UP-02.226 Impacts of Pathological and Biochemical Outcome of Robotic-assisted Radical Prostatectomy Verses Radical Retropubic Prostatectomy in High Risk Group of Localized Prostate Cancer

Purpose Thirty percent of patients treated with curative intent for localized prostate cancer (PC) experience biochemical recurrence (BCR) with rising serum prostate-specific antigen (sPSA), and of these, approximately 50% succumb to progressive disease. More discriminatory staging procedures are needed to identify occult micrometastases that spawn BCR. Patients and Methods PSA mRNA copies in pathologically normal pelvic lymph nodes (N0-PLN) from 341 localized PC patients were quantified by real-time reverse-transcriptase polymerase chain reaction. Based on comparisons with normal lymph nodes and PLN with metastases and on normalization to 5 × 106 glyceraldehyde-3′-phosphate dehydrogenase mRNA copies, normalized PSA copies (PSA-N) and a threshold of PSA-N 100 or more were selected for continuous and categorical multivariate analyses of biochemical failure-free survival (BFFS) compared with established risk factors. Results At median follow-up of 4 years, the BFFS of patients with PSA-N 100 or more versus PSA-N less than 100 was 55% and 77% (P = .0002), respectively. The effect was greatest for sPSA greater than 20 ng/mL, 25% versus 60% (P = .014), Gleason score 8 or higher, 21% versus 66% (P = .0002), stage T3c, 18% versus 64% (P = .001), and high-risk group (50% v 72%; P = .05). By continuous analysis PSA-N was an independent prognostic marker for BCR (P = .049) with a hazard ratio of 1.25 (95% CI, 1.001 to 1.57). By categorical analysis, PSA-N 100 or more was an independent variable (P = .021) with a relative risk of 1.98 (95% CI, 1.11 to 3.55) for BCR compared with PSA-N less than 100. Conclusion PSA-N 100 or more is a new, independent molecular staging criterion for localized PC that identifies high-risk group patients with clinically relevant occult micrometastases in N0-PLN, who may benefit from additional therapy to prevent BCR.

Download Full-text

Actual total hospital costs of primary localized prostate cancer treatments analyzed by risk group.

Journal of Clinical Oncology ◽

10.1200/jco.2012.30.15_suppl.e15164 ◽

2012 ◽

Vol 30 (15_suppl) ◽

pp. e15164-e15164

Author(s):

Hugh J. Lavery ◽

Adam W. Levinson ◽

Adrien Phalen ◽

Nelson Stone ◽

Richard Stock ◽

...

Keyword(s):

Prostate Cancer ◽

High Risk ◽

Radical Prostatectomy ◽

Risk Group ◽

Hospital Costs ◽

Localized Prostate Cancer ◽

Total Hospital ◽

Total Cost ◽

Primary Procedure ◽

Risk Patients

e15164 Background: Radical prostatectomy (RP) and radiotherapy (RT) provide comparable HRQOL and oncologic outcomes of localized prostate cancer (PCa), yet no studies have evaluated their relative costs when investigated by risk group. We evaluated hospital costs associated with modern PCa therapies at a multidisciplinary program. Methods: Institutional billing data was queried for hospital patients from 2005 to 2009 with a primary admission for prostate cancer and primary procedure codes for RP, brachytherapy (BT), intensity modulated RT (IMRT) or combination treatment. All hospital costs related to the primary procedure were analyzed as assigned by the hospital. Costs were adjusted to 2009 USD and analyzed per patient and pretreatment D’Amico risk group. Results: 1969 localized PCa patients with a median age of 62 were identified with complete clinical information. There was a marked increase in the use of robotic-assisted laparoscopic prostatectomy (RALP) starting in 2007. The median total hospital costs for IMRT monotherapy ($16,673), BT+IMRT ($22,145) and RP+ adjuvant IMRT ($24,380) combination therapies were significantly higher than any other treatment type, although these patients had worse pathologic features. BT was the least expensive treatment with a total cost of $7,506, but was not routinely used as monotherapy for high-risk patients. The total cost of RALP ($7,676) was lower than open radical prostatectomy (RRP) ($8,991, p<0.001) and similar to laparoscopic radical prostatectomy (LRP) ($7,769).These trendsremained consistent when stratified by risk group (Table). Conclusions: In a high volume setting, RALP and BT are the least expensive modalities for treating low and intermediate risk PCa. For high risk patients, all forms of RP and IMRT alone were less expensive than combination therapy. [Table: see text]

Download Full-text

Validation of a genomic-clinical classifier model for predicting clinical recurrence of patients with localized prostate cancer in a high-risk population.

Journal of Clinical Oncology ◽

10.1200/jco.2012.30.5_suppl.175 ◽

2012 ◽

Vol 30 (5_suppl) ◽

pp. 175-175 ◽

Cited By ~ 2

Author(s):

Robert B. Jenkins ◽

Eric J Bergstralh ◽

Elai Davicioni ◽

R. Jeffrey Karnes ◽

Karla V. Ballman ◽

...

Keyword(s):

Prostate Cancer ◽

High Risk ◽

Radical Prostatectomy ◽

Gleason Score ◽

Risk Group ◽

High Risk Group ◽

High Risk Population ◽

Clinical Recurrence ◽

Clinical Variables ◽

Subset Analysis

175 Background: The efficient delivery of adjuvant and salvage therapy after radical prostatectomy in patients with prostate cancer is hampered by a lack of biomarkers to assess the risk of clinically significant recurrence and progression. Methods: Mayo Clinic Radical Prostatectomy Registry (RP) patient specimens were selected from a case-control cohort with 14 years median follow-up for training and initial validation of an expression biomarker genomic classifier (GC). An independent, blinded case-cohort study of high-risk RP subjects was used to validate GC, comparing the performance of GC to a multivariate logistic regression clinical model (CM) and GC combined with clinical variables (genomic-clinical classifier, GCC) for predicting clinical recurrence (defined as positive bone or CT scan within 5 years after biochemical recurrence). The concordance index (c-index) and Cox model were used to evaluate discrimination and estimate the risk of clinical recurrence. Results: In the training subset (n=359), both GC and GCC had a c-index of 0.90 whereas CM had a c-index of 0.76. In the internal validation set (n=186), GC and GCC had a c-index of 0.76 and 0.75, while CM had a c-index of 0.69. In an independent high-risk study (n=219), GC and GCC had a c-index of 0.77 and 0.76, while CM had a c-index of 0.68. In subset analysis of Gleason score 7 patients within the high-risk group, GC and GCC showed improved discrimination with c-index of 0.78 and 0.76, respectively compared to 0.70 for CM. In the high-risk group, the risk of recurrence by GC model score quartiles at 5 years after RP was estimated at 1%, 5%, 5% and 18%. Conclusions: The GC model shows improved performance over CM in the prediction of clinical recurrence in a high-risk cohort and in subset analysis of Gleason score 7 patients. The addition of clinical variables to the GC model did not significantly contribute to classifier performance in patients with high-risk features. We are further testing the performance of the GC and GCC models and their usefulness in guiding decision-making (e.g., for the adjuvant therapy setting) in additional studies of prostate cancer clinical risk groups.

Download Full-text