Modified risk stratification grouping using standard clinical and biopsy information for patients undergoing radical prostatectomy: Results from SEARCH

Zachary S. Zumsteg, Zinan Chen, Lauren E. Howard, Christopher L. Amling, William J. Aronson, Matthew R. Cooperberg, Christopher J. Kane, Martha Kennedy Terris, Daniel E. Spratt, Howard M. Sandler, Stephen J. Freedland

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

4 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

Introduction: Prostate cancer is a heterogeneous disease, and risk stratification systems have been proposed to guide treatment decisions. However, significant heterogeneity remains for those with unfavorable-risk disease. Methods: This study included 3335 patients undergoing radical prostatectomy without adjuvant radiotherapy in the SEARCH database. High-risk patients were dichotomized into standard and very high-risk (VHR) groups based on primary Gleason pattern, percentage of positive biopsy cores (PPBC), number of NCCN high-risk factors, and stage T3b-T4 disease. Similarly, intermediate-risk prostate cancer was separated into favorable and unfavorable groups based on primary Gleason pattern, PPBC, and number of NCCN intermediate-risk factors. Results: Median follow-up was 78 months. Patients with VHR prostate cancer had significantly worse PSA relapse-free survival (PSA-RFS, P < 0.001), distant metastasis (DM, P = 0.004), and prostate cancer-specific mortality (PCSM, P = 0.015) in comparison to standard high-risk (SHR) patients in multivariable analyses. By contrast, there was no significant difference in PSA-RFS, DM, or PCSM between SHR and unfavorable intermediate-risk (UIR) patients. Therefore, we propose a novel risk stratification system: Group 1 (low-risk), Group 2 (favorable intermediate-risk), Group 3 (UIR and SHR), and Group 4 (VHR). The c-index of this new grouping was 0.683 for PSA-RFS and 0.800 for metastases, compared to NCCN-risk groups which yield 0.666 for PSA-RFS and 0.764 for metastases. Conclusions: Patients classified as VHR have markedly increased rates of PSA relapse, DM, and PCSM in comparison to SHR patients, whereas UIR and SHR patients have similar prognosis. Novel therapeutic strategies are needed for patients with VHR, likely involving multimodality therapy.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)1592-1600
Number of pages9
JournalProstate
Volume77
Issue number16
DOIs
StatePublished - Dec 1 2017

Fingerprint

Prostatectomy
Biopsy
Prostatic Neoplasms
Neoplasm Metastasis
Recurrence
Adjuvant Radiotherapy

Keywords

  • prostate cancer
  • risk stratification
  • unfavorable intermediate risk
  • very high-risk prostate cancer

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Oncology
  • Urology

Cite this

Zumsteg, Z. S., Chen, Z., Howard, L. E., Amling, C. L., Aronson, W. J., Cooperberg, M. R., ... Freedland, S. J. (2017). Modified risk stratification grouping using standard clinical and biopsy information for patients undergoing radical prostatectomy: Results from SEARCH. Prostate, 77(16), 1592-1600. https://doi.org/10.1002/pros.23436

Modified risk stratification grouping using standard clinical and biopsy information for patients undergoing radical prostatectomy : Results from SEARCH. / Zumsteg, Zachary S.; Chen, Zinan; Howard, Lauren E.; Amling, Christopher L.; Aronson, William J.; Cooperberg, Matthew R.; Kane, Christopher J.; Terris, Martha Kennedy; Spratt, Daniel E.; Sandler, Howard M.; Freedland, Stephen J.

In: Prostate, Vol. 77, No. 16, 01.12.2017, p. 1592-1600.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Zumsteg, ZS, Chen, Z, Howard, LE, Amling, CL, Aronson, WJ, Cooperberg, MR, Kane, CJ, Terris, MK, Spratt, DE, Sandler, HM & Freedland, SJ 2017, 'Modified risk stratification grouping using standard clinical and biopsy information for patients undergoing radical prostatectomy: Results from SEARCH', Prostate, vol. 77, no. 16, pp. 1592-1600. https://doi.org/10.1002/pros.23436
Zumsteg, Zachary S. ; Chen, Zinan ; Howard, Lauren E. ; Amling, Christopher L. ; Aronson, William J. ; Cooperberg, Matthew R. ; Kane, Christopher J. ; Terris, Martha Kennedy ; Spratt, Daniel E. ; Sandler, Howard M. ; Freedland, Stephen J. / Modified risk stratification grouping using standard clinical and biopsy information for patients undergoing radical prostatectomy : Results from SEARCH. In: Prostate. 2017 ; Vol. 77, No. 16. pp. 1592-1600.
@article{4621b4b6ade6430f94076dbb4b32e13e,
title = "Modified risk stratification grouping using standard clinical and biopsy information for patients undergoing radical prostatectomy: Results from SEARCH",
abstract = "Introduction: Prostate cancer is a heterogeneous disease, and risk stratification systems have been proposed to guide treatment decisions. However, significant heterogeneity remains for those with unfavorable-risk disease. Methods: This study included 3335 patients undergoing radical prostatectomy without adjuvant radiotherapy in the SEARCH database. High-risk patients were dichotomized into standard and very high-risk (VHR) groups based on primary Gleason pattern, percentage of positive biopsy cores (PPBC), number of NCCN high-risk factors, and stage T3b-T4 disease. Similarly, intermediate-risk prostate cancer was separated into favorable and unfavorable groups based on primary Gleason pattern, PPBC, and number of NCCN intermediate-risk factors. Results: Median follow-up was 78 months. Patients with VHR prostate cancer had significantly worse PSA relapse-free survival (PSA-RFS, P < 0.001), distant metastasis (DM, P = 0.004), and prostate cancer-specific mortality (PCSM, P = 0.015) in comparison to standard high-risk (SHR) patients in multivariable analyses. By contrast, there was no significant difference in PSA-RFS, DM, or PCSM between SHR and unfavorable intermediate-risk (UIR) patients. Therefore, we propose a novel risk stratification system: Group 1 (low-risk), Group 2 (favorable intermediate-risk), Group 3 (UIR and SHR), and Group 4 (VHR). The c-index of this new grouping was 0.683 for PSA-RFS and 0.800 for metastases, compared to NCCN-risk groups which yield 0.666 for PSA-RFS and 0.764 for metastases. Conclusions: Patients classified as VHR have markedly increased rates of PSA relapse, DM, and PCSM in comparison to SHR patients, whereas UIR and SHR patients have similar prognosis. Novel therapeutic strategies are needed for patients with VHR, likely involving multimodality therapy.",
keywords = "prostate cancer, risk stratification, unfavorable intermediate risk, very high-risk prostate cancer",
author = "Zumsteg, {Zachary S.} and Zinan Chen and Howard, {Lauren E.} and Amling, {Christopher L.} and Aronson, {William J.} and Cooperberg, {Matthew R.} and Kane, {Christopher J.} and Terris, {Martha Kennedy} and Spratt, {Daniel E.} and Sandler, {Howard M.} and Freedland, {Stephen J.}",
year = "2017",
month = "12",
day = "1",
doi = "10.1002/pros.23436",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "77",
pages = "1592--1600",
journal = "Prostate",
issn = "0270-4137",
publisher = "Wiley-Liss Inc.",
number = "16",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Modified risk stratification grouping using standard clinical and biopsy information for patients undergoing radical prostatectomy

T2 - Results from SEARCH

AU - Zumsteg, Zachary S.

AU - Chen, Zinan

AU - Howard, Lauren E.

AU - Amling, Christopher L.

AU - Aronson, William J.

AU - Cooperberg, Matthew R.

AU - Kane, Christopher J.

AU - Terris, Martha Kennedy

AU - Spratt, Daniel E.

AU - Sandler, Howard M.

AU - Freedland, Stephen J.

PY - 2017/12/1

Y1 - 2017/12/1

N2 - Introduction: Prostate cancer is a heterogeneous disease, and risk stratification systems have been proposed to guide treatment decisions. However, significant heterogeneity remains for those with unfavorable-risk disease. Methods: This study included 3335 patients undergoing radical prostatectomy without adjuvant radiotherapy in the SEARCH database. High-risk patients were dichotomized into standard and very high-risk (VHR) groups based on primary Gleason pattern, percentage of positive biopsy cores (PPBC), number of NCCN high-risk factors, and stage T3b-T4 disease. Similarly, intermediate-risk prostate cancer was separated into favorable and unfavorable groups based on primary Gleason pattern, PPBC, and number of NCCN intermediate-risk factors. Results: Median follow-up was 78 months. Patients with VHR prostate cancer had significantly worse PSA relapse-free survival (PSA-RFS, P < 0.001), distant metastasis (DM, P = 0.004), and prostate cancer-specific mortality (PCSM, P = 0.015) in comparison to standard high-risk (SHR) patients in multivariable analyses. By contrast, there was no significant difference in PSA-RFS, DM, or PCSM between SHR and unfavorable intermediate-risk (UIR) patients. Therefore, we propose a novel risk stratification system: Group 1 (low-risk), Group 2 (favorable intermediate-risk), Group 3 (UIR and SHR), and Group 4 (VHR). The c-index of this new grouping was 0.683 for PSA-RFS and 0.800 for metastases, compared to NCCN-risk groups which yield 0.666 for PSA-RFS and 0.764 for metastases. Conclusions: Patients classified as VHR have markedly increased rates of PSA relapse, DM, and PCSM in comparison to SHR patients, whereas UIR and SHR patients have similar prognosis. Novel therapeutic strategies are needed for patients with VHR, likely involving multimodality therapy.

AB - Introduction: Prostate cancer is a heterogeneous disease, and risk stratification systems have been proposed to guide treatment decisions. However, significant heterogeneity remains for those with unfavorable-risk disease. Methods: This study included 3335 patients undergoing radical prostatectomy without adjuvant radiotherapy in the SEARCH database. High-risk patients were dichotomized into standard and very high-risk (VHR) groups based on primary Gleason pattern, percentage of positive biopsy cores (PPBC), number of NCCN high-risk factors, and stage T3b-T4 disease. Similarly, intermediate-risk prostate cancer was separated into favorable and unfavorable groups based on primary Gleason pattern, PPBC, and number of NCCN intermediate-risk factors. Results: Median follow-up was 78 months. Patients with VHR prostate cancer had significantly worse PSA relapse-free survival (PSA-RFS, P < 0.001), distant metastasis (DM, P = 0.004), and prostate cancer-specific mortality (PCSM, P = 0.015) in comparison to standard high-risk (SHR) patients in multivariable analyses. By contrast, there was no significant difference in PSA-RFS, DM, or PCSM between SHR and unfavorable intermediate-risk (UIR) patients. Therefore, we propose a novel risk stratification system: Group 1 (low-risk), Group 2 (favorable intermediate-risk), Group 3 (UIR and SHR), and Group 4 (VHR). The c-index of this new grouping was 0.683 for PSA-RFS and 0.800 for metastases, compared to NCCN-risk groups which yield 0.666 for PSA-RFS and 0.764 for metastases. Conclusions: Patients classified as VHR have markedly increased rates of PSA relapse, DM, and PCSM in comparison to SHR patients, whereas UIR and SHR patients have similar prognosis. Novel therapeutic strategies are needed for patients with VHR, likely involving multimodality therapy.

KW - prostate cancer

KW - risk stratification

KW - unfavorable intermediate risk

KW - very high-risk prostate cancer

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85031092729&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=85031092729&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1002/pros.23436

DO - 10.1002/pros.23436

M3 - Article

C2 - 28994485

AN - SCOPUS:85031092729

VL - 77

SP - 1592

EP - 1600

JO - Prostate

JF - Prostate

SN - 0270-4137

IS - 16

ER -