and treatment data. The primary outcome was receipt of at during the first 12 months after diagnosis, defined as any receipt of external-beam radiotherapy, brachytherapy, radical prostatectomy, cryotherapy, or androgen deprivation. Univariate and multivariate logistic regression were used to analyze the correlation between patient and tumour factors and at.

Results

Of 1565 patients with lr-pca, 554 (35.4%) underwent at within 12 months of diagnosis. Radical prostatectomy was the most common treatment (58%), followed by brachytherapy (29.6%). Younger age [odds ratio (or) 0.92; 95% confidence interval (ci): 0.91 to 0.94], lower score (≥3) on the Charlson comorbidity index (OR: 0.36; 95% ci: 0.19 to 0.68), T2 stage (or: 3.05; 95% ci: 2.03 to 4.58), higher prostate-specific antigen (psa) at diagnosis (or: 1.13; 95% ci: 1.06 to 1.21), radiation oncologist consultation (or: 3.35; 95% ci: 2.55 to 4.39), and earlier diagnosis year (2012 or: 0.46; 95% ci: 0.34 to 0.63; 2013 or: 0.45; 95% ci: 0.32 to 0.63; 2014 or: 0.33; 95% ci: 0.23 to 0.47) were associated with a higher probability of at.

Conclusions

This contemporary population-based study demonstrates that approximately one third of patients with lr-pca undergo at. Patients of younger age, with less comorbidity, a higher tumour stage, higher psa, earlier year of diagnosis, and radiation oncologist consultation were more likely to undergo at. Further investigation is needed to identify strategies that could minimize overtreatment.

Absolute percentage of biopsied tissue positive for Gleason pattern 4 disease (APP4) appears predictive of disease control after high dose rate brachytherapy and external beam radiotherapy in intermediate risk prostate cancer

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE

To identify if, in intermediate risk prostate cancer (IR-PCa), the absolute percentage of biopsied tissue positive for pattern 4 disease (APP4) may be a predictor of outcome.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

411 patients with IR-PCa were retrospectively reviewed. APP4 was calculated based on biopsy reports. Multivariable competing risk analysis was then performed on optimized APP4 cutpoints to predict for biochemical failure (BF), androgen deprivation use for BF (ADT-BF) and development of metastases (MD).

RESULTS

Median follow-up for the cohort was 5.2 (Inter Quartile Range: 2.9-6.6) years. Median baseline PSA was 7.3 (5.3-9.8) ng/mL. 234 (56.9%) patients had T1 and 177 (43.1%) had T2 disease. Median APP4 was 2.00 (0.75-7.50)%. 38 (9.3%) patients experienced BF. The optimal cutpoint of APP4 for BF was >3.3% with an area under the curve (AUC) of 0.66. 17 (4.1%) received ADT-BF. The ADT-BF cutpoint was >6.6% with an AUC of 0.72. Eight (2.0%) developed MD. The MD cutpoint was >17.5% with an AUC of 0.86. Using APP4 >3.3 vs ≤ 3.3, log-transformed baseline PSA ln(PSA) (HR 2.5, 1.1-6.1; p = 0.037) and APP4 (HR 2.3, 1.1-4.7; p = 0.031) predicted for BF. Using APP4 >6.6 vs ≤ 6.6, ln(PSA) (HR 4.2, 1.4-12.4; p = 0.010) and APP4 (HR 3.7, 1.4-10.0; p = 0.009) were predictive of ADT-BF. APP4 >17.5 vs ≤ 17.5 alone was predictive of MD (HR 25.7, 4.9-135.3; p < 0.001).

CONCLUSION

APP4 cutpoints of >3.3%, >6.6% and >17.5% were strongly associated with increased risk of BF, ADT-BF and developing MD respectively. These findings may inform future practice when treating IR-PCa but require external validation.

A prognostic nomogram for overall survival after neoadjuvant radiotherapy or chemoradiotherapy in thoracic esophageal squamous cell carcinoma: a retrospective analysis

BACKGROUND

Currently, the AJCC staging system or pathological complete response (pCR) are considered not sufficiently accurate to evaluate the survival of patients with esophageal squamous cell carcinoma after neoadjuvant radiotherapy or chemoradiotherapy. This study aimed to establish a nomogram and a recursive partitioning analysis (RPA) model to estimate prognosis and to provide advice for subsequent treatments.

METHODS

We analyzed retrospectively 407 patients that were diagnosed with thoracic esophageal squamous cell carcinoma (TESCC) and received neoadjuvant radiotherapy or chemoradiotherapy. Hazard ratios and 95% confidence intervals of categorical clinicopathological characteristics with overall survival (OS) were calculated using the Cox proportional hazard model. The nomogram and RPA model were then established and total scores according to each variable were calculated and stratified to predict OS.

RESULTS

Patients were followed-up over a median 49.9 months. AJCC did not perform well in distinguishing OS among each stage except for IIB and IIIA. Patients were divided into 4 groups according to the total scores based on nomogram (low risk: ≤180; intermediate risk: 180-270; high risk: 270-340; very high risk: >340). The 5-year OS was 57.3%, 40.7%, 18.3%, 6.1% respectively (p<0.05). RPA model also divide the patients into 4 groups, though group2 and group3 were not statistically significant (p=0.574).

CONCLUSION

The nomogram is a good evaluation model for estimating the prognosis of patients with TESCC after neoadjuvant radiotherapy or chemoradiotherapy compared with the AJCC and RPA. The results of this study also suggested that the high-risk subgroups need further treatments.

Dose escalation for prostate stereotactic ablative radiotherapy (SABR): Late outcomes from two prospective clinical trials

PURPOSE

Optimal prostate SABR dose-fractionation is unknown. This study compares long-term outcomes from two prospective trials.

METHODS

Study1 patients had low-risk PCa and received 35 Gy/5. Study2 patients had low/intermediate-risk PCa and received 40 Gy/5. Biochemical failure (BF) was defined as nadir + 2.

RESULTS

114 patients were included (study1, n = 84; study2, n = 30). Median follow-up was 9.6 years and 6.9 years. Median nPSA was 0.4 and 0.1 ng/ml. Nine patients had BF (8 in study1, 1 in study2); two were managed with ADT and four had local salvage. The BF rate was 2.5% and 12.8% at 5 and 10 years for study1 and 3.3% at 5 years for study 2. BF probability was 0% if PSA <0.4 at 4 years, and 20.5% at 10 years if PSA ≥0.4 (p = 0.02). Nine patients died, none of PCa. No patient has metastases or castrate-resistance. At 10 years, OS and CSS were 90.4% (p = 0.25) and 100%.

CONCLUSIONS

Dose-escalated prostate SABR was associated with lower nPSAs but no difference in BF, OS, CSS or MFS. PSA <0.4 at 4 years was a predictor of biochemical control. Half of patients with BF were successfully salvaged. Given that this is a favorable-risk cohort, longer follow-up will be needed to see if the lower nPSA translates into lower BF rates.

High-intermediate prostate cancer treated with low-dose-rate brachytherapy with or without androgen deprivation therapy

PURPOSE

To describe outcomes of men with unfavorable (high-tier) intermediate risk prostate cancer (H-IR) treated with low-dose-rate (LDR) brachytherapy, with or without 6 months of androgen deprivation therapy (ADT).

METHODS AND MATERIALS

Patients with H-IR prostate cancer, treated before 2012 with LDR brachytherapy without external radiation are included. Baseline tumor characteristics are described. Outcomes between groups receiving ADT are measured by Phoenix (nadir +2 ng/mL), and threshold 0.4 ng/mL biochemical relapse definitions (bNEDs), as well as clinical end points. Standard descriptive and actuarial statistics are used.

RESULTS

Two hundred sixty men were eligible, 139 (53%) did not receive ADT and 121 (47%) did. Median follow-up was 5 years. Men treated with ADT had higher T stage and percent positive cores but lower pathologic grade group. bNED rates with and without ADT at 5 years are 86% and 85% (p = 0.52) with the Phoenix definition, and 83% and 78% (p = 0.13) with the threshold definition. Local recurrence or metastasis were rare in both groups (<5%, p = not significant). Death from prostate cancer only occurred in 4 patients, 2 in each group. Overall survival was 85% in those treated with ADT and 93% without at 8 years, p = 0.15.

CONCLUSIONS

The addition of 6 months of ADT to LDR brachytherapy for H-IR prostate cancer does not improve 5 year prostate specific antigen control, and we no longer routinely recommended it.

Brachytherapy for Patients With Prostate Cancer: American Society of Clinical Oncology/Cancer Care Ontario Joint Guideline Update

Purpose

To jointly update the Cancer Care Ontario guideline on brachytherapy for patients with prostate cancer to account for new evidence.

Methods

An Update Panel conducted a targeted systematic literature review and identified more recent randomized controlled trials comparing dose-escalated external beam radiation therapy (EBRT) with brachytherapy in men with prostate cancer.

Results

Five randomized controlled trials provided the evidence for this update.

Recommendations

For patients with low-risk prostate cancer who require or choose active treatment, low–dose rate brachytherapy (LDR) alone, EBRT alone, and/or radical prostatectomy (RP) should be offered to eligible patients. For patients with intermediate-risk prostate cancer choosing EBRT with or without androgen-deprivation therapy, brachytherapy boost (LDR or high–dose rate [HDR]) should be offered to eligible patients. For low-intermediate risk prostate cancer (Gleason 7, prostate-specific antigen < 10 ng/mL or Gleason 6, prostate-specific antigen, 10 to 20 ng/mL), LDR brachytherapy alone may be offered as monotherapy. For patients with high-risk prostate cancer receiving EBRT and androgen-deprivation therapy, brachytherapy boost (LDR or HDR) should be offered to eligible patients. Iodine-125 and palladium-103 are each reasonable isotope options for patients receiving LDR brachytherapy; no recommendation can be made for or against using cesium-131 or HDR monotherapy. Patients should be encouraged to participate in clinical trials to test novel or targeted approaches to this disease. Additional information is available at www.asco.org/Brachytherapy-guideline and www.asco.org/guidelineswiki .

An appraisal of analytical tools used in predicting clinical outcomes following radiation therapy treatment of men with prostate cancer: a systematic review

Background

Prostate cancer can be treated with several different modalities, including radiation treatment. Various prognostic tools have been developed to aid decision making by providing estimates of the probability of different outcomes. Such tools have been demonstrated to have better prognostic accuracy than clinical judgment alone.

Methods

A systematic review was undertaken to identify papers relating to the prediction of clinical outcomes (biochemical failure, metastasis, survival) in patients with prostate cancer who received radiation treatment, with the particular aim of identifying whether published tools are adequately developed, validated, and provide accurate predictions. PubMed and EMBASE were searched from July 2007. Title and abstract screening, full text review, and critical appraisal were conducted by two reviewers. A review protocol was published in advance of commencing literature searches.

Results

The search strategy resulted in 165 potential articles, of which 72 were selected for full text review and 47 ultimately included. These papers described 66 models which were newly developed and 31 which were external validations of already published predictive tools. The included studies represented a total of 60,457 patients, recruited between 1984 and 2009. Sixty five percent of models were not externally validated, 57% did not report accuracy and 31% included variables which are not readily accessible in existing datasets. Most models (72, 74%) related to external beam radiation therapy with the remainder relating to brachytherapy (alone or in combination with external beam radiation therapy).

Conclusions

A large number of prognostic models (97) have been described in the recent literature, representing a rapid increase since previous reviews (17 papers, 1966–2007). Most models described were not validated and a third utilised variables which are not readily accessible in existing data collections. Where validation had occurred, it was often limited to data taken from single institutes in the US. While validated and accurate models are available to predict prostate cancer specific mortality following external beam radiation therapy, there is a scarcity of such tools relating to brachytherapy. This review provides an accessible catalogue of predictive tools for current use and which should be prioritised for future validation.

Electronic supplementary material

The online version of this article (doi:10.1186/s13014-017-0786-z) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

Dose-Escalated Stereotactic Body Radiation Therapy for Prostate Cancer: Quality-of-Life Comparison of Two Prospective Trials

Introduction

The optimal prostate stereotactic body radiation therapy (SBRT) dose-fractionation scheme is controversial. This study compares long-term quality of life (QOL) from two prospective trials of prostate SBRT to investigate the effect of increasing dose (NCT01578902 and NCT01146340).

Material and methods

Patients with localized prostate cancer received SBRT 35 or 40 Gy delivered in five fractions, once per week. QOL was measured using the Expanded Prostate Cancer Index Composite at baseline and every 6 months. Fisher’s exact test and generalized estimating equations were used to analyze proportions of patients with clinically significant change and longitudinal changes in QOL.

Results

One hundred fourteen patients were included, 84 treated with 35 Gy and 30 treated with 40 Gy. Median QOL follow-up was 56 months [interquartile range (IQR) 46–60] and 38 months (IQR 32–42), respectively. The proportion of patients reporting clinically significant declines in average urinary, bowel, and sexual scores were not significantly different between dose levels, and were 20.5 vs. 24.1% (p = 0.60), 26.8 vs. 41.4% (p = 0.16), and 42.9 vs. 38.5% (p = 0.82), respectively. Similarly, longitudinal analysis did not identify significant differences in QOL between treatment groups.

Conclusion

Dose-escalated prostate SBRT from 35 to 40 Gy in five fractions was not associated with significant decline in long-term QOL.

Active Surveillance for Intermediate Risk Prostate Cancer: Survival Outcomes in the Sunnybrook Experience

PURPOSE

To assess the applicability of active surveillance in patients with intermediate risk prostate cancer, we compared the survival outcomes of patients with low risk and intermediate risk disease.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Active surveillance was offered to all patients with low risk (cT1-T2b and Gleason score 6 and prostate specific antigen 10 ng/ml or less) and select intermediate risk disease (age greater than 70 years with cT2c or prostate specific antigen 15 ng/ml or less, or Gleason score 3+4 or less). Data from November 1995 to May 2013 were extracted from a prospectively collected database. The primary outcome was metastasis-free survival, and secondary outcomes were overall survival, cause specific survival and treatment-free survival.

RESULTS

A total of 213 intermediate risk and 732 low risk cases were identified. Median age was 72 years (IQR 67.3, 76.8) in the intermediate risk cohort and 67 years (IQR 60.6, 71.9) in the low risk group. Median followup was comparable (6.7 years for intermediate risk vs 6.5 years for low risk). Gleason 7 disease comprised 60% of the intermediate risk cohort. The 15-year metastasis-free, overall, cause specific and treatment-free survival rates were inferior in the intermediate risk group (metastasis-free survival HR 3.14, 95% CI 1.51-6.53, p=0.001, 82% for intermediate risk vs 95% for low risk). On further evaluation the estimated 15-year metastasis-free survival for cases of Gleason 6 or less with prostate specific antigen less than 10 ng/ml was 94%, Gleason 6 or less with prostate specific antigen 10 to 20 ng/ml was 94%, Gleason 3+4 with prostate specific antigen 20 ng/ml or less was 84% and Gleason 4+3 with prostate specific antigen 20 ng/ml or less was 63%.

CONCLUSIONS

These data support the use of active surveillance in low risk and intermediate risk cases of Gleason 6 but not Gleason 7 prostate cancer. Multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging and novel biomarkers might be vital in detecting favorable Gleason 7 disease.

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.

PMH 9907: Long-term outcomes of a randomized phase 3 study of short-term bicalutamide hormone therapy and dose-escalated external-beam radiation therapy for localized prostate cancer

BACKGROUND

The role of hormone therapy (HT) with dose-escalated external-beam radiotherapy (DE-EBRT) in the treatment of intermediate-risk prostate cancer (IRPC) remains controversial. The authors report the long-term outcome of a phase 3 study of DE-EBRT with or without HT for patients with localized prostate cancer (LPC).

METHODS

From 1999 to 2006, 252 of an intended 338 patients with LPC were randomized to receive DE-EBRT with or without 5 months of neoadjuvant and concurrent bicalutamide 150 mg once daily. The study was closed early because of contemporary concerns surrounding bicalutamide. The primary outcome was biochemical failure (BF) incidence, and the secondary endpoints were overall survival (OS), local control (LC), and quality of life. The BF and OS rates were estimated using the cumulative incidence function and Kaplan-Meier methods and were compared using the Gray test and the log-rank test.

RESULTS

Eleven patients were excluded from analysis. Characteristics were well balanced in each treatment arm. Ninety-five percent of patients had IRPC. The prescribed dose increased from 75.6 grays (Gy) in 42 fractions to 78 Gy in 39 fractions over the period. At a median follow-up of 9.1 years, 98 BFs occurred, with no significant effect of HT versus no HT on the BF rate (40% vs 47%; P = .32), the OS rate (82% vs 86%; P = .37), the LC rate (52% vs 48 %; P = .32) or quality of life, in the patients who completed the questionnaires. Dose escalation to 75.6 Gy versus >75.6 Gy reduced the BF rate by 26% (P = .004).

CONCLUSIONS

For patients who predominantly have IRPC, the addition of HT to DE-EBRT did not significantly affect BF, OS, or LC. Bicalutamide appeared to be well tolerated. The conclusions from the study are limited by incomplete recruitment. Cancer 2016;122:2595-603. © 2016 American Cancer Society.

Diagnosis, referral, and primary treatment decisions in newly diagnosed prostate cancer patients in a multidisciplinary diagnostic assessment program

INTRODUCTION

We aimed to report on data from the multidisciplinary diagnostic assessment program (DAP) at the Gale and Graham Wright Prostate Centre (GGWPC) at North York General Hospital (NYGH). We assessed referral, diagnosis, and treatment decisions for newly diagnosed prostate cancer (PCa) patients as seen over time, risk stratification, and clinic type to establish a deeper understanding of current decision-making trends.

METHODS

From June 2007 to April 2012, 1277 patients who were diagnosed with PCa at the GGWPC were included in this study. Data was collected and reviewed retrospectively using electronic patient records.

RESULTS

1031 of 1260 patients (81.8%) were seen in a multidisciplinary clinic (MDC). Over time, a decrease in low-risk (LR) diagnoses and an increase intermediate-risk (IR) diagnoses was observed (p<0.0001). With respect to overall treatment decisions 474 (37.1%) of patients received primary radiotherapy, 340 (26.6%) received surgical therapy, and 426 (33.4%) had conservative management; 57% of patients who were candidates for active surveillance were managed this way. No significant treatment trends were observed over time (p=0.8440). Significantly, different management decisions were made in those who attended the MDC compared to those who only saw a urologist (p<0.0001).

CONCLUSIONS

In our DAP, the vast majority of patients presented with screen-detected disease, but there was a gradual shift from low- to intermediate-risk disease over time. Timely multidisciplinary consultation was achievable in over 80% of patients and was associated with different management decisions. We recommend that all patients at risk for prostate cancer be worked up in a multi-disciplinary DAP.

Dose-escalation of five-fraction SABR in prostate cancer: Toxicity comparison of two prospective trials

PURPOSE

To compare biochemical outcome and toxicities of two prospective 5-fraction stereotactic ablative radiotherapy (SABR) studies in prostate cancer.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

84 patients in pHART3 received 35 Gy, 30 patients in pHART6 received 40 Gy in 5-fractions to the prostate alone, once weekly. 4mm and 5mm PTV margins were used, respectively. Biochemical outcome, acute, late and cumulative genitourinary (GU)/gastrointestinal (GI) toxicities were compared.

RESULTS

Median follow-up was 74 and 36 months, respectively. Median prostate specific antigen nadir was 0.4 ng/ml and 0.3 ng/ml. 2-, 4- and 6-year biochemical relapse-free survival (bRFS-2+nadir) was 100%, 98.7% and 95.9% in pHART3; 100%, 100% and not reached in pHART6 (p=0.91). There was one acute grade 3 GU (retention) and late grade 4 GI (fistula) toxicity in pHART3, none in pHART6. One patient in each study had persisting grade 2+ toxicity at the last follow-up. pHART6 patients had a greater grade 2+ cumulative GU (5% versus 24.2%) and GI (7.6% versus 26.2%) toxicities.

CONCLUSIONS

Patients receiving dose-escalated SABR had slightly lower PSA nadir and similar bRFS, longer follow-up is needed to better estimate biochemical outcomes. There was a greater risk of grade 2 toxicity in pHART6 but not grade 3+ toxicities. Persisting toxicity at the last follow-up is similar.

Definitive 3D-CRT for clinically localized prostate cancer: modifications of the clinical target volume following a prostate MRI and the clinical benefits

Purpose

To evaluate the modifications of the tumor stage and clinical target volume following a prostate magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) to evaluate the tumor (T) staging, and the clinical benefits for prostate cancer.

Methods

A total of 410 patients with newly diagnosed and clinically localized prostate cancer were retrospectively analyzed. The patients were treated with definitive three-dimensional conformal radiotherapy (3D-CRT). In all of the patients, digital rectal examination, transrectal ultrasound, prostate biopsy and computed tomography were performed to evaluate the clinical stage. Of the 410 patients, 189 patients had undergone a prostate MRI study to evaluate the T staging, and 221 patients had not.

Results

Modification of the T stage after the prostate MRI was seen in 39 (25%) of the 157 evaluable patients, and a modification of the risk group was made in 14 (9%) patients. Eventually, a modification of the CTV in 3D-CRT planning was made in 13 (8%) patients, and 10 of these had extracapsular disease. Most of the other modifications of the T staging were associated with intracapsular lesions of prostate cancer which did not change the CTV. There were no significant differences in the biological relapse-free survival between the patients with and without a prostate MRI study.

Conclusions

Modification of the CTV were recognized in only 8% of the patients, most of whom had extracapsular disease, although that of the T stage was seen in approximately one-quarter of the patients. Prostate MRI should only be selected for patients with a high probability of extracapsular involvement.

Development of ProCaRS Clinical Nomograms for Biochemical Failure-free Survival Following Either Low-Dose Rate Brachytherapy or Conventionally Fractionated External Beam Radiation Therapy for Localized Prostate Cancer

Purpose: Although several clinical nomograms predictive of biochemical failure-free survival (BFFS) for localized prostate cancer exist in the medical literature, making valid comparisons can be challenging due to variable definitions of biochemical failure, the disparate distribution of prognostic factors, and received treatments in patient populations. The aim of this investigation was to develop and validate clinically-based nomograms for 5-year BFFS using the ASTRO II “Phoenix” definition for two patient cohorts receiving low-dose rate (LDR) brachytherapy or conventionally fractionated external beam radiation therapy (EBRT) from a large Canadian multi-institutional database.

Methods and Materials: Patients were selected from the GUROC (Genitourinary Radiation Oncologists of Canada) Prostate Cancer Risk Stratification (ProCaRS) database if they received (1) LDR brachytherapy ≥ 144 Gy (n=4208) or (2) EBRT ≥ 70 Gy  (n=822). Multivariable Cox regression analysis for BFFS was performed separately for each cohort and used to generate clinical nomograms predictive of 5-year BFFS. Nomograms were validated using calibration plots of nomogram predicted probability versus observed probability via Kaplan-Meier estimates.

Results: Patients receiving LDR brachytherapy had a mean age of 64 ± 7 years, a mean baseline PSA of 6.3 ± 3.0 ng/mL, 75% had a Gleason 6, and 15% had a Gleason 7, whereas patients receiving EBRT had a mean age of 70 ± 6 years, a mean baseline PSA of 11.6 ± 10.7 ng/mL, 30% had a Gleason 6, 55% had a Gleason 7, and 14% had a Gleason 8-10. Nomograms for 5-year BFFS included age, use and duration of androgen deprivation therapy (ADT), baseline PSA, T stage, and Gleason score for LDR brachytherapy and an ADT (months), baseline PSA, Gleason score, and biological effective dose (Gy) for EBRT.

Conclusions: Clinical nomograms examining 5-year BFFS were developed for patients receiving either LDR brachytherapy or conventionally fractionated EBRT and may assist clinicians in predicting an outcome. Future work should be directed at examining the role of additional prognostic factors, comorbidities, and toxicity in predicting survival outcomes.

Brachytherapy improves biochemical failure-free survival in low- and intermediate-risk prostate cancer compared with conventionally fractionated external beam radiation therapy: a propensity score matched analysis

PURPOSE

To compare, in a retrospective study, biochemical failure-free survival (bFFS) and overall survival (OS) in low-risk and intermediate-risk prostate cancer patients who received brachytherapy (BT) (either low-dose-rate brachytherapy [LDR-BT] or high-dose-rate brachytherapy with external beam radiation therapy [HDR-BT+EBRT]) versus external beam radiation therapy (EBRT) alone.

METHODS AND MATERIALS

Patient data were obtained from the ProCaRS database, which contains 7974 prostate cancer patients treated with primary radiation therapy at four Canadian cancer institutions from 1994 to 2010. Propensity score matching was used to obtain the following 3 matched cohorts with balanced baseline prognostic factors: (1) low-risk LDR-BT versus EBRT; (2) intermediate-risk LDR-BT versus EBRT; and (3) intermediate-risk HDR-BT+EBRT versus EBRT. Kaplan-Meier survival analysis was performed to compare differences in bFFS (primary endpoint) and OS in the 3 matched groups.

RESULTS

Propensity score matching created acceptable balance in the baseline prognostic factors in all matches. Final matches included 2 1:1 matches in the intermediate-risk cohorts, LDR-BT versus EBRT (total n=254) and HDR-BT+EBRT versus EBRT (total n=388), and one 4:1 match in the low-risk cohort (LDR-BT:EBRT, total n=400). Median follow-up ranged from 2.7 to 7.3 years for the 3 matched cohorts. Kaplan-Meier survival analysis showed that all BT treatment options were associated with statistically significant improvements in bFFS when compared with EBRT in all cohorts (intermediate-risk EBRT vs LDR-BT hazard ratio [HR] 4.58, P=.001; intermediate-risk EBRT vs HDR-BT+EBRT HR 2.08, P=.007; low-risk EBRT vs LDR-BT HR 2.90, P=.004). No significant difference in OS was found in all comparisons (intermediate-risk EBRT vs LDR-BT HR 1.27, P=.687; intermediate-risk EBRT vs HDR-BT+EBRT HR 1.55, P=.470; low-risk LDR-BT vs EBRT HR 1.41, P=.500).

CONCLUSIONS

Propensity score matched analysis showed that BT options led to statistically significant improvements in bFFS in low- and intermediate-risk prostate cancer patient populations.

Duration of androgen suppression before radiotherapy for localized prostate cancer: radiation therapy oncology group randomized clinical trial 9910

PURPOSE

To determine whether prolonged androgen suppression (AS) duration before radiotherapy improves survival and disease control in prostate cancer.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

One thousand five hundred seventy-nine men with intermediate-risk prostate cancer were randomly assigned to 8 weeks of AS followed by radiotherapy with an additional 8 weeks of concurrent AS (16 weeks total) or to 28 weeks of AS followed by radiotherapy with an additional 8 weeks of AS (36 weeks total). The trial sought primarily to detect a 33% reduction in the hazard of prostate cancer death in the 28-week assignment. Time-to-event end points are reported for up to 10 years of follow-up.

RESULTS

There were no between-group differences in baseline characteristics of 1,489 eligible patients with follow-up. For the 8- and 28-week assignments, 10-year disease-specific survival rates were 95% (95% CI, 93.3% to 97.0%) and 96% (95% CI, 94.6% to 98.0%; hazard ratio [HR], 0.81; P = .45), respectively, and 10-year overall survival rates were 66% (95% CI, 62.0% to 69.9%) and 67% (95% CI, 63.0% to 70.8%; HR, 0.95; P = .62), respectively. For the 8- and 28-week assignments, 10-year cumulative incidences of locoregional progression were 6% (95% CI, 4.3% to 8.0%) and 4% (95% CI, 2.5% to 5.7%; HR, 0.65; P = .07), respectively; 10-year distant metastasis cumulative incidences were 6% (95% CI, 4.0% to 7.7%) and 6% (95% CI, 4.0% to 7.6%; HR, 1.07; P = .80), respectively; and 10-year prostate-specific antigen-based recurrence cumulative incidences were 27% (95% CI, 23.1% to 29.8%) and 27% (95% CI, 23.4% to 30.3%; HR, 0.97; P = .77), respectively.

CONCLUSION

Extending AS duration from 8 weeks to 28 weeks before radiotherapy did not improve outcomes. A lower than expected prostate cancer death rate reduced ability to detect a between-group difference in disease-specific survival. The schedule of 8 weeks of AS before radiotherapy plus 8 weeks of AS during radiotherapy remains a standard of care in intermediate-risk prostate cancer.