Validating the Association of Adverse Pathology with Distant Metastasis and Prostate Cancer Mortality 20-Years After Radical Prostatectomy

Genomics in active surveillance and post-prostatectomy patients: A review of when and how to use effectively

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

Prostate cancer (PCa) represents a significant health burden globally, ranking as the most diagnosed cancer among men and a leading cause of cancer-related mortality. Conventional treatment methods such as radiation therapy or radical prostatectomy have significant side effects which often impact quality of life. As our understanding of the natural history and progression of PCa has evolved, so has the evolution of management options.

RECENT FINDINGS

Active surveillance (AS) has become an increasingly favored approach to the management of very low, low, and properly selected favorable intermediate risk PCa. AS permits ongoing observation and postpones intervention until definitive treatment is required. There are, however, challenges with selecting patients for AS, which further emphasizes the need for more precise tools to better risk stratify patients and choose candidates more accurately. Tissue-based biomarkers, such as ProMark, Prolaris, GPS (formerly Oncotype DX), and Decipher, are valuable because they improve the accuracy of patient selection for AS and offer important information on the prognosis and severity of disease. By enabling patients to be categorized according to their risk profiles, these biomarkers help physicians and patients make better informed treatment choices and lower the possibility of overtreatment. Even with their potential, further standardization and validation of these biomarkers is required to guarantee their broad clinical utility. Active surveillance has emerged as a preferred strategy for managing low-risk prostate cancer, and tissue-based biomarkers play a crucial role in refining patient selection and risk stratification. Standardization and validation of these biomarkers are essential to ensure their widespread clinical use and optimize patient outcomes.

Use of the Decipher genomic classifier among men with prostate cancer in the United States

BACKGROUND

Management of localized or recurrent prostate cancer since the 1990s has been based on risk stratification using clinicopathological variables, including Gleason score, T stage (based on digital rectal exam), and prostate-specific antigen (PSA). In this study a novel prognostic test, the Decipher Prostate Genomic Classifier (GC), was used to stratify risk of prostate cancer progression in a US national database of men with prostate cancer.

METHODS

Records of prostate cancer cases from participating SEER (Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results) program registries, diagnosed during the period from 2010 through 2018, were linked to records of testing with the GC prognostic test. Multivariable analysis was used to quantify the association between GC scores or risk groups and use of definitive local therapy after diagnosis in the GC biopsy-tested cohort and postoperative radiotherapy in the GC-tested cohort as well as adverse pathological findings after prostatectomy.

RESULTS

A total of 572 545 patients were included in the analysis, of whom 8927 patients underwent GC testing. GC biopsy-tested patients were more likely to undergo active active surveillance or watchful waiting than untested patients (odds ratio [OR] =2.21, 95% confidence interval [CI] = 2.04 to 2.38, P < .001). The highest use of active surveillance or watchful waiting was for patients with a low-risk GC classification (41%) compared with those with an intermediate- (27%) or high-risk (11%) GC classification (P < .001). Among National Comprehensive Cancer Network patients with low and favorable-intermediate risk, higher GC risk class was associated with greater use of local therapy (OR = 4.79, 95% CI = 3.51 to 6.55, P < .001). Within this subset of patients who were subsequently treated with prostatectomy, high GC risk was associated with harboring adverse pathological findings (OR = 2.94, 95% CI = 1.38 to 6.27, P = .005). Use of radiation after prostatectomy was statistically significantly associated with higher GC risk groups (OR = 2.69, 95% CI = 1.89 to 3.84).

CONCLUSIONS

There is a strong association between use of the biopsy GC test and likelihood of conservative management. Higher genomic classifier scores are associated with higher rates of adverse pathology at time of surgery and greater use of postoperative radiotherapy.In this study the Decipher Prostate Genomic Classifier (GC) was used to analyze a US national database of men with prostate cancer. Use of the GC was associated with conservative management (ie, active surveillance). Among men who had high-risk GC scores and then had surgery, there was a 3-fold higher chance of having worrisome findings in surgical specimens.

Adverse upgrading and/or upstaging in contemporary low-risk prostate cancer patients

BACKGROUND

Upgrading and/or upstaging in low-risk prostate cancer (PCa) patients may represent an indication for active treatment instead of active surveillance (AS). We addressed contemporary upgrading and/or upstaging rates in a large population based-cohort of low-risk PCa patients.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Whitin the SEER database (2010-2015), NCCN low-risk PCa patients were identified across management modalities: radical prostatectomy (RP), radiotherapy (RT) and non-local treatment (NLT). In RP patients, upgrading and/or upstaging rates were assessed in logistic regression models.

RESULTS

Overall, of 27,901 low-risk PCa patients, 38% underwent RP vs 28% RT vs 34% NLT. RP patients were the youngest and harbored the highest percentage of positive cores and a higher rate of cT2a than NLT. At RP, 46.2% were upgraded to GGG ≥ 2, 6.0% to GGG ≥ 3 and 10.5% harbored nonorgan-confined stage (NOC, pT3-4 or pN1). Of NOC patients, 1.6% harbored GGG ≥ 3, 6.3% harbored GGG2 and 2.6% harbored GGG1. Of pT2 patients, 4.4% harbored GGG ≥ 3, 33.9% harbored GGG2 and 51.3% harbored GGG1. Age, PSA, percentage of positive cores and number of positive cores independently predicted the presence of NOC and/or GGG ≥ 3, but with low accuracy (63.9%).

CONCLUSIONS

In low-risk PCa, critical changes between tumor grade and stage at biopsy vs RP may be expected in very few patients: NOC with GGG ≥ 3 in 1.6% and NOC with GGG2 in 6.3%. Other patients with upgrading and/or upstaging combinations will invariably harbor either pT2 or GGG1 that far less critically affect PCa prognosis.