Left Main Coronary Artery Calcium and Diabetes Confer Very-High-Risk Equivalence in Coronary Artery Calcium >1,000

BACKGROUND

Although a coronary artery calcium (CAC) of ≥1,000 is a subclinical atherosclerosis threshold to consider combination lipid-lowering therapy, differentiating very high from high atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease (ASCVD) risk in this patient population is not well-defined.

OBJECTIVES

Among persons with a CAC of ≥1,000, the authors sought to identify risk factors equating with very high-risk ASCVD mortality rates.

METHODS

The authors studied 2,246 asymptomatic patients with a CAC of ≥1,000 from the CAC Consortium without a prior ASCVD event. Cox proportional hazards regression modelling was performed for ASCVD mortality during a median follow-up of 11.3 years. Crude ASCVD mortality rates were compared with those reported for secondary prevention trial patients classified as very high risk, defined by ≥2 major ASCVD events or 1 major event and ≥2 high-risk conditions (1.4 per 100 person-years).

RESULTS

The mean age was 66.6 years, 14% were female, and 10% were non-White. The median CAC score was 1,592 and 6% had severe left main (LM) CAC (vessel-specific CAC ≥300). Diabetes (HR: 2.04 [95% CI: 1.47-2.83]) and severe LM CAC (HR: 2.32 [95% CI: 1.51-3.55]) were associated with ASCVD mortality. The ASCVD mortality per 100 person-years for all patients was 0.8 (95% CI: 0.7-0.9), although higher rates were observed for diabetes (1.4 [95% CI: 0.8-1.9]), severe LM CAC (1.3 [95% CI: 0.6-2.0]), and both diabetes and severe LM CAC (7.1 [95% CI: 3.4-10.8]).

CONCLUSIONS

Among asymptomatic patients with a CAC of ≥1,000 without a prior index event, diabetes, and severe LM CAC define very high risk ASCVD, identifying individuals who may benefit from more intensive prevention therapies across several domains, including low-density lipoprotein-cholesterol lowering.

Undertreatment and Underachievement of LDL-C Target among Individuals with High and Very High Cardiovascular Risk in the Malaysian Community

Dyslipidaemia is a major cause of morbidity and mortality. The aims of this study are to determine the prevalence of dyslipidaemia subtypes, the proportions of lipid-lowering therapy (LLT) use, and the achievement of low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C) treatment targets for high-risk (HR) and very high-risk (VHR) Malaysians. This cross-sectional study involves 5279 participants across 11 states in Malaysia. The data were obtained through a standardised questionnaire, anthropometric measurements, venous glucose and lipid profile. The participants with existing cardiovascular disease (CVD) or diabetes with at least one of the other major risk factors (smoking, hypertension or dyslipidaemia) were grouped into the VHR category. Other participants were risk-categorised using the Framingham General CVD Risk Score (FRS-CVD). The prevalence of elevated LDL-C, LLT use and LDL-C target were set according to respective risk categories. Pearson's chi-squared test was used to test the difference in the proportions. The mean ± standard deviation (SD) age was 41.1 ± 14.8 years, and 62.2% (3283/5279) of the group were females. Within the participant group, 51.5% were found to have elevated total cholesterol, 28.8% had low HDL-C, and 33.8% had high triglyceride. As for elevated LDL-C, 9.8% were in VHR, 8.6% in HR, 5.8% in MR and 34.9% in LR categories. Among the VHR group, 75.8% were not on LLT, and only 15.9% achieved the LDL-C target. As for the HR category, 87.7% were not on LLT, and only 16.1% achieved the LDL-C target. Dyslipidaemia is highly prevalent among Malaysians. The majority of VHR and HR participants were not on LLT and did not achieve LDL-C treatment targets. Proactive programs are warranted to combat dyslipidaemia-associated CVD events in these groups.

Assessment of the optimal number of positive biopsy cores to discriminate between cancer-specific mortality in high-risk versus very high-risk prostate cancer patients

BACKGROUND

Number of positive prostate biopsy cores represents a key determinant between high versus very high-risk prostate cancer (PCa). We performed a critical appraisal of the association between the number of positive prostate biopsy cores and CSM in high versus very high-risk PCa.

METHODS

Within Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results database (2010-2016), 13,836 high versus 20,359 very high-risk PCa patients were identified. Discrimination according to 11 different positive prostate biopsy core cut-offs (≥2-≥12) were tested in Kaplan-Meier, cumulative incidence, and multivariable Cox and competing risks regression models.

RESULTS

Among 11 tested positive prostate biopsy core cut-offs, more than or equal to 8 (high-risk vs. very high-risk: n = 18,986 vs. n = 15,209, median prostate-specific antigen [PSA]: 10.6 vs. 16.8 ng/ml, <.001) yielded optimal discrimination and was closely followed by the established more than or equal to 5 cut-off (high-risk vs. very high-risk: n = 13,836 vs. n = 20,359, median PSA: 16.5 vs. 11.1 ng/ml, p < .001). Stratification according to more than or equal to 8 positive prostate biopsy cores resulted in CSM rates of 4.1 versus 14.2% (delta: 10.1%, multivariable hazard ratio: 2.2, p < .001) and stratification according to more than or equal to 5 positive prostate biopsy cores with CSM rates of 3.7 versus 11.9% (delta: 8.2%, multivariable hazard ratio: 2.0, p < .001) in respectively high versus very high-risk PCa.

CONCLUSIONS

The more than or equal to 8 positive prostate biopsy cores cutoff yielded optimal results. It was very closely followed by more than or equal to 5 positive prostate biopsy cores. In consequence, virtually the same endorsement may be made for either cutoff. However, more than or equal to 5 positive prostate biopsy cores cutoff, based on its existing wide implementation, might represent the optimal choice.

Increasing rates of NCCN high and very high-risk prostate cancer versus number of prostate biopsy cores

BACKGROUND

Recently, an increase in the rates of high-risk prostate cancer (PCa) was reported. We tested whether the rates of and low, intermediate, high and very high-risk PCa changed over time. We also tested whether the number of prostate biopsy cores contributed to changes rates over time.

METHODS

Within the Surveillance, Epidemiology and End Results (SEER) database (2010-2015), annual rates of low, intermediate, high-risk according to traditional National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN) and high versus very high-risk PCa according to Johns Hopkins classification were tabulated without and with adjustment for the number of prostate biopsy cores.

RESULTS

In 119,574 eligible prostate cancer patients, the rates of NCCN low, intermediate, and high-risk PCa were, respectively, 29.7%, 47.8%, and 22.5%. Of high-risk patients, 39.6% and 60.4% fulfilled high and very high-risk criteria. Without adjustment for number of prostate biopsy cores, the estimated annual percentage changes (EAPC) for low, intermediate, high and very high-risk were respectively -5.5% (32.4%-24.9%, p < .01), +0.5% (47.6%-48.4%, p = .09), +4.1% (8.2%-9.9%, p < .01), and +8.9% (11.8%-16.9%, p < .01), between 2010 and 2015. After adjustment for number of prostate biopsy cores, differences in rates over time disappeared and ranged from 29.8%-29.7% for low risk, 47.9%-47.9% for intermediate risk, 8.9%-9.0% for high-risk, and 13.6%-13.6% for very high-risk PCa (all p > .05).

CONCLUSIONS

The rates of high and very high-risk PCa are strongly associated with the number of prostate biopsy cores, that in turn may be driven by broader use magnetic resonance imaging (MRI).

Radiotherapy for Clinically Localized T3b or T4 Very-High-Risk Prostate Cancer-Role of Dose Escalation Using High-Dose-Rate Brachytherapy Boost or High Dose Intensity Modulated Radiotherapy

Simple Summary

Recently, high-risk prostate cancer was subdivided to a very-high-risk group considered to have the worst prognosis, including clinical stage T3b–T4, primary Gleason pattern 5, or more than four biopsy cores with Gleason score 8–10. Among these, T3b–T4 stage is a special interest in radiotherapy because of their wider target volume outside the prostate. We examined this subgroup and found that dose escalation in radiotherapy both with brachytherapy or intensity modulated radiotherapy (IMRT) improved biochemical free survival rate but not in prostate cancer specific survival rate and overall survival rate.

Abstract

To examine the efficacy of dose escalating radiotherapy into patients with cT3b or T4 localized prostate cancer, we compared Group A (86 conventional dose external beam radiotherapy: EBRT group, treated with 70–72 Gy) and group B (39 high dose EBRT group (HDEBRT group, 74–80 Gy) and 124 high-dose-rate brachytherapy (HDR) + EBRT (HDR boost)) using multi-institutional retrospective data. The actuarial 5-year biochemical disease-free survival (bDFS) rate, prostate cancer specific survival rate (PSS), and overall survival rate (OS) were 75.8%, 96.8%, and 93.5%. Group B showed superior 5-year bDFS rate (81.2%) as compared to the group A (66.5%) (p < 0.0001) with a hazard ratio of 0.397. Equivocal 5-year PSS (98.3% and 94.8% in group B and group A) and OS (both 93.7%) were found between those groups. Accumulated late grade ≥ 2 toxicities in gastrointestinal and genitourinary tracts were similar among those three groups. Therefore, both HDEBRT and HDR boost could be good options for improving the bDFS rate in cT3–T4 localized prostate cancer without affecting PSS and OS.