1
|
Rodrigues Pessoa R, Nabavizadeh R, Shah P, Frank I, Tollefson M, Sharma V, Rangel LJ, Cheville JC, Karnes RJ, Boorjian SA. Relative impact of lymph-node metastasis and seminal vesical invasion on oncologic outcomes following radical prostatectomy. Prostate Cancer Prostatic Dis 2024; 27:674-679. [PMID: 37714961 DOI: 10.1038/s41391-023-00724-9] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 06/09/2023] [Revised: 08/17/2023] [Accepted: 09/04/2023] [Indexed: 09/17/2023]
Abstract
BACKGROUND While both seminal vesicle (SVI) and lymph-node invasion (LNI) have been identified as adverse prognostic variables among men undergoing radical prostatectomy (RP), the relative impact of each of these features on subsequent oncologic outcomes has not been well defined. We assessed the impact of LNI on long-term oncologic outcomes among patients with SVI at RP. METHODS We reviewed 19,519 patients who underwent RP and identified 2043 with SVI. Metastasis-free (MFS), cancer-specific (CSS), and overall survival (OS) were estimated for patients with SVI, stratified by the presence and number of pelvic lymph node metastases. Cox proportional hazards models were used to evaluate the independent association of the number of metastatic nodes and lymph node density with oncologic outcomes among patients with SVI, controlling for age, year of surgery, margin status, preoperative PSA, pathologic Gleason score, extraprostatic extension, and use of adjuvant therapies. RESULTS At a median follow up of 12.1 years (IQR 7.0,18.6), 548 patients developed metastatic disease and 1331 died, including 406 who died from prostate cancer (PCa). We found that, among patients with SVI, the presence of a single positive lymph node was not associated with incrementally adverse oncologic outcomes compared to no nodal metastasis at RP, with 10-year MFS, CSS, and OS rates of 81.3% versus 78.3%(p = 0.18), 86.5% versus 89.8%(p = 0.32), and 72.8% versus 76.7%(p = 0.53), respectively. In contrast, on multivariable analyses, the presence of ≥2 metastatic nodes and a 20% lymph-node density cut off remained independently associated with worse survival. CONCLUSIONS SVI represents an adverse pathologic feature such that the presence of a single positive pelvic lymph node did not further adversely impact prognosis. Meanwhile, a significant number of involved nodes was associated with decreased survival. These findings may aid in risk-stratification as well as clinical trial design for such high-risk patients following surgery.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
| | | | - Paras Shah
- Mayo Clinic, Department of Urology, Rochester, MN, USA
| | - Igor Frank
- Mayo Clinic, Department of Urology, Rochester, MN, USA
| | | | - Vidit Sharma
- Mayo Clinic, Department of Urology, Rochester, MN, USA
| | - Laureano J Rangel
- Mayo Clinic, Department of Quantitative Health Sciences, Rochester, MN, USA
| | - John C Cheville
- Mayo Clinic, Department of Laboratory Medicine and Pathology, Rochester, MN, USA
| | | | | |
Collapse
|
2
|
Lu W, Zhao L, Wang S, Zhang H, Jiang K, Ji J, Chen S, Wang C, Wei C, Zhou R, Wang Z, Li X, Wang F, Wei X, Hou W. Explainable and visualizable machine learning models to predict biochemical recurrence of prostate cancer. Clin Transl Oncol 2024; 26:2369-2379. [PMID: 38602643 DOI: 10.1007/s12094-024-03480-x] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 01/09/2024] [Accepted: 03/23/2024] [Indexed: 04/12/2024]
Abstract
PURPOSE Machine learning (ML) models presented an excellent performance in the prognosis prediction. However, the black box characteristic of ML models limited the clinical applications. Here, we aimed to establish explainable and visualizable ML models to predict biochemical recurrence (BCR) of prostate cancer (PCa). MATERIALS AND METHODS A total of 647 PCa patients were retrospectively evaluated. Clinical parameters were identified using LASSO regression. Then, cohort was split into training and validation datasets with a ratio of 0.75:0.25 and BCR-related features were included in Cox regression and five ML algorithm to construct BCR prediction models. The clinical utility of each model was evaluated by concordance index (C-index) values and decision curve analyses (DCA). Besides, Shapley Additive Explanation (SHAP) values were used to explain the features in the models. RESULTS We identified 11 BCR-related features using LASSO regression, then establishing five ML-based models, including random survival forest (RSF), survival support vector machine (SSVM), survival Tree (sTree), gradient boosting decision tree (GBDT), extreme gradient boosting (XGBoost), and a Cox regression model, C-index were 0.846 (95%CI 0.796-0.894), 0.774 (95%CI 0.712-0.834), 0.757 (95%CI 0.694-0.818), 0.820 (95%CI 0.765-0.869), 0.793 (95%CI 0.735-0.852), and 0.807 (95%CI 0.753-0.858), respectively. The DCA showed that RSF model had significant advantages over all models. In interpretability of ML models, the SHAP value demonstrated the tangible contribution of each feature in RSF model. CONCLUSIONS Our score system provide reference for the identification for BCR, and the crafting of a framework for making therapeutic decisions for PCa on a personalized basis.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Wenhao Lu
- Collaborative Innovation Centre of Regenerative Medicine and Medical BioResource Development and Application Co-Constructed By the Province and Ministry, Guangxi Medical University, No. 22, Shuangyong Road, Qingxiu District, Nanning City, 530021, Guangxi Zhuang Autonomous Region, People's Republic of China
- Center for Genomic and Personalized Medicine, Guangxi Key Laboratory for Genomic and Personalized Medicine, Guangxi Collaborative Innovation Center for Genomic and Personalized Medicine, Guangxi Medical University, Nanning, 530021, Guangxi, People's Republic of China
- Department of Urology, the First Affiliated Hospital of Guangxi Medical University, Guangxi Medical University, Guangxi, 530021, People's Republic of China
- School of Life Sciences, Guangxi Medical University, Nanning, 530021, Guangxi, People's Republic of China
| | - Lin Zhao
- Department of Urology, Shanghai Changhai Hospital, Second Military Medical University, Shanghai, 200433, People's Republic of China
| | - Shenfan Wang
- Department of Urology, Shanghai Changhai Hospital, Second Military Medical University, Shanghai, 200433, People's Republic of China
| | - Huiyong Zhang
- Center for Genomic and Personalized Medicine, Guangxi Key Laboratory for Genomic and Personalized Medicine, Guangxi Collaborative Innovation Center for Genomic and Personalized Medicine, Guangxi Medical University, Nanning, 530021, Guangxi, People's Republic of China
- School of Life Sciences, Guangxi Medical University, Nanning, 530021, Guangxi, People's Republic of China
| | - Kangxian Jiang
- Department of Urology, The Second Affiliated Hospital of Fujian Medical University, Quanzhou, 362000, People's Republic of China
| | - Jin Ji
- Department of Urology, Shanghai Changhai Hospital, Second Military Medical University, Shanghai, 200433, People's Republic of China
| | - Shaohua Chen
- Center for Genomic and Personalized Medicine, Guangxi Key Laboratory for Genomic and Personalized Medicine, Guangxi Collaborative Innovation Center for Genomic and Personalized Medicine, Guangxi Medical University, Nanning, 530021, Guangxi, People's Republic of China
- Department of Urology, the First Affiliated Hospital of Guangxi Medical University, Guangxi Medical University, Guangxi, 530021, People's Republic of China
| | - Chengbang Wang
- Center for Genomic and Personalized Medicine, Guangxi Key Laboratory for Genomic and Personalized Medicine, Guangxi Collaborative Innovation Center for Genomic and Personalized Medicine, Guangxi Medical University, Nanning, 530021, Guangxi, People's Republic of China
| | - Chunmeng Wei
- Center for Genomic and Personalized Medicine, Guangxi Key Laboratory for Genomic and Personalized Medicine, Guangxi Collaborative Innovation Center for Genomic and Personalized Medicine, Guangxi Medical University, Nanning, 530021, Guangxi, People's Republic of China
- Department of Urology, the First Affiliated Hospital of Guangxi Medical University, Guangxi Medical University, Guangxi, 530021, People's Republic of China
- School of Life Sciences, Guangxi Medical University, Nanning, 530021, Guangxi, People's Republic of China
| | - Rongbin Zhou
- Collaborative Innovation Centre of Regenerative Medicine and Medical BioResource Development and Application Co-Constructed By the Province and Ministry, Guangxi Medical University, No. 22, Shuangyong Road, Qingxiu District, Nanning City, 530021, Guangxi Zhuang Autonomous Region, People's Republic of China
- Center for Genomic and Personalized Medicine, Guangxi Key Laboratory for Genomic and Personalized Medicine, Guangxi Collaborative Innovation Center for Genomic and Personalized Medicine, Guangxi Medical University, Nanning, 530021, Guangxi, People's Republic of China
- School of Life Sciences, Guangxi Medical University, Nanning, 530021, Guangxi, People's Republic of China
| | - Zuheng Wang
- Center for Genomic and Personalized Medicine, Guangxi Key Laboratory for Genomic and Personalized Medicine, Guangxi Collaborative Innovation Center for Genomic and Personalized Medicine, Guangxi Medical University, Nanning, 530021, Guangxi, People's Republic of China
- Department of Urology, the First Affiliated Hospital of Guangxi Medical University, Guangxi Medical University, Guangxi, 530021, People's Republic of China
| | - Xiao Li
- Collaborative Innovation Centre of Regenerative Medicine and Medical BioResource Development and Application Co-Constructed By the Province and Ministry, Guangxi Medical University, No. 22, Shuangyong Road, Qingxiu District, Nanning City, 530021, Guangxi Zhuang Autonomous Region, People's Republic of China
- Center for Genomic and Personalized Medicine, Guangxi Key Laboratory for Genomic and Personalized Medicine, Guangxi Collaborative Innovation Center for Genomic and Personalized Medicine, Guangxi Medical University, Nanning, 530021, Guangxi, People's Republic of China
- School of Life Sciences, Guangxi Medical University, Nanning, 530021, Guangxi, People's Republic of China
| | - Fubo Wang
- Collaborative Innovation Centre of Regenerative Medicine and Medical BioResource Development and Application Co-Constructed By the Province and Ministry, Guangxi Medical University, No. 22, Shuangyong Road, Qingxiu District, Nanning City, 530021, Guangxi Zhuang Autonomous Region, People's Republic of China.
- Center for Genomic and Personalized Medicine, Guangxi Key Laboratory for Genomic and Personalized Medicine, Guangxi Collaborative Innovation Center for Genomic and Personalized Medicine, Guangxi Medical University, Nanning, 530021, Guangxi, People's Republic of China.
- Department of Urology, the First Affiliated Hospital of Guangxi Medical University, Guangxi Medical University, Guangxi, 530021, People's Republic of China.
- School of Life Sciences, Guangxi Medical University, Nanning, 530021, Guangxi, People's Republic of China.
| | - Xuedong Wei
- Department of Urology, the First Affiliated Hospital of Soochow University, Suzhou, 210000, Jiangsu, People's Republic of China.
| | - Wenlei Hou
- Information Technology School of Guangxi Police College, Nanning, 530021, Guangxi, People's Republic of China.
| |
Collapse
|
3
|
Dong B, Zhan H, Luan T, Wang J. The role and controversy of pelvic lymph node dissection in prostate cancer treatment: a focused review. World J Surg Oncol 2024; 22:68. [PMID: 38403658 PMCID: PMC10895790 DOI: 10.1186/s12957-024-03344-2] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 12/12/2023] [Accepted: 02/14/2024] [Indexed: 02/27/2024] Open
Abstract
Pelvic lymph node dissection (PLND) is commonly performed alongside radical prostatectomy. Its primary objective is to determine the lymphatic staging of prostate tumors by removing lymph nodes involved in lymphatic drainage. This aids in guiding subsequent treatment and removing metastatic foci, potentially offering significant therapeutic benefits. Despite varying recommendations from clinical practice guidelines across countries, the actual implementation of PLND is inconsistent, partly due to debates over its therapeutic value. While high-quality evidence supporting the superiority of PLND in oncological outcomes is lacking, its role in increasing surgical time and risk of complications is well-recognized. Despite these concerns, PLND remains the gold standard for lymph node staging in prostate cancer, providing invaluable staging information unattainable by other techniques. This article reviews PLND's scope, guideline perspectives, implementation status, oncologic and non-oncologic outcomes, alternatives, and future research needs.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Baonan Dong
- Urology Surgery Department, The Second Affiliated Hospital of Kunming Medical University, 243 Dianmian Avenue, Wuhua District, Kunming, 650101, Yunnan, China
| | - Hui Zhan
- Urology Surgery Department, The Second Affiliated Hospital of Kunming Medical University, 243 Dianmian Avenue, Wuhua District, Kunming, 650101, Yunnan, China.
| | - Ting Luan
- Urology Surgery Department, The Second Affiliated Hospital of Kunming Medical University, 243 Dianmian Avenue, Wuhua District, Kunming, 650101, Yunnan, China
| | - Jiansong Wang
- Urology Surgery Department, The Second Affiliated Hospital of Kunming Medical University, 243 Dianmian Avenue, Wuhua District, Kunming, 650101, Yunnan, China
| |
Collapse
|
4
|
Roy SS, Sathe AA, Watson MJ, Singh A. Comparison of robotic-assisted laparoscopic radical prostatectomy: SP versus XI, a single surgeon experience. J Robot Surg 2023; 17:2817-2821. [PMID: 37736871 DOI: 10.1007/s11701-023-01720-w] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 07/06/2023] [Accepted: 09/06/2023] [Indexed: 09/23/2023]
Abstract
Currently, there is a paucity of data regarding Single Port (SP) robotic-assisted laparoscopic prostatectomy (RALP). Our objective was to compare our single-institution single-surgeon SP RALP experience to our XI RALP experience with regard to patient selection, perioperative data, and outcomes. Patients who underwent prostatectomy at our institution between August 2019 and April 2021 were selected for analysis. All patients had biopsy confirmed prostate cancer. All surgeries were performed by one urologist at our institution to limit inter-surgeon variability. Demographic and clinical information were extracted from the medical record in standardized fashion. All documented classifications were graded using the Clavien-Dindo classification system. Patients with previous prostate cancer therapies were excluded. Categorical variables were compared using Chi-square or Fisher's exact test where appropriate. Continuous variables were compared using t tests or Wilcoxon rank sum tests where appropriate. Complete records were available for 208 patients. Of the total patient population 127 (61.1%) underwent SP prostatectomy compared to 81 (38.9%) underwent XI prostatectomy. There was no significant difference between the two cohorts in terms of mean age (65 vs. 66 years; p = 0.60), BMI (29.2 vs. 30.1; p = 0.22), preop ASA score ≥ 3 (68.5% vs. 64.2%; p = 0.52), or preop PSA (7.1 vs. 7.4, p = 0.94). There no difference in procedure time for SP prostatectomy (170 vs. 168 min, p = 0.035), estimated blood loss (100 vs. 100 mL; p = 0.14), or average length of stay (1 vs. 1 days; p = 0.22). There was a significant difference in Gleason grade group between the two cohorts with patients undergoing XI RALRP more likely to have higher stage disease (p = 0.025) and a trend towards higher D'Amico risk scores in the XI group (p = 0.053). There was no difference in rate of positive surgical margins (29.9% vs. 29.6%; p = 0.96). There was no difference in the distribution of complications between the two groups (p = 0.99) with 89% of patients having no complication. There was no difference in the number of lymph nodes removed by modality (p = 0.94). To date, this study represents one of the largest cohorts of patients who underwent SP RALP. Importantly, it is among the first studies comparing perioperative variables between the SP and XI platforms. As surgeons become more facile with the SP system there appear to minimal differences in patient factors, perioperative results, or outcomes between the platforms. These findings provide evidence that surgeons who are competent on the XI platform can confidently perform SP RALPs through a single incision without compromising outcomes.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Samit Sunny Roy
- University of Tennessee College of Medicine - Chattanooga, Chattanooga, TN, USA.
| | - Aditya A Sathe
- University of Tennessee College of Medicine - Chattanooga, Chattanooga, TN, USA
| | - Matthew J Watson
- University of Tennessee College of Medicine - Chattanooga, Chattanooga, TN, USA
| | - Amar Singh
- University of Tennessee College of Medicine - Chattanooga, Chattanooga, TN, USA
| |
Collapse
|
5
|
Vidal Crespo N, Enguita Arnal L, Gómez-Ferrer Á, Collado Serra A, Mascarós JM, Calatrava Fons A, Casanova Ramón-Borja J, Rubio Briones J, Ramírez-Backhaus M. Bilateral Seminal Vesicle Invasion Is Not Associated with Worse Outcomes in Locally Advanced Prostate Carcinoma. MEDICINA (KAUNAS, LITHUANIA) 2022; 58:medicina58081057. [PMID: 36013525 PMCID: PMC9416593 DOI: 10.3390/medicina58081057] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 07/11/2022] [Revised: 07/27/2022] [Accepted: 07/27/2022] [Indexed: 11/16/2022]
Abstract
Background and Objectives: Patients with seminal vesicle invasion (SVI) are a highly heterogeneous group. Prognosis can be affected by many clinical and pathological characteristics. Our aim was to study whether bilateral SVI (bi-SVI) is associated with worse oncological outcomes. Materials and Methods: This is an observational retrospective study that included 146 pT3b patients treated with radical prostatectomy (RP). We compared the results between unilateral SVI (uni-SVI) and bi-SVI. The log-rank test and Kaplan–Meier curves were used to compare biochemical recurrence-free survival (BCR), metastasis-free survival (MFS), and additional treatment-free survival. Cox proportional hazard models were used to identify predictors of BCR-free survival, MFS, and additional treatment-free survival. Results: 34.93% of patients had bi-SVI. The median follow-up was 46.84 months. No significant differences were seen between the uni-SVI and bi-SVI groups. BCR-free survival at 5 years was 33.31% and 25.65% (p = 0.44) for uni-SVI and bi-SVI. MFS at 5 years was 86.03% vs. 75.63% (p = 0.1), and additional treatment-free survival was 36.85% vs. 21.93% (p = 0.09), respectively. In the multivariate analysis, PSA was related to the development of BCR [HR 1.34 (95%CI: 1.01–1.77); p = 0.03] and metastasis [HR 1.83 (95%CI: 1.13–2.98); p = 0.02]. BCR was also influenced by lymph node infiltration [HR 2.74 (95%CI: 1.41–5.32); p = 0.003]. Additional treatment was performed more frequently in patients with positive margins [HR: 3.50 (95%CI: 1.65–7.44); p = 0.001]. Conclusions: SVI invasion is an adverse pathology feature, with a widely variable prognosis. In our study, bilateral seminal vesicle invasion did not predict worse outcomes in pT3b patients despite being associated with more undifferentiated tumors.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Natalia Vidal Crespo
- Department of Urology, Hospital General Universitario Santa Lucía, 30202 Cartagena, Spain
| | - Laura Enguita Arnal
- Department of Urology, Hospital Universitario Miguel Servet, 50009 Zaragoza, Spain
| | - Álvaro Gómez-Ferrer
- Department of Urology, Fundación Instituto Valenciano de Oncología, 46009 Valencia, Spain
| | - Argimiro Collado Serra
- Department of Urology, Fundación Instituto Valenciano de Oncología, 46009 Valencia, Spain
| | - Juan Manuel Mascarós
- Department of Urology, Fundación Instituto Valenciano de Oncología, 46009 Valencia, Spain
| | - Ana Calatrava Fons
- Department of Pathology, Fundación Instituto Valenciano de Oncología, 46009 Valencia, Spain
| | | | - José Rubio Briones
- Department of Urology, Fundación Instituto Valenciano de Oncología, 46009 Valencia, Spain
| | - Miguel Ramírez-Backhaus
- Department of Urology, Fundación Instituto Valenciano de Oncología, 46009 Valencia, Spain
- Correspondence: ; Tel.: +34-676-134-968
| |
Collapse
|