Are pathological and oncological outcomes of elderly men treated with radical prostatectomy worse than those of younger men? Matched-pair analysis between patients aged <70 and ≥70 years

Age 70 +/- 5 Years and Cancer-Specific Outcomes After Treatment of Localized Prostate Cancer: A Systematic Review

A secondary analysis of 2 randomized Radiation Therapy Oncology Group trials demonstrated that age ≥70 years was a favorable prognostic factor among men treated with external beam radiation therapy (EBRT). In contrast, several series based on men undergoing radical prostatectomy (RP) suggested that older age was an unfavorable prognostic factor. Our study was initiated to determine whether these observations reflect a true but paradoxical underlying age-related treatment-dependent biological phenomenon. We conducted a systematic review (PubMed, January 1, 1999-January 30, 2023) evaluating the effect of age on cancer-specific outcomes after definitive local treatment with either RP or EBRT. Our main objective was to assess possible interactions between age (using a cutoff of 70 +/- 5 years) and treatment type, with regard to adverse cancer-specific outcomes (eg, pathology, biochemical failure, distant metastasis, or prostate cancer-specific survival). Forty-five studies were selected for inclusion in this systematic review, including 30 and 15 studies with patients treated with RP and EBRT, respectively. Among patients treated with RP, 10 (50%) of these studies suggested that older age was associated with worse outcome(s) after RP. None suggested that age was a favorable prognostic factor after RP. Among the EBRT-based studies, 8 (53%) suggested that older age was associated with better outcomes, with an additional 3 studies (21%) trending to support a better outcome. None of these studies involving EBRT suggested that older age was an adverse prognostic factor. This systematic review suggests that age using a categorical cutoff of 70 +/- 5 years may be an adverse prognostic factor for men undergoing RP but a favorable prognostic factor for men treated with EBRT. Further research is needed to validate these findings.

Evaluation and Management of the Geriatric Urologic Oncology Patient

The geriatric population presents a unique set of challenges in urologic oncology. In addition to the known natural history of disease, providers must also consider patient factors such as functional and nutritional status, comorbidities and social support when determining the treatment plan. The development of frailty measures and biomarkers to estimate surgical risk shows promise, with several assessment tools predictive of surgical complications. Decreased dependence on chronologic age is important when assessing surgical fitness, as age cutoffs prevent appropriate treatment of many elderly patients who would benefit from surgery. Within bladder, kidney and prostate cancers, continued refinement of surgical techniques offers a broader array of options for the geriatric patient than previously available.

Prostate cancer screening in the fit Chilean elderly: a head to head comparison of total serum PSA versus age adjusted PSA versus primary circulating prostate cells to detect prostate cancer at initial biopsy

BACKGROUND

Prostate cancer is predominately a disease of older men, with a median age of diagnosis of 68 years and 71% of cancer deaths occurring in those over 75 years of age. While prostate cancer screening is not recommended for men>70 years, fit elderly men with controlled comorbidities may have a relatively long life expectancy. We compare the use of age related PSA with the detection of primary malignant circulating prostate cells mCPCs to detect clinically significant PC in this population.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

All men undergoing PC screening with a PSA>4.0 ng/ml underwent TRUS 12 core prostate biopsy (PB). Age, PSA, PB results defined as cancer/no-cancer, Gleason, number of positive cores and percentage infiltration were registered. Men had an 8 ml blood sample taken for mCPC detection; mononuclear cells were obtained using differential gel centrifugation and mCPCs were identified using immunocytochemistry with anti-PSA and anti-P504S. A mCPC was defined as a cell expressing PSA and P504S; a positive test as at least one mCPC detected/sample. Diagnostic yields for subgroups were calculated and the number of avoided PBs registered. Esptein criteria were used to define small grade tumours.

RESULTS

A total of 610 men underwent PB, 398 of whom were aged <70 yrs. Men over 70 yrs had: a higher median PSA, 6.24 ng/ml versus 5.59 ng/ml (p=0.04); and a higher frequency of cancer detected 90/212 (43%) versus 134/398 (34%) (p=0.032). Some 34/134 cancers in men<70 yrs versus 22/90 (24%) of men>70 yrs complied with criteria for active surveillance. CPC detection: 154/398 (39%) men<70 yrs were CPC (+), specificity for cancer 86%, sensitivity 88%, 14/16 with a false (-) result had a small low grade PC. In men>70 years, 88/212 (42%) were CPC (+); specificity 92%, sensitivity 87%, 10/12 with a false (-) had small low grade tumours. False (+) results were more common in younger men 36/154 versus 10/88 (p<0.02). With a PSA cutoff of 6.5 ng/ml, in men<70 yrs, 108 PB would be avoided, missing 56 cancers of which 48 were clinically significant. Using CPC detection, 124 biopsies would be avoided, missing only 2 clinically significant cancers. In men>70 yrs using a PSA>6.5 ng/ml would have resulted in 108 PB with 34 PC detected, of which 14(41%) were small low grade tumours.

CONCLUSIONS

The use of CPC detection in the fit elderly significantly decreases the number of PBs without missing clinically significant cancers, indicating superiority to the use of age-related PSA.