Prognostic values of clinicopathological characteristics and survival outcomes in prostate infiltrating ductal carcinoma: a population-based study

Nomogram for predicting the overall survival and cancer-specific survival of patients with intraductal carcinoma of the prostate

PURPOSE

Intraductal carcinoma of the prostate (IDC-P) is a histological subtype that differs from conventional acinar adenocarcinoma in terms of its origin, appearance, and pathological features. For IDC-P, there is currently no recognized best course of action, and its prognosis is unclear. The goal of this study is to analyze independent prognostic factors in IDC-P patients and to develop and validate a nomogram to predict overall survival (OS) and cancer-specific survival (CSS).

METHODS

Clinical data for IDC-P patients were collected from the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results database. To identify the independent variables influencing prognosis, multivariate Cox regression analysis was performed. A nomogram model was created utilizing these variables after comparing the variations in OS and CSS among various subgroups using Kaplan‒Meier curves. Internal validation of the nomograms was verified using the bootstrap resampling method.

RESULTS

The study included 280 IDC-P patients in total. Marital status, summary stage, grade, and the presence of lung metastases were significant factors impacting OS, and CSS was significantly influenced by marital status, summary stage, AJCC stage, the presence of lung metastases, the presence of bone metastases, and PSA according to univariate and multivariate Cox regression models (P < 0.05). Nomogram models were created to estimate OS and CSS using these parameters. The OS prediction model's C-index was 0.744, whereas the CSS prediction model's C-index was 0.831.

CONCLUSION

We developed and verified nomogram models for the prediction of 1-, 3-, and 5-year OS and CSS in patients with IDC-P. These nomograms serve as a resource for evaluating patient prognosis, therapy, and diagnosis, ultimately improving clinical decision-making accuracy.

The therapeutic efficacy of radical prostatectomy and external beam radiation therapy in patients with different pathological patterns of prostate cancer

BACKGROUND

We aim to investigate the prognostic value of different pathological patterns of non-adenocarcinoma prostate cancers (PCa) in radical prostatectomy (RP) and external beam radiation therapy (EBRT).

METHODS

Data of 470,258 localized PCa patients between 2004 and 2016 were collected from the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results database. Propensity score matching was performed to balance the baseline characteristics of patients in different groups. Kaplan-Meier curves and Cox regression were used for survival analysis. Overall survival (OS) and cancer-specific survival (CSS) were set as endpoints.

RESULTS

Totally, 1044 patients with non-adenocarcinoma patterns of PCa were included. Patients with small cell neuroendocrine carcinoma (SCNC) and neuroendocrine differentiation (NED) harbored the worst prognosis in both RP and EBRT among all pathological groups. RP exhibited superior effects to EBRT for this group of cases. Ductal carcinoma (DA) was also related to poorer survival outcomes versus PAC in both local therapies. Yet, for men with DA, both RP and EBRT still improved patients' prognosis against no local therapy (NLT), with RP being the superior modality. Cases harboring mucinous adenocarcinoma (MA) and signet ring cell carcinoma (SRCC) shared comparable clinical outcomes to men with PAC. However, for cases with MA, neither RP nor EBRT was related to better survival outcomes against NLT, while for patients with SRCC, both RP and EBRT prolonged patients' survival with similar effects.

CONCLUSIONS

Our study provided a comprehensive view of the treatment effect of RP and EBRT in non-adenocarcinoma PCa patients. These findings could facilitate clinicians in making therapeutic decision-making for non-adenocarcinoma patients.

Hidden clues in prostate cancer - Lessons learned from clinical and pre-clinical approaches on diagnosis and risk stratification

The heterogeneity of prostate cancer is evident at clinical, morphological and molecular levels. To aid clinical decision making, a three-tiered system for risk stratification is used to designate low-, intermediate-, and high-risk of disease progression. Intermediate-risk prostate cancers are the most frequently diagnosed, and even with common diagnostic features, can exhibit vastly different clinical progression. Thus, improved risk stratification methods are needed to better predict patient outcomes. Here, we provide an overview of the improvements in diagnosis/prognosis arising from advances in pathology reporting of prostate cancer, which can improve risk stratification, especially for patients with intermediate-risk disease. This review discusses updates to pathology reporting of morphological growth patterns, and proposes the utility of integrating prognostic biomarkers or innovative imaging techniques to enhance clinical decision-making. To complement clinical studies, experimental approaches using patient-derived tumors have highlighted important cellular and morphological features associated with aggressive disease that may impact treatment response. The intersection of urology, pathology and scientific disciplines is required to work towards a common goal of understanding disease pathogenesis, improving the stratification of patients with intermediate-risk disease and subsequently defining optimal treatment strategies using precision-based approaches.

Prostatic Ductal Adenocarcinoma Controlled for Tumor Grade, Stage, and Margin Status Does Not Independently Influence the Likelihood of Biochemical Recurrence in Localized Prostate Cancer After Radical Prostatectomy

CONTEXT.—

Prostatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDA) has historically been considered to be an aggressive subtype of prostate cancer.

OBJECTIVE.—

To investigate if PDA is independently associated with worse biochemical recurrence (BCR)-free survival after radical prostatectomy.

DESIGN.—

A review of 1584 radical prostatectomies was performed to grade, stage, and assess margin status in each tumor nodule. Radical prostatectomies with localized PDA (ie, those lacking metastasis) in the tumor nodule with the highest grade and stage and worst margin status were matched with prostatic acinar adenocarcinoma according to grade, stage, and margin status. The effect of PDA on BCR was assessed by multivariable Cox regression and Kaplan-Meier analyses.

RESULTS.—

Prostatic ductal adenocarcinoma was present in 171 cases. We excluded 24 cases because of lymph node metastasis (n = 13), PDA not in the highest-grade tumor nodule (n = 9), and positive surgical margin in a lower-grade tumor nodule (n = 2). The remaining 147 cases included 26 Grade Group (GG) 2, 44 GG3, 6 GG4, and 71 GG5 cancers. Seventy-six cases had extraprostatic extension, 33 had seminal vesicle invasion, and 65 had positive margins. Follow-up was available for 113 PDA and 109 prostatic acinar adenocarcinoma cases. Prostate-specific antigen density (odds ratio, 3.7; P = .001), cancer grade (odds ratio, 3.3-4.3; P = .02), positive surgical margin (odds ratio, 1.7; P = .02), and tumor volume (odds ratio, 1.3; P = .02) were associated with BCR in multivariable analysis. Prostatic ductal adenocarcinoma, its percentage, intraductal carcinoma, and cribriform Gleason pattern 4 were not significant independent predictors of BCR.

CONCLUSIONS.—

Advanced locoregional stage, higher tumor grade, and positive surgical margin status rather than the mere presence of PDA are more predictive of worse BCR-free survival outcomes following radical prostatectomy in men with a component of PDA.

Knowing what's growing: Why ductal and intraductal prostate cancer matter

Prostate cancer is a common malignancy, but only some tumors are lethal. Accurately identifying these tumors will improve clinical practice and instruct research. Aggressive cancers often have distinctive pathologies, including intraductal carcinoma of the prostate (IDC-P) and ductal adenocarcinoma. Here, we review the importance of these pathologies because they are often overlooked, especially in genomics and preclinical testing. Pathology, genomics, and patient-derived models show that IDC-P and ductal adenocarcinoma accompany multiple markers of poor prognosis. Consequently, "knowing what is growing" will help translate preclinical research to pinpoint and treat high-risk prostate cancer in the clinic.

Oncological outcomes of patients with ductal adenocarcinoma of the prostate receiving radical prostatectomy or radiotherapy

Objective

To evaluate the oncological outcomes of ductal adenocarcinoma of the prostate (DAC) managed with radical prostatectomy (RP) or radiotherapy (RT) and optimize the proper treatment modality to DAC comprehensively.

Methods

The cohorts included a total of 528 patients from the Surveillance, Epidemiology and End Results (SEER) database, 354 receiving RP and 174 receiving RT. Cox proportional hazards regressions were performed to assess cancer specific mortality (CSM) and overall mortality (OM) between treatment groups. A competing risk analysis was further conducted. Subgroup analyses by age and level of prostate-specific antigen (PSA) were performed. Propensity score matching was implemented.

Results

Patients managed with RP had lower risks of CSM and OM compared with RT (before matching: Hazard ratio [HR]=0.24, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.13–0.47 and HR=0.26, 95% CI 0.17–0.40, respectively; after matching: HR=0.18, 95% CI 0.04–0.82 and HR=0.28, 95% CI 0.11–0.70, accordingly). Subgroup analyses demonstrated that patients in the middle tertile of the age or with lower tertile PSA level managed with RP took lower risks of OM significantly (HR=0.18, 95% CI 0.06–0.57, p<0.01 and HR=0.17, 95% CI 0.06–0.54, p<0.01).

Conclusion

Among patients with DAC, treatment with RP was associated with better survival outcomes in comparison with RT. Patients with DAC in the middle tertile of the age and with lower tertile PSA level benefited the most from RP.

Ductal variant prostate carcinoma is associated with a significantly shorter metastasis-free survival

BACKGROUND

Ductal adenocarcinoma is an uncommon prostate cancer variant. Previous studies suggest that ductal variant histology may be associated with worse clinical outcomes, but these are difficult to interpret. To address this, we performed an international, multi-institutional study to describe the characteristics of ductal adenocarcinoma, particularly focussing on the effect of presence of ductal variant cancer on metastasis-free survival.

METHODS

Patients with ductal variant histology from two institutional databases who underwent radical prostatectomies were identified and compared with an independent acinar adenocarcinoma cohort. After propensity score matching, the effect of the presence of ductal adenocarcinoma on time to biochemical recurrence, initiation of salvage therapy and the development of metastatic disease was determined. Deep whole-exome sequencing was performed for selected cases (n = 8).

RESULTS

A total of 202 ductal adenocarcinoma and 2037 acinar adenocarcinoma cases were analysed. Survival analysis after matching demonstrated that patients with ductal variant histology had shorter salvage-free survival (8.1 versus 22.0 months, p = 0.03) and metastasis-free survival (6.7 versus 78.6 months, p < 0.0001). Ductal variant histology was consistently associated with RB1 loss, as well as copy number gains in TAP1, SLC4A2 and EHHADH.

CONCLUSIONS

The presence of any ductal variant adenocarcinoma at the time of prostatectomy portends a worse clinical outcome than pure acinar cancers, with significantly shorter times to initiation of salvage therapies and the onset of metastatic disease. These features appear to be driven by uncoupling of chromosomal duplication from cell division, resulting in widespread copy number aberration with specific gain of genes implicated in treatment resistance.

Ductal adenocarcinoma of the prostate: A systematic review and meta-analysis of incidence, presentation, prognosis, and management

Context

Ductal adenocarcinoma (DAC) is relatively rare, but is nonetheless the second most common subtype of prostate cancer. First described in 1967, opinion is still divided regarding its biology, prognosis, and outcome.

Objectives

To systematically interrogate the literature to clarify the epidemiology, diagnosis, management, progression, and survival statistics of DAC.

Materials and methods

We conducted a literature search of five medical databases from inception to May 04 2020 according to PRISMA criteria using search terms "prostate ductal adenocarcinoma" OR "endometriod adenocarcinoma of prostate" and variations of each.

Results

Some 114 studies were eligible for inclusion, presenting 2 907 170 prostate cancer cases, of which 5911 were DAC. [Correction added on 16 January 2021 after the first online publication: the preceding statement has been corrected in this current version.] DAC accounts for 0.17% of prostate cancer on meta-analysis (range 0.0837%-13.4%). The majority of DAC cases were admixed with predominant acinar adenocarcinoma (AAC). Median Prostate Specific Antigen at diagnosis ranged from 4.2 to 9.6 ng/mL in the case series.DAC was more likely to present as T3 (RR1.71; 95%CI 1.53-1.91) and T4 (RR7.56; 95%CI 5.19-11.01) stages, with far higher likelihood of metastatic disease (RR4.62; 95%CI 3.84-5.56; all P-values < .0001), compared to AAC. Common first treatments included surgery (radical prostatectomy (RP) or cystoprostatectomy for select cases) or radiotherapy (RT) for localized disease, and hormonal or chemo-therapy for metastatic disease. Few studies compared RP and RT modalities, and those that did present mixed findings, although cancer-specific survival rates seem worse after RP.Biochemical recurrence rates were increased with DAC compared to AAC. Additionally, DAC metastasized to unusual sites, including penile and peritoneal metastases. Where compared, all studies reported worse survival for DAC compared to AAC.

Conclusion

When drawing conclusions about DAC it is important to note the heterogenous nature of the data. DAC is often diagnosed incidentally post-treatment, perhaps due to lack of a single, universally applied histopathological definition. As such, DAC is likely underreported in clinical practice and the literature. Poorer prognosis and outcomes for DAC compared to AAC merit further research into genetic composition, evolution, diagnosis, and treatment of this surprisingly common prostate cancer sub-type.

Patient summary

Ductal prostate cancer is a rare but important form of prostate cancer. This review demonstrates that it tends to be more serious at detection and more likely to spread to unusual parts of the body. Overall survival is worse with this type of prostate cancer and urologists need to be aware of the presence of ductal prostate cancer to alter management decisions and follow-up.

The Role of Radiotherapy Among Patients With Prostate Ductal Adenocarcinoma

INTRODUCTION

The aim of this study was to perform a Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER) analysis on the effect of radiotherapy (RT) on survival among patients with prostate ductal adenocarcinoma (DA), a rare variant of prostate cancer.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

Cases of T1 to 4 N0 M0 prostate DA diagnosed between 2004 and 2013 were extracted from SEER. The association between categorical variables and radiation therapy was assessed for statistical significance using the χ² test or Fisher exact test. Difference in continuous variables across the RT groups was assessed for statistical significance using the 2-sample t test or non-parametric test. The distribution of overall survival (OS) and disease-specific survival (DSS) between the RT groups was assessed using the Kaplan-Meier method and the log rank test and after propensity matching. The association between hazards of death (HR) and covariates was examined using Cox proportional hazards model. A 2-sided P-value of .05 was used to determine statistical significance.

RESULTS

A total of 205 patients met inclusion criteria. On univariate analysis, RT was associated with significant improvement in OS and DSS. On multivariate Cox regression, RT significantly decreased risk of death for both OS and DSS (HR, 0.516; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.273-0.978 and HR, 0.232; 95% CI, 0.082-0.658, respectively). After propensity score matching, RT demonstrated a persistent improvement in both OS and DSS.

CONCLUSIONS

RT decreased risk of death for both OS and DSS in patients with node-negative, nonmetastatic prostate DA on multivariable analysis. RT was also associated with improved OS and DSS after propensity matching.

Prostatic Ductal Adenocarcinoma Controlled for Cancer Grade and Tumor Volume Does Not Have an Independent Effect on Adverse Radical Prostatectomy Outcomes Compared to Usual Acinar Prostatic Adenocarcinoma

OBJECTIVE

To study if prostatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDA) controlled by Grade Group (GG), PSA, and tumor volume (TV) is an independent predictor of adverse radical prostatectomy (RP) outcomes.

MATERIALS

One-hundred and twenty-eight PDA and 1141 acinar continuous RPs were studied. Each tumor nodule (TN) was individually graded, staged, and its TV measured. Univariate analysis (UVA) identified features associated with lymph node metastasis (LN+), extraprostatic extension (EPE), positive surgical margins (SM+), and seminal vesicle invasion (SV+). We then assessed PDA effect on RP outcomes in a multivariate analysis (MVA).

RESULTS

In 127 cases PDA was present in 1 TN and no TN was pure PDA. One-hundred and twenty-three cases had PDA in TNs with highest grade, stage, and TV. Patients with PDA were older (65 vs 63 years, P < 0.001), had higher GG (P < 0.001), and LN+ (6.3% vs 2.7%, P = 0.049). Controlling these variables by GG eliminated statistical significance. Overall, there were 3249 separate TNs (129 PDA and 3120 acinar). In UVA, PDA predicted EPE (92/124 vs 517/3045), SV+ (28/1129 vs 116/3,120), and SM+ (51/129 vs 296/3120), all P < 0.001. In MVA, PDA lost its effect on EPE (OR = 0.88, P = 0.64), SM+ (OR = 0.86, P = 0.5), and SV+ (OR = 0.99, P = 0.98).

CONCLUSION

Controlled for grade and TV, PDA was not an independent predictor of adverse RP outcomes, but former 2 were. Hence, higher GG and TV associated with PDA TNs may be predictive of adverse RP outcomes rather than PDA by itself. These conclusions may be used in preoperative risk stratification and definitive therapy planning when PDA is identified on needle biopsy.

Does ductal adenocarcinoma of the prostate (DA) have any prognostic impact on patients with de novo metastatic prostate cancer?

BACKGROUND

The prognostic value of ductal adenocarcinoma of the prostate (DA) in nonmetastatic prostate cancer (PCa) has been identified in many studies. However, it remains unknown whether DA is an adverse prognostic factor in metastatic PCa (mPCa).

METHOD

Data from 634 mPCa patients histopathologically documented with DA or/and acinar adenocarcinoma of the prostate in our center between 2012 and 2018 were retrospectively analyzed. Propensity score matching (PSM) was used to balance the baseline features. Data from the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER) database were utilized to validate our findings. Castration-resistant PCa-free survival (CFS), overall survival (OS), and cancer-specific survival (CSS) were set as endpoints.

RESULTS

DA was confirmed in 35 of 634 (5.5%) patients. Among the DA-positive patients, 7 of 35 (20%) and 28 of 35 (80%) harbored high (DA ≥ 50%) and low (DA < 50%) DA components, respectively. DA was not associated with poorer median CFS (mCFS) or median OS (mOS) either before PSM (mCFS: 16.9 vs 18.4 month, P = .814; mOS: 42.0 vs 70.1 month, P = .796) or after PSM (mCFS: 16.9 vs 16.9 month, P = .949; mOS: 42.0 vs 79.9 month, P = .960). Likewise, in the SEER data, DA-positive patients (n = 15 153) shared similar median CSS (25.0 vs 28.0 month, P = .206) and OS (26.0 vs 35.0 month, P = .095) with DA-negative patients (n = 70). No prognostic difference was found between patients with high and low DA components.

CONCLUSION

We conducted the first study investigating the prognostic value of DA in de novo mPCa. DA was not associated with adverse clinical outcomes in mPCa patients. These findings are helpful for prognostic evaluation, treatment decision making and counseling in mPCa patients.

Contemporary Comparison of Clinicopathologic Characteristics and Survival Outcomes of Prostate Ductal Carcinoma and Acinar Adenocarcinoma: A Population-Based Study

PURPOSE

To investigate clinicopathologic characteristics and cancer-specific mortality (CSM) rates of ductal carcinoma (DC) versus the common acinar adenocarcinoma in nonmetastatic and metastatic (M1) prostate cancer patients.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

Within the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results database (2004-2015), we identified patients with histologically confirmed prostate adenocarcinoma who harbored either DC (n = 581) or acinar adenocarcinoma (n = 489,296). Kaplan-Meier and 4:1 propensity score-matched multivariable Cox regression models adjusted for clinical and pathologic parameters were used to test for CSM differences. Three separate analyses were performed on all patients with nonmetastatic disease, patients with nonmetastatic patients treated with radical prostatectomy only, and patients with metastatic disease.

RESULTS

DC was identified in 502 (0.10%) of 469,946 patients with nonmetastatic disease and 79 (0.39%) of 19,931 patients with metastatic disease. In patients with nonmetastatic disease, 253 (50.4%) DC patients underwent radical prostatectomy, 61 (12.2%) DC patients received external-beam radiotherapy, and 188 (37.4%) received other treatment modalities. In multivariable analyses, DC was associated with higher CSM in the overall nonmetastatic patient population (hazard ratio [HR] = 1.8; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.3-2.6; P = .001), in the nonmetastatic radical prostatectomy population (HR = 2.8; 95% CI, 1.3-6.0; P < .01), and in the M1 population (HR = 1.6; 95% CI, 1.1-2.2; P < .01).

CONCLUSION

Prostate cancers of ductal origin represent a rare entity among patients with nonmetastatic disease as well as among patients with metastatic disease, and regardless of stage, DC behaves more aggressively.