Upgrading and upstaging at radical prostatectomy in the post–prostate-specific antigen screening era: an effect of delayed diagnosis or a shift in patient selection?

Effects of the 2012 and 2018 US preventive services task force prostate cancer screening guidelines on pathologic outcomes after prostatectomy

BACKGROUND

In May 2018, the US Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) recommended prostate cancer (PCa) screening for ages 55-69 be an individual decision. This changed from the USPSTF's May 2012 recommendation against screening for all ages. The effects of the 2012 and 2018 updates on pathologic outcomes after prostatectomy are unclear.

METHODS

This study included 647 patients with PCa who underwent prostatectomy at our institution from 2005 to 2018. Patient groups were those diagnosed before the 2012 update (n = 179), between 2012 and 2018 updates (n = 417), and after the 2018 update (n = 51). We analyzed changes in the age of diagnosis, pathologic Gleason grade group (pGS), pathologic stage, lymphovascular invasion (LVI), and favorable/unfavorable pathology. Multivariable logistic regression adjusting for pre-biopsy covariables (age, prostate-specific antigen [PSA], African American race, family history) assessed impacts of 2012 and 2018 updates on pGS and pathologic stage. A p  < 0.05 was statistically significant.

RESULTS

Median age increased from 60 to 63 (p = 0.001) between 2012 and 2018 updates and to 64 after the 2018 update. A significant decrease in pGS1, pGS2, pT2, and favorable pathology (p < 0.001), and a significant increase in pGS3, pGS4, pGS5, pT3a, and unfavorable pathology (p < 0.001) was detected between 2012 and 2018 updates. There was no significant change in pT3b or LVI between 2012 and 2018 updates. On multivariable regression, diagnosis between 2012 and 2018 updates was significantly associated with pGS4 or pGS5 and pT3a (p < 0.001). Diagnosis after the 2018 update was significantly associated with pT3a (p = 0.005). Odds of pGS4 or pGS5 were 3.2× higher (p < 0.001) if diagnosed between 2012 and 2018 updates, and 2.3× higher (p = 0.051) if after the 2018 update. Odds of pT3a were 2.4× higher (p < 0.001) if diagnosed between 2012 and 2018 updates and 2.9× higher (p = 0.005) if after the 2018 update.

CONCLUSIONS

The 2012 USPSTF guidelines negatively impacted pathologic outcomes after prostatectomy. Patients diagnosed between 2012 and 2018 updates had increased frequency of higher-risk PCa and lower frequency of favorable disease. In addition, data after the 2018 update demonstrate a continued negative impact on postprostatectomy pathology. Thus, further investigation of the long-term effects of the 2018 USPSTF update is warranted.

A Combined Radiomics and Machine Learning Approach to Distinguish Clinically Significant Prostate Lesions on a Publicly Available MRI Dataset

Although prostate cancer is one of the most common causes of mortality and morbidity in advancing-age males, early diagnosis improves prognosis and modifies the therapy of choice. The aim of this study was the evaluation of a combined radiomics and machine learning approach on a publicly available dataset in order to distinguish a clinically significant from a clinically non-significant prostate lesion. A total of 299 prostate lesions were included in the analysis. A univariate statistical analysis was performed to prove the goodness of the 60 extracted radiomic features in distinguishing prostate lesions. Then, a 10-fold cross-validation was used to train and test some models and the evaluation metrics were calculated; finally, a hold-out was performed and a wrapper feature selection was applied. The employed algorithms were Naïve bayes, K nearest neighbour and some tree-based ones. The tree-based algorithms achieved the highest evaluation metrics, with accuracies over 80%, and area-under-the-curve receiver-operating characteristics below 0.80. Combined machine learning algorithms and radiomics based on clinical, routine, multiparametric, magnetic-resonance imaging were demonstrated to be a useful tool in prostate cancer stratification.

The impact of pretreatment PSA on risk stratification in men with Gleason 6 prostate cancer: Implications for active surveillance

BACKGROUND

There are limited data to support the safety of active surveillance in men with favorable-intermediate risk prostate cancer due only to a prostate specific antigen (PSA) above 10 ng/ml. We therefore evaluated the impact of pretreatment PSA on risk-stratification in men with Gleason 6 prostate cancer.

METHODS

We identified men aged 18 to 75 with cT1-2cN0cM0, pre-treatment PSA < 20 ng/ml, Gleason 6 prostate cancer diagnosed from 2010 to 2016 in the National Cancer Database who underwent radical prostatectomy. The associations of patient and disease features with Gleason score upgrading or adverse pathologic features at prostatectomy were evaluated using logistic regression. To evaluate for non linear relationships between PSA and each outcome, we examined predicted marginal event rates standardized for baseline characteristics with PSA modeled using restricted cubic splines RESULTS: A total of 75,566 patients were included in the cohort. In unadjusted analyses, patients with pretreatment PSA ≥ 10 ng/ml had higher rates of Gleason core upgrading (58.8% vs. 47.9%; P< 0.001) and adverse pathologic features (19.7% vs. 10.0%; P< 0.001) compared to patients with PSA < 10 ng/ml. In multivariable analyses, PSA ≥ 10 ng/ml was associated with statistically significantly increased risks of Gleason score upgrading (OR 1.47;95%CI 1.39 - 1.55) and adverse pathologic features (OR 2.15;95%CI 2.01 - 2.30). When modeled as a non linear continuous covariate, PSA was associated with increased adjusted rates of Gleason score upgrading and adverse pathologic features without a clear dichotomization at a threshold of 10 ng/ml.

CONCLUSION

Higher pretreatment PSA was independently associated with increased risks of Gleason score upgrading and adverse pathologic features at prostatectomy. Flexible modeling of the relationship between PSA and each outcome did not support dichotomization at a threshold of 10 ng/ml. These results can be used to improve patient risk-stratification for active surveillance.

Estudio de concordancia entre los resultados de la puntuación de Gleason de biopsias de próstata y los de la prostatectomía radical en pacientes con cáncer de próstata localizado

Introducción. Existen diferencias entre la concordancia de la puntuación de Gleason en biopsias prostática y la patología final.Objetivos. Determinar la concordancia de las puntuaciones de Gleason obtenidas por biopsia de próstata y por prostatectomía radical (PR) en un hospital de IV nivel en Bogotá D.C., Colombia.Materiales y métodos. Estudio retrospectivo de pruebas diagnósticas realizado en un hospital de alta complejidad de Bogotá D.C. Fueron resisados los resultados de las PR y las biopsias prostáticas, clasificando los pacientes según D’Amico y la división por grupos realizada por patólogos. La concordancia diagnóstica se determinó mediante la estimación del coeficiente de Kappa ponderado.Resultados. Se incluyeron 180 pacientes con promedio de edad de 61 años. La exactitud diagnóstica de la puntuación de Gleason dada por biopsia fue de 52%, con supraestadificación del 34% y subestadificación del 14%. El índice Kappa ponderado entre la puntuación de Gleason de la biopsia prostática y la PR fue de 0.37 (p=0.000), y por grupos de 0.4 (p=0.000), con concordancia aceptable para la muestra.Conclusiones. La concordancia de la biopsia de próstata con la PR es baja con tendencia a la supraestadificación, lo que podría tener un impacto negativo en el manejo de los pacientes con cáncer de próstata localizado.

Defining clinically significant prostate cancer on the basis of pathological findings

The definition of clinically significant prostate cancer is a dynamic process that was initiated many decades ago, when there was already evidence that a great proportion of patients with prostate cancer diagnosed at autopsy never had any clinical symptoms. Autopsy studies led to examinations of radical prostatectomy (RP) specimens and the establishment of the definition of significant cancer at RP: tumour volume of 0.5 cm³ , Gleason grade 6 [Grade Group (GrG) 1], and organ-confined disease. RP studies were then used to develop prediction models for significant cancer by the use of needle biopsies. The first such model was used to delineate the first active surveillance (AS) criteria, known as the 'Epstein' criteria, in which patients with a cancer Gleason score of 3 + 3 = 6 (GrG1) involving fewer than two cores, and <50% of any given core, and a prostate-specific antigen density of <0.15 ng/ml per cm³ had a minimal risk of significant cancer at RP. These were adopted as components of the 'very-low-risk category' of the National Comprehensive Cancer Network guidelines, in which AS is supported as a management option. With the increase in the popularity of AS, much research has been carried out to better define significant/insignificant cancer, in order to be able to safely offer AS to a larger proportion of patients without the risk of undertreatment. Research has focused on allowing higher volume tumours, focal extraprostatic extension, and a limited amount of Gleason pattern 4, and the significance of different morphological patterns of Gleason 4. Other areas of research that will probably impact on the field but that are not covered in this review include the molecular classification of tumours and imaging techniques.

Temporal Trends in Clinical and Pathological Characteristics for Men Undergoing Radical Prostatectomy Between 1995 and 2013 at Rigshospitalet, Copenhagen, Denmark, and Stanford University Hospital, United States

PURPOSE

To analyze how prostate-specific antigen (PSA) screening and practice patterns has affected trends in tumor characteristics in men undergoing radical prostatectomy (RP) in the United States and Denmark. Unlike in the United States, PSA screening has not been recommended in Denmark.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

We performed an observational register study using pre- and postoperative data on 2168 Danish patients from Rigshospitalet, Copenhagen, Denmark, and 2236 patients from Stanford University Hospital, Stanford, CA, who underwent RP between 1995 and 2013. Patients were stratified according to Cancer of the Prostate Risk Assessment-Postsurgical (CAPRA-S) risk groups and D'Amico risk classification and were clustered into 4 time periods (1995-1999, 2000-2004, 2005-2009, and 2010-2013). Temporal trends in the proportions of patients of a given variable at the 2 institutions were evaluated with Cochran-Armitage test for trends and chi-square testing.

RESULTS

A total of 4404 patients were included. Temporal changes in preoperative PSA, age, grade, and stage was found in both cohorts. Median preoperative PSA declined in both cohorts, while median age increased, with the Danish cohort showing the greatest changes in both PSA and age. In both cohorts, there was a trend for higher-risk preoperative features before RP over time. In 2010-2013, 27.7% and 21.8% of the patients were in the D'Amico high-risk group at Copenhagen and Stanford, respectively.

CONCLUSION

Despite recommendation against PSA screening in Denmark, Danish men undergoing RP at Rigshospitalet to a considerable extent now resemble American men undergoing RP at Stanford. At both sites, there is continued trend to reduce the number of men undergoing RP for low-risk prostate cancer.