Improved decision making in intermediate-risk prostate cancer: a multicenter study on pathologic and oncologic outcomes after radical prostatectomy
Prognoses for intermediate-risk prostate cancer (PCa) remain heterogeneous. Improved substratification could optimize treatment and monitoring strategies. The objective was to validate this subclassification in a radical prostatectomy (RP) series.
Between 2000 and 2011, 4038 patients who underwent RP for intermediate-risk PCa in seven French academic centers were included. Unfavorable intermediate-risk (UIR) PCa was defined as having a primary Gleason score of 4, ≥50% positive biopsy cores (PPBC), or more than one D’Amico intermediate-risk factor (i.e., cT2b, PSA 10–20, or Gleason score 7). Remaining PCa cases were classified as favorable. Main endpoints were pathologic results (pT stage, final Gleason score, surgical margin status), and oncologic outcomes were assessed according to PSA recurrence-free survival (PSA-RFS). Univariate and multivariate analyses were performed using the log-rank test and the Cox proportional hazards model.
Median follow-up was 48 months (95% CI = [45–49]). Patients with UIR had worse PSA-RFS (68.17 vs. 81.98% at 4 years, HR = 1.97, 95% CI = [1.71; 2.27], p < 0.0001) compared to those with a favorable disease. The need for adjuvant therapy was significantly greater for UIR patients (43.5 vs. 29.2%, p < 0.0001). In multivariate analysis, primary Gleason score of 4 (HR = 1.81, 95% CI = [1.55; 2.12], p < 0.0001) and PPBC ≥ 50% (HR = 1.26, 95% CI = [1.02; 1.56], p = 0.0286) were significant preoperative predictors for worse PSA-RFS.
This study highlights the heterogeneity of NCCN intermediate-risk patients and validates (in a large RP cohort) the previously proposed subclassification for this group. This classification can significantly predict both pathologic and oncologic outcomes. This easy-to-use stratification could help physicians’ decision making. Prospective study and new tools as genomic tests and novel molecular-based approaches can improve this stratification in the future for patient counseling.
KeywordsProstate cancer Intermediate risk Radical prostatectomy Biochemical recurrence-free survival Risk factors Stratification
Beauval and Ploussard have contributed to protocol/project development, data collection or management, data analysis, and manuscript writing/editing. Cabarrou has contributed to data analysis. Roumiguié and Ouzzane have contributed to data collection or management, protocol/project development. Gas, Goujon, Marcq, and Mathieu have contributed to data collection or management. Vincendeau, Cathelineau, and Salomon have contributed to manuscript writing/editing, data collection or management. Soulié, de La Taille, and Rouprêt have contributed to manuscript writing/editing. Rozet has contributed to manuscript writing/editing, protocol/project development.
Compliance with ethical standards
This study was performed in accordance with ethical standards.
Conflict of interest
The authors declare no conflicts of interest.
- 3.Grosclaude P, Belot A, Daubisse Marliac L, Remontet L, Leone N, Bossard N et al (2015) Prostate cancer incidence and mortality trends in France from 1980 to 2011. Progres en urologie : journal de l’Association francaise d’urologie et de la Societe francaise d’urologie. 25(9):536–542CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 5.Beauval JB, Roumiguie M, Doumerc N, Thoulouzan M, Huyghe E, Allory Y et al (2012) Migration of pathological stage after radical prostatectomy to higher risk tumors of relapse: comparative two-center study between 2005 and 2010. Progres en urologie : journal de l’Association francaise d’urologie et de la Societe francaise d’urologie. 22(16):1015–1020CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 9.Abern MR, Aronson WJ, Terris MK, Kane CJ, Presti JC Jr, Amling CL et al (2013) Delayed radical prostatectomy for intermediate-risk prostate cancer is associated with biochemical recurrence: possible implications for active surveillance from the SEARCH database. Prostate 73(4):409–417CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
- 14.D’Amico AV, Renshaw AA, Cote K, Hurwitz M, Beard C, Loffredo M et al (2004) Impact of the percentage of positive prostate cores on prostate cancer-specific mortality for patients with low or favorable intermediate-risk disease. J Clin Oncol Off J Am Soc Clin Oncol 22(18):3726–3732CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 17.Briganti A, Larcher A, Abdollah F, Capitanio U, Gallina A, Suardi N et al (2012) Updated nomogram predicting lymph node invasion in patients with prostate cancer undergoing extended pelvic lymph node dissection: the essential importance of percentage of positive cores. Eur Urol 61(3):480–487CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
- 18.D’Amico AV, Chen MH, Renshaw AA, Loffredo M, Kantoff PW (2008) Androgen suppression and radiation vs radiation alone for prostate cancer: a randomized trial. JAMA J Am Med Assoc 299(3):289–295Google Scholar