Aggressiveness of Localized Prostate Cancer: the Key Value of Testosterone Deficiency Evaluated by Both Total and Bioavailable Testosterone: AndroCan Study Results
Failure rates after first-line treatment of localized prostate cancer (PCa) treatment remain high. Improvements to patient selection and identification of at-risk patients are central to reducing mortality. We aimed to determine if cancer aggressiveness correlates with androgen levels in patients undergoing radical prostatectomy for localized PCa. We performed a prospective, multicenter cohort study between June 2013 and June 2016, involving men with localized PCa scheduled to undergo radical prostatectomy. Clinical and hormonal patient data (testosterone deficiency, defined by total testosterone (TT) levels < 300 ng/dL and/or bioavailable testosterone (BT) levels < 80 ng/dL) were prospectively collected, along with pathological assessment of preoperative biopsy and subsequent radical prostatectomy specimens, using predominant Gleason pattern (prdGP) 3/4 grading. Of 1343 patients analyzed, 912 (68%) had prdGP3 PCa and 431 (32%) had high-grade (prdGP4, i.e., ISUP ≥ 3) disease on prostatectomy specimens. Only moderate concordance in prdGP scores between prostate biopsies and prostatectomy specimens was found. Compared with patients with prdGP3 tumors (i.e., ISUP ≤ 2), significantly more patients with prdGP4 cancers had demonstrable hypogonadism, characterized either by BT levels (17.4% vs. 10.7%, p < 0.001) or TT levels (14.2% vs. 9.7%, p = 0.020). BT levels were also lower in patients with prdGP4 tumors compared to those with prdGP3 disease. Testosterone deficiency (defined by TT and/or BT levels) was independently associated with higher PCa aggressiveness. BT is a predictive factor for prdGP4 disease, and evaluating both TT and BT to define hypogonadism is valuable in preoperative assessment of PCa (AndroCan Trial: NCT02235142).
KeywordsProstate cancer Androgens Gleason ISUP Hypogonadism Testosterone
The authors wish to thank the subjects and healthcare staff who participated in this study and Chris Hintze (NCSS, LLC) for assistance with preliminary logistic regression model development.
This study was funded by the Foch Foundation, a non-profit institution, and a grant of the French Ministry of Health/DGOS/CRC3F. Medical writing support was provided by Iain O’Neill on behalf of Newmed Medical Publishing, funded by the Foch Foundation.
- 1.Heidenreich A, Bastian PJ, Bellmunt J, Bolla M, Joniau S, van der Kwast T, Mason M, Matveev V, Wiegel T, Zattoni F, Mottet N, European Association of Urology (2014) EAU guidelines on prostate cancer. Part 1: screening, diagnosis, and local treatment with curative intent-update 2013. Eur Urol 65:124–137CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 2.Mottet N, Bellmunt J, Bolla M, Briers E, Cumberbatch MG, de Santis M, Fossati N, Gross T, Henry AM, Joniau S, Lam TB, Mason MD, Matveev VB, Moldovan PC, van den Bergh RCN, van den Broeck T, van der Poel HG, van der Kwast TH, Rouvière O, Schoots IG, Wiegel T, Cornford P (2017) EAU-ESTRO-SIOG guidelines on prostate cancer. Part 1: screening, diagnosis, and local treatment with curative intent. Eur Urol 71:618–629CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 3.Sanda MG, Cadeddu JA, Kirkby E, Chen RC, Crispino T, Fontanarosa J, Freedland SJ, Greene K, Klotz LH, Makarov DV, Nelson JB, Rodrigues G, Sandler HM, Taplin ME, Treadwell JR (2018) Clinically localized prostate cancer: AUA/ASTRO/SUO guideline. Part II: recommended approaches and details of specific care options. J Urol 199:990–997CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 5.Slaoui H, Neuzillet Y, Ghoneim T, Rouanne M, Abdou A, Lugagne-Delpon PM, Scherrer A, Radulescu C, Delancourt C, Molinié V, Lebret T (2017) Gleason score within prostate abnormal areas defined by multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging did not vary according to the PIRADS score. Urol Int 99:156–161CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 7.Morgentaler A, Zitzmann M, Traish AM, Fox AW, Jones TH, Maggi M, Arver S, Aversa A, Chan JCN, Dobs AS, Hackett GI, Hellstrom WJ, Lim P, Lunenfeld B, Mskhalaya G, Schulman CC, Torres LO (2016) Fundamental concepts regarding testosterone deficiency and treatment: International Expert Consensus Resolutions. Mayo Clin Proc 91:881–896CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 11.Giton F, Trabado S, Maione L, Sarfati J, le Bouc Y, Brailly-Tabard S, Fiet J, Young J (2015) Sex steroids, precursors, and metabolite deficiencies in men with isolated hypogonadotropic hypogonadism and panhypopituitarism: a GCMS-based comparative study. J Clin Endocrinol Metab 100:E292–E296CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 15.Epstein JI, Zelefsky MJ, Sjoberg DD, Nelson JB, Egevad L, Magi-Galluzzi C, Vickers AJ, Parwani AV, Reuter VE, Fine SW, Eastham JA, Wiklund P, Han M, Reddy CA, Ciezki JP, Nyberg T, Klein EA (2016) A contemporary prostate cancer grading system: a validated alternative to the Gleason score. Eur Urol 69:428–435CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 25.Salonia A, Gallina A, Briganti A, Zanni G, Suardi N, Capitanio U, Colombo R, Bertini R, Freschi M, Guazzoni G, Rigatti P, Montorsi F (2011) Sex hormone-binding globulin is a significant predictor of extracapsular extension in men undergoing radical prostatectomy. BJU Int 107:1243–1249CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 27.Network NNCC (2011) Guidelines for prostate cancer, NCCN (National Comprehensive Cancer Network)Google Scholar
- 28.Salonia A, Gallina A, Briganti A, Suardi N, Capitanio U, Abdollah F, Bertini R, Freschi M, Rigatti P, Montorsi F (2011) Circulating estradiol, but not testosterone, is a significant predictor of high-grade prostate cancer in patients undergoing radical prostatectomy. Cancer 117:5029–5038CrossRefGoogle Scholar