Evaluation of the major changes in eighth edition of the American Joint Committee on Cancer pathological staging for prostate cancer treated with prostatectomy

Emerging Role of Nuclear Medicine in Prostate Cancer: Current State and Future Perspectives

Prostate cancer is the most frequent epithelial neoplasia after skin cancer in men starting from 50 years and prostate-specific antigen (PSA) dosage can be used as an early screening tool. Prostate cancer imaging includes several radiological modalities, ranging from ultrasonography, computed tomography (CT), and magnetic resonance to nuclear medicine hybrid techniques such as single-photon emission computed tomography (SPECT)/CT and positron emission tomography (PET)/CT. Innovation in radiopharmaceutical compounds has introduced specific tracers with diagnostic and therapeutic indications, opening the horizons to targeted and very effective clinical care for patients with prostate cancer. The aim of the present review is to illustrate the current knowledge and future perspectives of nuclear medicine, including stand-alone diagnostic techniques and theragnostic approaches, in the clinical management of patients with prostate cancer from initial staging to advanced disease.

Modified the 8th AJCC staging system for patients with advanced prostate cancer: a study based on SEER database

Background

The American Joint Committee on Cancer (AJCC) 8th staging system of prostate cancer may be insufficient in predicting the prognosis of some staged patients. This study aimed to modify the AJCC 8th staging system in patients with advanced prostate cancer.

Methods

Data of patients with advanced prostate cancer from the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER) database between 2004 and 2016 were enrolled in this cohort study. All patients were divided into the training set and the testing set with a ratio of 6:4. Multivariate Cox survival model was utilized to obtain the nomogram score for each stage variable. The modified staging system was based on the total nomogram score. The C-index and Kaplan-Meier (K-M) curves were used to show the prognostic prediction effect of patients with different staging systems.

Results

A total of 28,006 patients were included for analysis. T stage, N stage, M stage, primary Gleason pattern score, secondary Gleason pattern score, and PSA level were included as stage variables. Patients with AJCC stage III C [hazard ratio (HR) = 4.17, 95% confidence interval (CI), 3.39–5.13] and AJCC stage IV B (HR = 3.19, 95%CI, 1.79–5.69) were associated with worse prognosis compared with those of AJCC stage III B, while no statistical significance was found in patients with stage IV A (P > 0.05). In terms of the modified staging system, patients with modified stage III C (HR = 2.06, 95%CI, 1.46–2.92), modified stage IV A (HR = 6.91, 95%CI, 4.81–9.94), and modified stage IV B (HR = 21.89, 95%CI, 14.76–32.46) were associated with a poorer prognosis compared with patients with modified stage III B. The prognostic ability (C-index) of the modified staging system (0.789; 95%CI, 0.777–0.801) was better than that of the AJCC 8th edition system (0.762; 95%CI, 0.748–0.776) (0.789 vs. 0.762, P = 0.004). The K-M curves indicated that the modified staging system may be distinguished prognostic differences in patients with different stages.

Conclusion

Modified staging system may be better than AJCC 8th staging system for predicting prognosis in prostate cancer patients. The AJCC 8th staging system should be further optimized.

Updates in Staging and Reporting of Genitourinary Malignancies

CONTEXT.—

The 8th edition of the American Joint Committee on Cancer (AJCC) staging manual changed the tumor, node, metastasis (TNM) classification systems of genitourinary malignancies in 2017. However, some of the changes appear not well appreciated or recognized by practicing pathologists.

OBJECTIVE.—

To review the major changes compared with the 7th edition in cancers of the prostate, penis, testis, bladder, urethra, renal pelvis/ureter, and kidney and discuss the challenges that pathologists may encounter.

DATA SOURCES.—

Peer-reviewed publications and the 8th and 7th editions of the AJCC Cancer Staging Manual.

CONCLUSIONS.—

This article summarizes the updated staging of genitourinary malignancies, specifically highlighting changes from the 7th edition that are relevant to the pathologic staging system. Pathologists should be aware of the updates made in hopes of providing clarification and the remaining diagnostic challenges associated with these changes.

Validation of the updated eighth edition of AJCC for prostate cancer: Removal of pT2 substages - Does extent of tumor involvement matter?

BACKGROUND

Updates in the eighth edition of the AJCC prostate cancer staging manual include removal of the organ-confined (pT2) substages.

METHODS

Retrospective analyses of 12,028 pT2 patients that underwent radical prostatectomy between 2003 and 2016 and did not receive neo- or adjuvant treatments. Kaplan-Meier curves as well as multivariable Cox-regression analyses compared biochemical recurrence (BCR), metastatic progression (MP) and overall mortality (OM) between the 3 subcategories (pT2a, pT2b and pT2c).

RESULTS

After surgery, 1,441 patients were classified as pT2a, 126 as pT2b and 10.495 as pT2c. Five-year BFS rates for pT2a, pT2b and pT2c were 92.0% vs. 97.4% vs. 88.0%. For the same groups, 5-year MP-FS rates were 99.5% vs. 100% vs. 99.0% and 5-year OS rates were 98.0% vs. 98.2% vs. 97.7%. In multivariable analyses pT2 substratification did not reach independent predictor status for biochemical recurrence, MP or overall mortality.

CONCLUSIONS

Substratification of pT2 prostate cancer was not predictive for further disease progression. Therefore, removing the substages simplifies the staging system without loss of important information.