The effect of time from biopsy to radical prostatectomy on adverse pathologic outcomes

Low-volume grade group 2 prostate cancer candidates for active surveillance: a radical prostatectomy retrospective analysis

OBJECTIVE

Guidelines support considering selected men with ISUP grade group (GG) 2 prostate cancer for active surveillance (AS). We assessed the association of clinical variables with unfavorable pathology at radical prostatectomy in low-volume GG 2 prostate cancer on biopsy in a retrospective cohort.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

This was a retrospective analysis of 378 men with low-volume (≤ 2 cores) GG 2 localized prostate cancer who underwent prostatectomy at a single tertiary cancer center. Multivariable logistic regression of unfavorable pathology, upgrading to ≥ T3, or GG ≥ 3 was performed in relation to clinical factors, common variables used in AS in GG 1 and percentage Gleason 4 at biopsy. We compared the performance of potential variables with commonly used combined AS restrictions in GG 1 prostate cancer.

RESULTS

In total, 128/378 (34%) men had unfavorable pathology at radical prostatectomy. On multivariable analysis, > 5% Gleason pattern 4 was independently associated with an increased risk of GG ≥ 3. A maximum percentage core involvement > 50% was independently associated with an increased risk of pT-stage ≥ 3 and unfavorable pathology. Restriction to patients with ≤ 5% Gleason 4 decreased the upgrading of both unfavorable pathology (OR = 0.62, p = 0.041) and GG ≥ 3 (OR = 0.17, p = 0.0007) compared to the full cohort, while restriction to those with ≤ 50% of max core involvement did not.

CONCLUSION

In low-volume GG 2, the percentage of Gleason 4 of ≤ 5% was the strongest predictor in reducing upgrading at final pathology. This easily available pathological descriptor could be used to guide urologists and patients when considering AS in this setting.

Oncologic impact of delaying radical prostatectomy in men with intermediate- and high-risk prostate cancer: a systematic review

PURPOSE

To summarize the available evidence on the survival and pathologic outcomes after deferred radical prostatectomy (RP) in men with intermediate- and high-risk prostate cancer (PCa).

METHODS

The PubMed database and Web of Science were searched in November 2020 according to the PRISMA statement. Studies were deemed eligible if they reported the survival and pathologic outcomes of patients treated with deferred RP for intermediate- and high-risk PCa compared to the control group including those patients treated with RP without delay.

RESULTS

Overall, nineteen studies met our eligibility criteria. We found a significant heterogeneity across the studies in terms of definitions for delay and outcomes, as well as in patients' baseline clinicopathologic features. According to the currently available literature, deferred RP does not seem to affect oncological survival outcomes, such as prostate cancer-specific mortality and metastasis-free survival, in patients with intermediate- or high-risk PCa. However, the impact of deferred RP on biochemical recurrence rates remains controversial. There is no clear association of deferring RP with any of the features of aggressive disease such as pathologic upgrading, upstaging, positive surgical margins, extracapsular extension, seminal vesicle invasion, and lymph node invasion. Deferred RP was not associated with the need for secondary treatments.

CONCLUSIONS

Owing to the different definitions of a delayed RP, it is hard to make a consensus regarding the safe delay time. However, the current data suggest that deferring RP in patients with intermediate- and high-risk PCa for at least around 3 months is generally safe, as it does not lead to adverse pathologic outcomes, biochemical recurrence, the need for secondary therapy, or worse oncological survival outcomes.

Surgical Delay and Pathological Outcomes for Clinically Localized High-Risk Prostate Cancer

IMPORTANCE

There is a lack of data evaluating the association of surgical delay time (SDT) with outcomes in patients with localized, high-risk prostate cancer.

OBJECTIVE

To investigate the association of SDT of radical prostatectomy and final pathological and survival outcomes.

DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS

This cohort study used data from the US National Cancer Database (NCDB) and identified all patients with clinically localized (cT1-2cN0cM0) high-risk prostate adenocarcinoma diagnosed between 2006 and 2016 who underwent radical prostatectomy. Data analyses were performed from April 1 to April 12, 2020.

EXPOSURES

SDT was defined as the number of days between the initial cancer diagnosis and radical prostatectomy. SDT was categorized into 5 groups: 31 to 60, 61 to 90, 91 to 120, 121 to 150, and 151 to 180 days.

MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES

The primary outcomes were predetermined as adverse pathological outcomes after radical prostatectomy, including pT3-T4 disease, pN-positive disease, and positive surgical margin. The adverse pathological score (APS) was defined as an accumulated score of the 3 outcomes (0-3). An APS of 2 or higher was considered a separate outcome to capture cases with more aggressive pathological features. The secondary outcome was overall survival.

RESULTS

Of the 32 184 patients included in the study, the median (interquartile range) age was 64 (59-68) years, and 25 548 (79.4%) were non-Hispanic White. Compared with an SDT of 31 to 60 days, longer SDTs were not associated with higher risks of having any adverse pathological outcomes (odds ratio [OR], 0.95; 95% CI, 0.80-1.12; P = .53), pT3-T4 disease (OR, 0.99; 95% CI, 0.83-1.17; P = .87), pN-positive disease (OR, 0.79; 95% CI, 0.59-1.06; P = .12), positive surgical margin (OR, 0.88; 95% CI, 0.74-1.05; P = .17), or APS greater than or equal to 2 (OR, 0.90; 95% CI, 0.74-1.05; P = .17). Longer SDT was also not associated with worse overall survival (for SDT of 151-180 days, hazard ratio, 1.12; 95% CI, 0.79-1.59, P = .53). Subgroup analyses performed for patients with very high-risk disease (primary Gleason score 5) and sensitivity analyses with SDT considered as a continuous variable yielded similar results.

CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE

In this cohort study of patients who underwent radical prostatectomy within 180 days of diagnosis for high-risk prostate cancer, radical prostatectomy for high-risk prostate cancer could be safely delayed up to 6 months after diagnosis.

Impact of surgical wait times during summer months on the oncological outcomes following robotic-assisted radical prostatectomy: 10 years' experience from a large Canadian academic center

PURPOSE

Most Canadian hospitals face significant reductions in operating room access during the summer. We sought to assess the impact of longer wait times on the oncological outcomes of localized prostate cancer patients following robotic-assisted radical prostatectomy (RARP).

METHODS

We conducted a retrospective review of a prospectively maintained RARP database in two high-volume academic centers, between 2010 and 2019. Assessed outcomes included the difference between post-biopsy UCSF-CAPRA and post-surgical CAPRA-S scores, Gleason score upgrade and biochemical recurrence rates (BCR). Multivariable regression analyses (MVA) were used to evaluate the effect of wait times.

RESULTS

A total of 1057 men were included for analysis. Consistent over a 10 year period, summer months had the lowest surgical volumes despite above average booking volumes. The lowest surgical volume occurred during the month of July (7.1 cases on average), which was 35% less than the cohort average. The longest average wait times occurred for patients booked in June (93 ± 69 days, p < 0.001). On MVA, patients booked in June had significantly more chance of having an increase in CAPRA score [HR (95% CI) 1.64 (1.02-2.63); p = 0.04] and in CAPRA risk group [HR (95% CI) 1.82 (1.04-3.19); p = 0.03]. Cohort analysis showed fair correlation between CAPRA-score difference and wait time (Pearson correlation: r =  - 0.062; p = 0.044).

CONCLUSION

Our cohort results demonstrate that conventional RARP wait times are significantly and consistently prolonged during summer months over the past 10 years, with worse post-RARP oncological outcomes in terms of CAPRA scores. Other compensatory mechanisms to sustain consistent yearly operative output should be considered.

Risks from Deferring Treatment for Genitourinary Cancers: A Collaborative Review to Aid Triage and Management During the COVID-19 Pandemic

Context

The coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic is leading to delays in the treatment of many urologic cancers.

Objective

To provide a contemporary picture of the risks from delayed treatment for urologic cancers to assist with triage.

Evidence acquisition

A collaborative review using literature published as of April 2, 2020.

Evidence synthesis

Patients with low-grade non–muscle-invasive bladder cancer are unlikely to suffer from a 3–6-month delay. Patients with muscle-invasive bladder cancer are at risk of disease progression, with radical cystectomy delays beyond 12 wk from diagnosis or completion of neoadjuvant chemotherapy. Prioritization of these patients for surgery or management with radiochemotherapy is encouraged. Active surveillance should be used for low-risk prostate cancer (PCa). Treatment of most patients with intermediate- and high-risk PCa can be deferred 3–6 mo without change in outcomes. The same may be true for cancers with the highest risk of progression. With radiotherapy, neoadjuvant androgen deprivation therapy (ADT) is the standard of care. For surgery, although the added value of neoadjuvant ADT is questionable, it may be considered if a patient is interested in such an approach. Intervention may be safely deferred for T1/T2 renal masses, while locally advanced renal tumors (≥T3) should be treated expeditiously. Patients with metastatic renal cancer may consider vascular endothelial growth factor targeted therapy over immunotherapy. Risks for delay in the treatment of upper tract urothelial cancer depend on grade and stage. For patients with high-grade disease, delays of 12 wk in nephroureterectomy are not associated with adverse survival outcomes. Expert guidance recommends expedient local treatment of testis cancer. In penile cancer, adverse outcomes have been observed with delays of ≥3 mo before inguinal lymphadenectomy. Limitations include a paucity of data and methodologic variations for many cancers.

Conclusions

Patients and clinicians should consider the oncologic risk of delayed cancer intervention versus the risks of COVID-19 to the patient, treating health care professionals, and the health care system.

Patient summary

The coronavirus disease 2019 pandemic has led to delays in the treatment of patients with urologic malignancies. Based on a review of the literature, patients with high-grade urothelial carcinoma, advanced kidney cancer, testicular cancer, and penile cancer should be prioritized for treatment during these challenging times.