Predicting Cancer-Specific Survival Among Patients With Prostate Cancer After Radical Prostatectomy Based on the Competing Risk Model: Population-Based Study

Extra-prostatic extension grading system: correlation with MRI features and integration of capsular enhancement sign for "enhanced" detection of T3a lesions

PURPOSE

This study aims to confirm the diagnostic accuracy of extra-prostatic extension (EPE) grading system and to explore the predictive capabilities of the prostate MRI while considering various MRI features such as lesion location, apparent diffusion coefficient (ADC) values and capsular enhancement sign (CES).

METHODS

Our monocentric study is based on a retrospective analysis of 99 patients who underwent radical prostatectomy from January 2021 to January 2023. The observers reviewed for each lesion, including location (transitional or peripheral zone, anterior or posterior location), capsular contact length, irregular bulging of the capsule, asymmetry of the neurovascular bundle, obliteration of the recto-prostatic angle, macroscopic EPE, ADC value, and CES.

RESULTS

Among 99 patients, 31 patients had EPE. Lesions with EPE have broadercapsule contact (24 mm vs 12 mm) with contact ≥14 mm being the optimal cut-off for EPE discrimination. Among the morphological MRI criteria used to determine the EPE, the one with major sensitivity was shown to be bulging (sen 81%), while macroscopic extension had highest specificity (100%). Univariate analysis showed as significative risk factors for EPE: capsular contact ≥14 mm (P < .001), International Society of Urological Pathology score ≥3 (P = .005), CES (P < .001), bulging (P = .001), neurovascular bundle asymmetry (P < .001) and EPE score ≥2 (P < .001), and in multivariate analysis CES (P = .001) and EPE score ≥2 (P = .004) were significant. The AUC of the EPE score was 0.76, raised to 0.83 when combining it with CES (P = .11).

CONCLUSION

CES in the setting of multiparametric MRI can increase diagnostic accuracy for the prediction of extracapsular disease.

ADVANCES IN KNOWLEDGE

This study highlights the potential of contrast media in prostate cancer local staging.

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.

The survival benefit of different lymph node yields in radical prostatectomy for pN1M0 prostate cancer patients: Implications from a population-based study

Background and objectives

The extent and survival benefits of lymph node dissection (LND) in radical prostatectomy (RP) for pN1M0 prostate cancer (PCa) patients remained unclear and were controversial. This study aimed to determine the survival benefit of different lymph node yields in RP for pN1M0 PCa patients.

Methods

pN1M0 PCa patients who received RP and LND were identified in Surveillance Epidemiology and End Results (SEER) (2010–2015). Patients were divided into two groups in SEER based on the removal of one to three regional lymph nodes (LND1 group) or four or more regional lymph nodes (LND4 group). Kaplan–Meier methods were used to calculate cancer-specific survival (CSS) and overall survival (OS).

Results

In total, 2,200 patients were identified; 264 patients received LND1 and 1,936 patients received LND4. CSS had no significant difference between the LND4 and LND1 groups (101mon vs. 98mon, p = 0.064), and OS was higher in LND4 patients compared with LND1 patients (97mon vs. 93mon, p = 0.024); for patients with Gleason score = 9 or 10 and T3b or T4, 5-year OS was higher in patients undergoing LND4 (80.9%; 95% CI, 79.0–82.8) compared with those undergoing LND1 (67.5%; 95% CI, 60.8–74.2) (p = 0.009).

Conclusion

More lymph node yield provided better survival for patients with Gleason score = 9 or 10 and T3b or T4, but not for other pN1M0 PCa patients. The extent of LND would be determined after a comprehensive evaluation including Gleason score, tumor stage, and the general condition of the patient.

The Dilemma of Misclassification Rates in Senior Patients With Prostate Cancer, Who Were Treated With Robot-Assisted Radical Prostatectomy: Implications for Patient Counseling and Diagnostics

OBJECTIVES

There is a recent paradigm shift to extend robot-assisted radical prostatectomy (RARP) to very senior prostate cancer (PCa) patients based on biological fitness, comorbidities, and clinical PCa assessment that approximates the true risk of progression. Thus, we aimed to assess misclassification rates between clinical vs. pathological PCa burden.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

We compared senior patients with PCa ≥75 y (n = 847), who were propensity score matched with younger patients <75 y (n = 3,388) in a 1:4 ratio. Matching was based on the number of biopsy cores, prostate volume, and preoperative Cancer of the Prostate Risk Assessment (CAPRA) risk groups score. Multivariable logistic regression models (LRMs) predicted surgical CAPRA (CAPRA-S) upgrade, which was defined as a higher risk of the CAPRA-S in the presence of lower-risk preoperative CAPRA score. LRM incorporated the same variables as propensity score matching. Moreover, patients were categorized as low-, intermediate-, and high-risk, preoperative and according to their CAPRA and CAPRA-S scores.

RESULTS

Surgical CAPRA risk strata significantly differed between the groups. Greater proportions of unfavorable intermediate risk (39 vs. 32%) or high risk (30 vs. 28%; p < 0.001) were observed. These proportions are driven by greater proportions of International Society of Urological Pathology (ISUP) Gleason Grade Group 4 or 5 (33 vs. 26%; p = 0.001) and pathological tumor stage (≥T3a 54 vs. 45%; p < 0.001). Increasing age was identified as an independent predictor of CAPRA-S-based upgrade (age odds ratio [OR] 1.028 95% CI 1.02-1.037; p < 0.001).

CONCLUSION

Approximately every second senior patient has a misclassification in (i.e., any up or downgrade) and each 4.5th senior patient specifically has an upgrade in his final pathology that directly translates to an unfavorable PCa prognosis. It is imperative to take such substantial misclassification rates into account for this sensitive PCa demographic of senior men. Future prospective studies are warranted to further optimize PCa workflow and diagnostics, such as to incorporate modern imaging, molecular profiling and implement these into biopsy strategies to identify true PCa burden.