Phase 2 Study of
            99m
            Tc-Trofolastat SPECT/CT to Identify and Localize Prostate Cancer in Intermediate- and High-Risk Patients Undergoing Radical Prostatectomy and Extended Pelvic LN Dissection

5117 Background: Prognostic nomograms, scoring tools, and risk tables are rapidly accumulating in the prostate cancer (PCa) literature. It is not always clear to whom these tools should apply and how well they predict the outcomes they were designed to forecast. There is need for independent evaluation of these tools. Methods: We used the Mayo Clinic Radical Prostatectomy Registry, a prospective database of radical prostatectomy (RP) outcomes, to assess tools designed to predict RP outcomes. The validation set included 13,313 RP patients from 1990–2005. There were 3,256 PSA failures, 566 metastases, and 1,599 deaths (301 were due to PCa). We assessed the discrimination, calibration and overall accuracy of prediction tools identified through a structured Pubmed search. Results: Tools varied greatly in terms of complexity, width of prediction interval, and method of presentation. Several tools included non-standard variables and were therefore unevaluable, despite an extensive dataset, leaving the 1999 and 2005 Kattan nomograms, the 1998 and 2001 CDPR scores, and the 2001 GPSM score for analysis. Discrimination (quantitated by the c index) was better for PCa-specific survival and metastases than for PSA failure ( Table ). Kaplan-Meier plots demonstrated clustering of risk groups in most tools, most severely in the higher risk groups of the Kattan nomograms. The calibration plots of most tools (excepting GPSM) had a serious discordance between observed and predicted outcomes in the lower probability ranges. This meant that most tools gravely overestimated the probability of RP failure in high-risk patients, by up to 4- fold. Conclusions: The tools showed moderate discriminatory ability for PSA failure but performed much better for non-surrogate outcomes. Most tools (excepting GPSM) were miscalibrated in high risk patients and dramatically underestimated the efficacy of surgery in this cohort. Prognostic tools may not be as accurate as previously reported. [Table: see text] No significant financial relationships to disclose.

Download Full-text

Comparison of Oncological Outcomes Between Radical Prostatectomy and Radiotherapy by Type of Radiotherapy in Elderly Prostate Cancer Patients

Frontiers in Oncology ◽

10.3389/fonc.2021.708373 ◽

2021 ◽

Vol 11 ◽

Author(s):

Xiao-Xiao Guo ◽

Hao-Ran Xia ◽

Hui-Min Hou ◽

Ming Liu ◽

Jian-Ye Wang

Keyword(s):

Prostate Cancer ◽

High Risk ◽

Radical Prostatectomy ◽

External Beam Radiotherapy ◽

The Other ◽

Oncologic Outcomes ◽

Intermediate Risk ◽

High Risk Patients ◽

Significant Difference ◽

Risk Patients

ObjectiveWe aimed compare the oncologic outcomes of radical prostatectomy (RP) with those of external beam radiotherapy (EBRT), brachytherapy (BT), or EBRT + BT (EBBT) in elderly patients with localised prostate cancer (PCa).MethodsLocalised PCa patients aged ≥70 years who underwent RP, EBRT, BT, or EBBT between 2004 and 2016 were identified from the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results database. Multivariable competing risks survival analyses were used to estimate prostate cancer-specific mortality (CSM) and other-cause mortality (OCM). Subgroup analyses according to risk categories were also conducted.ResultsOverall, 14057, 37712, 8383, and 5244 patients aged ≥70 years and treated with RP, EBRT, BT, and EBBT, respectively, were identified. In low- to intermediate-risk patients, there was no significant difference in CSM risk between RP and the other three radiotherapy modalities (all P > 0.05). The corresponding 10-year CSM rates for these patients were 1.2%, 2.3%, 2.0%, and 1.8%, respectively. In high-risk patients, EBRT was associated with a higher CSM than RP (P = 0.003), whereas there was no significant difference between RP and BT or RP and EBBT (all P > 0.05). The 10-year CSM rates of high-risk patients in the RP, EBRT, BT, and EBBT groups were 7.5%, 10.2%, 8.3%, and 7.6%, respectively. Regarding OCM, the risk was generally lower in RP than in the other three radiotherapy modalities (all P < 0.001).ConclusionsAmong men aged ≥70 years with localised PCa, EBRT, BT, and EBBT offer cancer-specific outcomes similar to those of RP for individuals with low- to intermediate-risk disease. In patients with high-risk disease, EBBT had outcomes equally favourable to those of RP, but RP is more beneficial than EBRT. More high-quality trials are warranted to confirm and expand the present findings.

Download Full-text

Impact of different definitions of high-risk prostate cancer on survival after radical prostatectomy.

Journal of Clinical Oncology ◽

10.1200/jco.2012.30.5_suppl.113 ◽

2012 ◽

Vol 30 (5_suppl) ◽

pp. 113-113

Author(s):

Kenneth Gerard Nepple ◽

Gurdarshan S Sandhu ◽

Dorina Kallogjeri ◽

Seth A. Strope ◽

Robert L. Grubb ◽

...

Keyword(s):

Prostate Cancer ◽

High Risk ◽

Radical Prostatectomy ◽

Cancer Survival ◽

Clinical Stage ◽

High Risk Patients ◽

High Risk Prostate Cancer ◽

Increased Risk ◽

Risk Prostate Cancer ◽

Risk Patients

113 Background: Multiple definitions of high risk prostate cancer exist. Studies have primarily correlated these definitions with biochemical recurrence and not with survival. We applied six previously described high risk definitions to men treated with radical prostatectomy and evaluated their ability to predict survival outcomes in a multi-institutional cohort. Methods: The study population included 6477 men treated with radical prostatectomy between 1995 and 2005 and followed for a median of 67 months. The six high risk definitions were 1) preoperative PSA≥20ng/ml, 2) biopsy Gleason score 8-10, 3) clinical stage≥T2c, 4) clinical stage T3, 5) D’Amico definition, or 6) National Comprehensive Cancer Network definition. Survival was evaluated with the Kaplan-Meier method to generate unadjusted prostate cancer survival estimates. To control for the competing risks of age and comorbidity, multivariable Cox proportional hazard regression models were used to estimate the hazard ratio for prostate cancer specific mortality (PCSM) and overall mortality (OM) in high risk patients compared to low/intermediate risk. Results: High risk patients comprised between 0.7% (cT3) and 8.2% (D’Amico) of the study population. The 10-year Kaplan Meier prostate cancer survival estimates varied from 89.7% for PSA≥20 to 69.7% for cT3. On multivariable analysis controlling for age and comorbidity, high risk prostate cancer (of all definitions) had an increased risk of PCSM compared to low/intermediate risk with a hazard ratio (HR) ranging from 4.38 for PSA≥20 to 19.97 for cT3 (all p<0.0001). For OM, again controlling for age and comorbidity, high risk patients of all definitions except preoperative PSA≥20 (HR=0.98, p=0.99) were associated with increased risk of OM (HR range: 1.72 for D’Amico, 1.73 for stage≥T2c, 1.88 for NCCN, 2.63 for Gleason 8-10, 3.31 for cT3; all p<0.01). Conclusions: In a contemporary cohort of men with high risk prostate cancer treated with radical prostatectomy, the majority of men experienced long term prostate cancer survival. However, heterogeneity in survival outcomes existed based on the definition of high risk used. Clinical stage T3 and high Gleason score were most strongly associated with PCSM and OM.

Download Full-text

Meta-analysis of studies comparing oncologic outcomes of radical prostatectomy and brachytherapy for localized prostate cancer

Therapeutic Advances in Urology ◽

10.1177/1756287217731449 ◽

2017 ◽

Vol 9 (11) ◽

pp. 241-250 ◽

Cited By ~ 2

Author(s):

Gabriele Cozzi ◽

Gennaro Musi ◽

Roberto Bianchi ◽

Danilo Bottero ◽

Antonio Brescia ◽

...

Keyword(s):

Prostate Cancer ◽

High Risk ◽

Radical Prostatectomy ◽

Localized Prostate Cancer ◽

Oncologic Outcomes ◽

High Risk Patients ◽

Cochrane Reviews ◽

Statistical Heterogeneity ◽

Significant Difference ◽

Risk Patients

Background: The aim of this study was to compare oncologic outcomes of radical prostatectomy (RP) with brachytherapy (BT). Methods: A literature review was conducted according to the ‘Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses’ (PRISMA) statement. We included studies reporting comparative oncologic outcomes of RP versus BT for localized prostate cancer (PCa). From each comparative study, we extracted the study design, the number and features of the included patients, and the oncologic outcomes expressed as all-cause mortality (ACM), PCa-specific mortality (PCSM) or, when the former were unavailable, as biochemical recurrence (BCR). All of the data retrieved from the selected studies were recorded in an electronic database. Cumulative analysis was conducted using the Review Manager version 5.3 software, designed for composing Cochrane Reviews (Cochrane Collaboration, Oxford, UK). Statistical heterogeneity was tested using the Chi-square test. Results: Our cumulative analysis did not show any significant difference in terms of BCR, ACM or PCSM rates between the RP and BT cohorts. Only three studies reported risk-stratified outcomes of intermediate- and high-risk patients, which are the most prone to treatment failure. Conclusions: our analysis suggested that RP and BT may have similar oncologic outcomes. However, the analysis included a limited number of studies, and most of them were retrospective, making it impossible to derive any definitive conclusion, especially for intermediate- and high-risk patients. In this scenario, appropriate urologic counseling remains of utmost importance.

Download Full-text