Radical Prostatectomy Findings in White Hispanic/Latino Men With NCCN Very Low-risk Prostate Cancer Detected by Template Biopsy

Prostate cancer upgrading and adverse pathology in Hispanic men undergoing radical prostatectomy

PURPOSE

Radical prostatectomy (RP) outcomes in Hispanic men with prostate cancer are not well-described. Prior studies showed varying results regarding the rate of upgrading and upstaging, and these studies included limited pathologic data and lack of central pathology review. We characterized the rate of upgrading, adverse pathology, and oncologic outcomes in Hispanics after prostatectomy using a large institutional database.

METHODS

We included Hispanic white (HW), non-Hispanic white (NHW), and black men who underwent (RP) between 2010 and 2021 at a single institution. We recorded differences in grade group between biopsy and prostatectomy and performed multivariable analyses for odds of upgrading and adverse pathologic findings. The primary outcome was rate of upgrading in HWs. Using a sub-cohort with follow-up data, we assessed race/ethnicity and upgrading as a predictor of biochemical recurrence (BCR)-free survival.

RESULTS

Our cohort included 1877 men: 36.7% were NHW, 40.6% were HW, and 22.7% were black. Rates of upgrading were not different between NHW, NHW, and black men at 34.0, 33.8, and 37.3%, respectively (p = 0.4). In the multivariable analysis for upgrading, significant predictors for upgrading were older age (p = 0.002), higher PSA (p < 0.001), and lower prostate weight (p = 0.02), but race/ethnicity did not predict upgrading. In patients with available follow-up (1083, 58%), upgrading predicted worse BCR-free survival (HR 2.17, CI 1.46-3.22, p < 0.0001) but race/ethnicity did not.

CONCLUSIONS

HW men undergoing RP had similar rates of upgrading and adverse pathologic outcomes as NHW men. Race/ethnicity does not independently predict upgrading or worse oncologic outcomes after RP.

Diagnostic Accuracy of Contemporary Selection Criteria in Prostate Cancer Patients Eligible for Active Surveillance: A Bayesian Network Meta-Analysis

Background

Several active surveillance (AS) criteria have been established to screen insignificant prostate cancer (insigPCa, defined as organ confined, low grade and small volume tumors confirmed by postoperative pathology). However, their comparative diagnostic performance varies. The aim of this study was to compare the diagnostic accuracy of contemporary AS criteria and validate the absolute diagnostic odds ratio (DOR) of optimal AS criteria.

Methods

First, we searched Pubmed and performed a Bayesian network meta-analysis (NMA) to compare the diagnostic accuracy of contemporary AS criteria and obtained a relative ranking. Then, we searched Pubmed again to perform another meta-analysis to validate the absolute DOR of the top-ranked AS criteria derived from the NMA with two endpoints: insigPCa and favorable disease (defined as organ confined, low grade tumors). Subgroup and meta-regression analyses were conducted to identify any potential heterogeneity in the results. Publication bias was evaluated.

Results

Seven eligible retrospective studies with 3,336 participants were identified for the NMA. The diagnostic accuracy of AS criteria ranked from best to worst, was as follows: Epstein Criteria (EC), Yonsei criteria, Prostate Cancer Research International: Active Surveillance (PRIAS), University of Miami (UM), University of California-San Francisco (UCSF), Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center (MSKCC), and University of Toronto (UT). I² = 50.5%, and sensitivity analysis with different insigPCa definitions supported the robustness of the results. In the subsequent meta-analysis of DOR of EC, insigPCa and favorable disease were identified as endpoints in ten and twenty-two studies, respectively. The pooled DOR for insigPCa and favorable disease were 0.44 (95%CI, 0.31–0.58) and 0.66 (95%CI, 0.61–0.71), respectively. According to a subgroup analysis, the DOR for favorable disease was significantly higher in US institutions than that in other regions. No significant heterogeneity or evidence of publication bias was identified.

Conclusions

Among the seven AS criteria evaluated in this study, EC was optimal for positively identifying insigPCa patients. The pooled diagnostic accuracy of EC was 0.44 for insigPCa and 0.66 when a more liberal endpoint, favorable disease, was used.

Systematic Review Registration

[https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/], PROSPERO [CRD42020157048].

Prostatic Ductal Adenocarcinoma Controlled for Tumor Grade, Stage, and Margin Status Does Not Independently Influence the Likelihood of Biochemical Recurrence in Localized Prostate Cancer After Radical Prostatectomy

CONTEXT.—

Prostatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDA) has historically been considered to be an aggressive subtype of prostate cancer.

OBJECTIVE.—

To investigate if PDA is independently associated with worse biochemical recurrence (BCR)-free survival after radical prostatectomy.

DESIGN.—

A review of 1584 radical prostatectomies was performed to grade, stage, and assess margin status in each tumor nodule. Radical prostatectomies with localized PDA (ie, those lacking metastasis) in the tumor nodule with the highest grade and stage and worst margin status were matched with prostatic acinar adenocarcinoma according to grade, stage, and margin status. The effect of PDA on BCR was assessed by multivariable Cox regression and Kaplan-Meier analyses.

RESULTS.—

Prostatic ductal adenocarcinoma was present in 171 cases. We excluded 24 cases because of lymph node metastasis (n = 13), PDA not in the highest-grade tumor nodule (n = 9), and positive surgical margin in a lower-grade tumor nodule (n = 2). The remaining 147 cases included 26 Grade Group (GG) 2, 44 GG3, 6 GG4, and 71 GG5 cancers. Seventy-six cases had extraprostatic extension, 33 had seminal vesicle invasion, and 65 had positive margins. Follow-up was available for 113 PDA and 109 prostatic acinar adenocarcinoma cases. Prostate-specific antigen density (odds ratio, 3.7; P = .001), cancer grade (odds ratio, 3.3-4.3; P = .02), positive surgical margin (odds ratio, 1.7; P = .02), and tumor volume (odds ratio, 1.3; P = .02) were associated with BCR in multivariable analysis. Prostatic ductal adenocarcinoma, its percentage, intraductal carcinoma, and cribriform Gleason pattern 4 were not significant independent predictors of BCR.

CONCLUSIONS.—

Advanced locoregional stage, higher tumor grade, and positive surgical margin status rather than the mere presence of PDA are more predictive of worse BCR-free survival outcomes following radical prostatectomy in men with a component of PDA.

Anterior or Posterior Prostate Cancer Tumor Nodule Location Predicts Likelihood of Certain Adverse Outcomes at Radical Prostatectomy

CONTEXT.—

Effect of tumor nodule (TN) location in the prostate on adverse radical prostatectomy (RP) outcomes is not well studied in contemporary cohort.

OBJECTIVE.—

To investigate the significance of TN location with respect to extraprostatic extension (EPE), seminal vesicle invasion (SV+), and positive margin status (SM+) in 1388 RPs.

DESIGN.—

Each TN at RP was independently graded, staged, and volumetrically assessed. TNs with at least 80% of their volume occupying either the anterior or posterior part of the prostate were categorized accordingly and included in our study, while all other TNs were excluded.

RESULTS.—

A total of 3570 separate TNs (median = 3 per RP; range = 1-7 per RP) were scored. There were 1320 of 3570 (37%) anterior TNs and 2250 of 3570 (63%) posterior TNs. Posterior TNs were more likely to be higher grade, and exhibit EPE (18% versus 9.4%) and SV+ (4% versus 0.15%), all P < .001. Anterior TNs with EPE were more likely to exhibit SM+ than posterior TNs with EPE (62% versus 30.8%, P < .001). TN location, grade, and volume were significant factors associated with adverse RP outcomes in our univariable analysis. When we controlled for grade and tumor volume in a multivariable analysis using anterior TN location as a reference, posterior TN location was an independent predictor of EPE and SV+ and was less likely to be associated with SM+ (odds ratio = 3.1, 81.5, and 0.7, respectively).

CONCLUSIONS.—

These associations may be useful in preoperative surgical planning, particularly with respect to improving radiographic analysis of prostate cancer.

Cancer health disparities in racial/ethnic minorities in the United States

There are well-established disparities in cancer incidence and outcomes by race/ethnicity that result from the interplay between structural, socioeconomic, socio-environmental, behavioural and biological factors. However, large research studies designed to investigate factors contributing to cancer aetiology and progression have mainly focused on populations of European origin. The limitations in clinicopathological and genetic data, as well as the reduced availability of biospecimens from diverse populations, contribute to the knowledge gap and have the potential to widen cancer health disparities. In this review, we summarise reported disparities and associated factors in the United States of America (USA) for the most common cancers (breast, prostate, lung and colon), and for a subset of other cancers that highlight the complexity of disparities (gastric, liver, pancreas and leukaemia). We focus on populations commonly identified and referred to as racial/ethnic minorities in the USA-African Americans/Blacks, American Indians and Alaska Natives, Asians, Native Hawaiians/other Pacific Islanders and Hispanics/Latinos. We conclude that even though substantial progress has been made in understanding the factors underlying cancer health disparities, marked inequities persist. Additional efforts are needed to include participants from diverse populations in the research of cancer aetiology, biology and treatment. Furthermore, to eliminate cancer health disparities, it will be necessary to facilitate access to, and utilisation of, health services to all individuals, and to address structural inequities, including racism, that disproportionally affect racial/ethnic minorities in the USA.

Gleason score 5 + 3 = 8 (grade group 4) prostate cancer-a rare occurrence with contemporary grading

Grade Group (GG) 4 prostate cancer includes Gleason scores (GS) 3 + 5 = 8, 4 + 4 = 8, and 5 + 3 = 8. Some studies without pathology re-review of historical cohorts proposed that the presence of pattern 5 worsens prognosis compared to GS 4 + 4 = 8 cancer. We assessed how often historically graded GS 5 + 3 = 8 cancers retain this grade with contemporary grading recommendations. Sixteen prostate biopsies and 24 radical prostatectomies (RP) reported from 2005 to 2019 as GS 5 + 3 = 8 were re-reviewed and graded according to contemporary recommendations. In discrepant cases, an attempt was made to explain the different grading. One (6%) biopsy and 3 (12%) RPs remained GS 5 + 3 = 8 (GG4) after re-review. Two (12%) biopsies remained GG4 but were re-graded as GS 3 + 5 = 8 and 1 (4%) RP was reclassified as GS 4 + 4 = 8 (GG4). Eight (50%) biopsies and 15 (64%) RPs were upgraded to Gleason scores 9-10 (GG5). Five (32%) biopsies and 1 (4%) RPs were downgraded to Gleason score 7 (GG2 and 3). One (4%) RP showed GS 3 + 3 = 6 (GG1) cancer. Data from 2013-current from the 3 institutions were available to assess the incidence of GS 5 + 3 = 8 following re-review of the cases. Out of 14 359 biopsies with cancer and 6727 radical prostatectomy specimens, only 1 case (0.007%) and no cases (0%) were graded as GS 5 + 3 = 8, respectively. Reasons for grading discrepancies included: 1) assigning an overall common grade to separate needle cores or tumor nodules; 2) inclusion of <5% lower grade pattern into grading; and 3) misinterpretation of variant histology and patterns. Challenging patterns were poorly-formed glands, signet ring cell-like features, atrophic carcinoma, ductal carcinoma, and mucinous fibroplasia. GS 5 + 3 = 8 (GG4) cancer is very rare with contemporary grading. The reliability of conclusions from retrospective databases regarding the clinical significance of this grade combination without slide re-review is questionable.

Prostatic Ductal Adenocarcinoma Controlled for Cancer Grade and Tumor Volume Does Not Have an Independent Effect on Adverse Radical Prostatectomy Outcomes Compared to Usual Acinar Prostatic Adenocarcinoma

OBJECTIVE

To study if prostatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDA) controlled by Grade Group (GG), PSA, and tumor volume (TV) is an independent predictor of adverse radical prostatectomy (RP) outcomes.

MATERIALS

One-hundred and twenty-eight PDA and 1141 acinar continuous RPs were studied. Each tumor nodule (TN) was individually graded, staged, and its TV measured. Univariate analysis (UVA) identified features associated with lymph node metastasis (LN+), extraprostatic extension (EPE), positive surgical margins (SM+), and seminal vesicle invasion (SV+). We then assessed PDA effect on RP outcomes in a multivariate analysis (MVA).

RESULTS

In 127 cases PDA was present in 1 TN and no TN was pure PDA. One-hundred and twenty-three cases had PDA in TNs with highest grade, stage, and TV. Patients with PDA were older (65 vs 63 years, P < 0.001), had higher GG (P < 0.001), and LN+ (6.3% vs 2.7%, P = 0.049). Controlling these variables by GG eliminated statistical significance. Overall, there were 3249 separate TNs (129 PDA and 3120 acinar). In UVA, PDA predicted EPE (92/124 vs 517/3045), SV+ (28/1129 vs 116/3,120), and SM+ (51/129 vs 296/3120), all P < 0.001. In MVA, PDA lost its effect on EPE (OR = 0.88, P = 0.64), SM+ (OR = 0.86, P = 0.5), and SV+ (OR = 0.99, P = 0.98).

CONCLUSION

Controlled for grade and TV, PDA was not an independent predictor of adverse RP outcomes, but former 2 were. Hence, higher GG and TV associated with PDA TNs may be predictive of adverse RP outcomes rather than PDA by itself. These conclusions may be used in preoperative risk stratification and definitive therapy planning when PDA is identified on needle biopsy.

Understanding PSA and its derivatives in prediction of tumor volume: Addressing health disparities in prostate cancer risk stratification

Objectives

To address health disparities in risk stratification of U.S. Hispanic/Latino men by characterizing influences of prostate weight, body mass index, and race/ethnicity on the correlation of PSA derivatives with Gleason score 6 (Grade Group 1) tumor volume in a diverse cohort.

Results

Using published PSA density and PSA mass density cutoff values, men with higher body mass indices and prostate weights were less likely to have a tumor volume <0.5 cm³. Variability across race/ethnicity was found in the univariable analysis for all PSA derivatives when predicting for tumor volume. In receiver operator characteristic analysis, area under the curve values for all PSA derivatives varied across race/ethnicity with lower optimal cutoff values for Hispanic/Latino (PSA=2.79, PSA density=0.06, PSA mass=0.37, PSA mass density=0.011) and Non-Hispanic Black (PSA=3.75, PSA density=0.07, PSA mass=0.46, PSA mass density=0.008) compared to Non-Hispanic White men (PSA=4.20, PSA density=0.11 PSA mass=0.53, PSA mass density=0.014).

Materials and Methods

We retrospectively analyzed 589 patients with low-risk prostate cancer at radical prostatectomy. Pre-operative PSA, patient height, body weight, and prostate weight were used to calculate all PSA derivatives. Receiver operating characteristic curves were constructed for each PSA derivative per racial/ethnic group to establish optimal cutoff values predicting for tumor volume ≥0.5 cm³.

Conclusions

Increasing prostate weight and body mass index negatively influence PSA derivatives for predicting tumor volume. PSA derivatives’ ability to predict tumor volume varies significantly across race/ethnicity. Hispanic/Latino and Non-Hispanic Black men have lower optimal cutoff values for all PSA derivatives, which may impact risk assessment for prostate cancer.

Do Black NonHispanic Men Produce Less Prostate Specific Antigen in Benign Prostate Tissue or Cancer Compared to White NonHispanic Men with Gleason Score 6 (Grade Group 1) Prostate Cancer?

PURPOSE

We evaluated prostate specific antigen production by benign prostate tissue and Gleason score 3+3=6 (Grade Group 1) prostate cancer in black and white nonHispanic men.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

We used Gleason score 3+3=6 (Grade Group 1) cases to assess prostate specific antigen production by benign prostate tissue in cases with low volume cancer that did not influence prostate specific antigen and in those with high volume cancer in which gland weight did not influence prostate specific antigen. We then created age, prostate specific antigen and prostate weight adjusted cohorts to demonstrate tumor volume per 1 ng/ml prostate specific antigen and 1 μg prostate specific antigen mass. Prostate specific antigen density and prostate specific antigen mass density were used to adjust for prostate weight.

RESULTS

Comparison of 58 black and 301 white men with low volume cancer demonstrated equal prostate specific antigen production by benign prostate tissue. Comparison of 30 black and 75 white men with high volume cancer indicated that prostate specific antigen was being driven by cancer volume, with lower prostate specific antigen production in black men. In the cohort of 54 black and 134 white men matched by age, prostate specific antigen and prostate weight, tumor volume per 1 ng/ml prostate specific antigen or 1 μg prostate specific antigen mass adjusted for prostate weight was 25% and 26% higher in black men, respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

Benign prostate tissue produces equal amounts of prostate specific antigen in black and white men. Gleason score 3+3=6 (Grade Group 1) prostate cancer produces less prostate specific antigen in black men. These data should be considered for lowering prostate specific antigen and its derivatives in determining biopsy thresholds and for adjusting values for active surveillance criteria in black men.