1
|
Sorce G, Hoeh B, Flammia RS, Chierigo F, Hohenhorst L, Panunzio A, Nimer N, Tian Z, Gandaglia G, Tilki D, Terrone C, Gallucci M, Chun FKH, Antonelli A, Saad F, Shariat SF, Montorsi F, Briganti A, Karakiewicz PI. Rates of metastatic prostate cancer in newly diagnosed patients: Numbers needed to image according to risk level. Prostate 2022; 82:1210-1218. [PMID: 35652586 DOI: 10.1002/pros.24376] [Citation(s) in RCA: 1] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.5] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 03/25/2022] [Revised: 05/07/2022] [Accepted: 05/13/2022] [Indexed: 12/31/2022]
Abstract
BACKGROUND The numbers needed to image to identify pelvic lymph node and/or distant metastases in newly diagnosed prostate cancer (PCa) patients according to risk level are unknown. METHODS Relying on Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (2010-2016), we tabulated rates and proportions of patients with (a) lymph node or (b) distant metastases according to National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN) risk level and calculated the number needed to image (NNI) for both endpoints. Multivariable logistic regression analyses were performed. RESULTS Of 145,939 newly diagnosed PCa patients assessable for analyses of pelvic lymph node metastases (cN1), 4559 (3.1%) harbored cN1 stage: 13 (0.02%), 18 (0.08%), 63 (0.3%), 512 (2.8%), and 3954 (14.9%) in low, intermediate favorable, intermediate unfavorable, high, and very high-risk levels. These resulted in NNI of 4619, 1182, 319, 35, and 7, respectively. Of 181,109 newly diagnosed PCa patients assessable for analyses of distant metastases (M1a-c ), 8920 (4.9%) harbored M1a-c stage: 50 (0.07%), 45 (0.1%), 161 (0.5%), 1290 (5.1%), and 7374 (22.0%) in low, intermediate favorable, intermediate unfavorable, high, and very high-risk. These resulted in NNI of 1347, 602, 174, 20, and 5, respectively. CONCLUSIONS Our observations perfectly validated the NCCN recommendations for imaging in newly diagnosed high and very high-risk PCa patients. However, in unfavorable intermediate-risk PCa patients, in whom bone and soft tissue imaging is recommended, the NNI might be somewhat elevated to support routine imaging in clinical practice.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Gabriele Sorce
- Department of Urology and Division of Experimental Oncology, URI, Urological Research Institute, IRCCS San Raffaele Scientific Institute, Milan, Italy
- Cancer Prognostics and Health Outcomes Unit, Division of Urology, University of Montréal Health Center, Montréal, Québec, Canada
| | - Benedikt Hoeh
- Cancer Prognostics and Health Outcomes Unit, Division of Urology, University of Montréal Health Center, Montréal, Québec, Canada
- Department of Urology, University Hospital Frankfurt, Frankfurt am Main, Germany
| | - Rocco S Flammia
- Cancer Prognostics and Health Outcomes Unit, Division of Urology, University of Montréal Health Center, Montréal, Québec, Canada
- Department of Maternal-Child and Urological Sciences, Policlinico Umberto I Hospital, Sapienza University Rome, Rome, Italy
| | - Francesco Chierigo
- Cancer Prognostics and Health Outcomes Unit, Division of Urology, University of Montréal Health Center, Montréal, Québec, Canada
- Department of Surgical and Diagnostic Integrated Sciences (DISC), University of Genova, Genova, Italy
| | - Lukas Hohenhorst
- Cancer Prognostics and Health Outcomes Unit, Division of Urology, University of Montréal Health Center, Montréal, Québec, Canada
- Martini-Klinik Prostate Cancer Center, University Hospital Hamburg-Eppendorf, Hamburg, Germany
| | - Andrea Panunzio
- Cancer Prognostics and Health Outcomes Unit, Division of Urology, University of Montréal Health Center, Montréal, Québec, Canada
- Department of Urology, Azienda Ospedaliera Universitaria Integrata di Verona, University of Verona, Verona, Italy
| | - Nancy Nimer
- Cancer Prognostics and Health Outcomes Unit, Division of Urology, University of Montréal Health Center, Montréal, Québec, Canada
| | - Zhe Tian
- Cancer Prognostics and Health Outcomes Unit, Division of Urology, University of Montréal Health Center, Montréal, Québec, Canada
| | - Giorgio Gandaglia
- Department of Urology and Division of Experimental Oncology, URI, Urological Research Institute, IRCCS San Raffaele Scientific Institute, Milan, Italy
| | - Derya Tilki
- Martini-Klinik Prostate Cancer Center, University Hospital Hamburg-Eppendorf, Hamburg, Germany
- Department of Urology, University Hospital Hamburg-Eppendorf, Hamburg, Germany
- Department of Urology, Koc University Hospital, Istanbul, Turkey
| | - Carlo Terrone
- Department of Surgical and Diagnostic Integrated Sciences (DISC), University of Genova, Genova, Italy
| | - Michele Gallucci
- Department of Maternal-Child and Urological Sciences, Policlinico Umberto I Hospital, Sapienza University Rome, Rome, Italy
| | - Felix K H Chun
- Department of Urology, University Hospital Frankfurt, Frankfurt am Main, Germany
| | - Alessandro Antonelli
- Department of Urology, Azienda Ospedaliera Universitaria Integrata di Verona, University of Verona, Verona, Italy
| | - Fred Saad
- Cancer Prognostics and Health Outcomes Unit, Division of Urology, University of Montréal Health Center, Montréal, Québec, Canada
| | - Shahrokh F Shariat
- Departments of Urology, Weill Cornell Medical College, New York, New York, USA
- Department of Urology, Second Faculty of Medicine, Charles University, Praga, Czech Republic
- Department of Urology, Comprehensive Cancer Center, Medical University of Vienna, Vienna, Austria
- Institute for Urology and Reproductive Health, I.M. Sechenov First Moscow State Medical University, Moscow, Russia
- Division of Urology, Hourani Center for Applied Scientific Research, Al-Ahliyya Amman University, Amman, Jordan
- Department of Urology, University of Texas Southwestern, Dallas, Texas, USA
| | - Francesco Montorsi
- Department of Urology and Division of Experimental Oncology, URI, Urological Research Institute, IRCCS San Raffaele Scientific Institute, Milan, Italy
| | - Alberto Briganti
- Department of Urology and Division of Experimental Oncology, URI, Urological Research Institute, IRCCS San Raffaele Scientific Institute, Milan, Italy
| | - Pierre I Karakiewicz
- Cancer Prognostics and Health Outcomes Unit, Division of Urology, University of Montréal Health Center, Montréal, Québec, Canada
| |
Collapse
|
3
|
Kanaki T, Stang A, Gutzmer R, Zimmer L, Chorti E, Sucker A, Ugurel S, Hadaschik E, Gräger NS, Satzger I, Schadendorf D, Livingstone E. Impact of American Joint Committee on Cancer 8th edition classification on staging and survival of patients with melanoma. Eur J Cancer 2019; 119:18-29. [PMID: 31401470 DOI: 10.1016/j.ejca.2019.06.011] [Citation(s) in RCA: 32] [Impact Index Per Article: 6.4] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 05/19/2019] [Revised: 06/17/2019] [Accepted: 06/21/2019] [Indexed: 12/01/2022]
Abstract
OBJECTIVE The American Joint Committee on Cancer (AJCC) 8th staging system introduced several revisions. To assess the impact of the 8th edition American Joint Committee on Cancer (AJCC8) staging system on subgrouping and survival, patients with melanoma from two tertiary skin cancer centres were classified according to both the 7th edition American Joint Committee on Cancer (AJCC7) and AJCC8. METHODS A total of 1948 patients aged ≥18 years with cutaneous melanoma stage II-IV were included. The impact of sex and age on reclassification was assessed by log binomial models. The inverse probability of censoring weighting method was used to compute ROC curves from time-to-event data to assess the discriminatory ability of AJCC7 and AJCC8. Melanoma-specific survival (MSS) and overall survival (OS) were calculated, and age- and sex-adjusted MSS hazard ratios were estimated using Cox proportional hazards models. RESULTS Of all, 23.5% of patients were assigned a different subgroup when classified according to AJCC8. Owing to upshifting to stage IIIC (AJCC7 24.8% vs. AJCC8 50.8%), patient numbers of stages IIIA and IIIB decreased from 28.7% to 16.2% and 46.5% to 28.3%. The prediction accuracy for AJCC7 and AJCC8 was comparable (integrated time-dependent area under the curve [AUC] of 0.75 and 0.74, respectively). Five-year MSS of IIB and IIC AJCC8 was poor and lower than that of IIIA AJCC8 (80%, 67% and 89%, respectively). Compared to results of the International Melanoma Database and Discovery Platform, 5-year MSS was 10-15% points lower for stages IIC, IIIB and IIIC. CONCLUSIONS Upshifting affects primarily stage III subgroups, while effects in stage II are minor. Stage IIB/C (AJCC8) patients have 67-80% MSS and should be considered for adjuvant treatment, while in stage IIIA, the indication of adjuvant treatment is questionable.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Theodora Kanaki
- Department of Dermatology, University Hospital Essen, Essen, Germany and German Cancer Consortium of Translational Cancer Research (DKTK), German Cancer Research Center (DKFZ), Heidelberg, Germany
| | - Andreas Stang
- Center of Clinical Epidemiology, C/o Institute of Medical Informatics, Biometry and Epidemiology (IMIBE), University Hospital Essen, Hufelandstr. 55, 45147 Essen, Germany
| | - Ralf Gutzmer
- Skin Cancer Center Hannover, Department of Dermatology and Allergy, Hannover Medical School
| | - Lisa Zimmer
- Department of Dermatology, University Hospital Essen, Essen, Germany and German Cancer Consortium of Translational Cancer Research (DKTK), German Cancer Research Center (DKFZ), Heidelberg, Germany
| | - Eleftheria Chorti
- Department of Dermatology, University Hospital Essen, Essen, Germany and German Cancer Consortium of Translational Cancer Research (DKTK), German Cancer Research Center (DKFZ), Heidelberg, Germany
| | - Antje Sucker
- Department of Dermatology, University Hospital Essen, Essen, Germany and German Cancer Consortium of Translational Cancer Research (DKTK), German Cancer Research Center (DKFZ), Heidelberg, Germany
| | - Selma Ugurel
- Department of Dermatology, University Hospital Essen, Essen, Germany and German Cancer Consortium of Translational Cancer Research (DKTK), German Cancer Research Center (DKFZ), Heidelberg, Germany
| | - Eva Hadaschik
- Department of Dermatology, University Hospital Essen, Essen, Germany and German Cancer Consortium of Translational Cancer Research (DKTK), German Cancer Research Center (DKFZ), Heidelberg, Germany
| | - Nikolai S Gräger
- Skin Cancer Center Hannover, Department of Dermatology and Allergy, Hannover Medical School
| | - Imke Satzger
- Skin Cancer Center Hannover, Department of Dermatology and Allergy, Hannover Medical School
| | - Dirk Schadendorf
- Department of Dermatology, University Hospital Essen, Essen, Germany and German Cancer Consortium of Translational Cancer Research (DKTK), German Cancer Research Center (DKFZ), Heidelberg, Germany
| | - Elisabeth Livingstone
- Department of Dermatology, University Hospital Essen, Essen, Germany and German Cancer Consortium of Translational Cancer Research (DKTK), German Cancer Research Center (DKFZ), Heidelberg, Germany.
| |
Collapse
|