European urology 2013-12
A new risk classification system for therapeutic decision making with intermediate-risk prostate cancer patients undergoing dose-escalated external-beam radiation therapy.
ABSTRACT
BACKGROUND
The management of intermediate-risk prostate cancer (PCa) is controversial, in part due to the heterogeneous nature of patients falling within this classification.
OBJECTIVE
We propose a new risk stratification system for intermediate-risk PCa to aid in prognosis and therapeutic decision making.
DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS
Between 1992 and 2007, 1024 patients with National Comprehensive Cancer Network intermediate-risk PCa and complete biopsy information were treated with definitive external-beam radiation therapy (EBRT) utilizing doses ≥ 81 Gy. Unfavorable intermediate-risk (UIR) PCa was defined as any intermediate-risk patient with a primary Gleason pattern of 4, percentage of positive biopsy cores (PPBC) ≥ 50%, or multiple intermediate-risk factors (IRFs; cT2b-c, prostate-specific antigen [PSA] 10-20, or Gleason score 7).
INTERVENTION
All patients received EBRT with ≥ 81 Gy with or without neoadjuvant and concurrent androgen-deprivation therapy (ADT).
OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS AND STATISTICAL ANALYSIS
Univariate and multivariate analyses were performed using a Cox proportional hazards model for PSA recurrence-free survival (PSA-RFS) and distant metastasis (DM). PCa-specific mortality (PCSM) was analyzed using a competing-risk method.
RESULTS AND LIMITATIONS
Median follow-up was 71 mo. Primary Gleason pattern 4 (hazard ratio [HR]: 3.26; p<0.0001), PPBC ≥ 50% (HR: 2.72; p=0.0007), and multiple IRFs (HR: 2.20; p=0.008) all were significant predictors of increased DM in multivariate analyses. Primary Gleason pattern 4 (HR: 5.23; p<0.0001) and PPBC ≥ 50% (HR: 4.08; p=0.002) but not multiple IRFs (HR: 1.74; p=0.21) independently predicted for increased PCSM. Patients with UIR disease had inferior PSA-RFS (HR: 2.37; p<0.0001), DM (HR: 4.34; p=0.0003), and PCSM (HR: 7.39; p=0.007) compared with those with favorable intermediate-risk disease, despite being more likely to receive neoadjuvant ADT. Short follow-up and retrospective study design are the primary limitations.
CONCLUSIONS
Intermediate-risk PCa is a heterogeneous collection of diseases that can be separated into favorable and unfavorable subsets. These groups likely will benefit from divergent therapeutic paradigms.
Related Questions
More specifically, which cardiac risk factors do you look for? Diabetes? Previous MI? Dyslipidemia? Peripheral vascular disease? CHF?
New answer by Radiation Oncologist at University of Chicago (May 9, 2014)
For men with intermediate risk disease, the jury’s still out pending RTOG 0815 as to which men will benefit most from ADT. Retrospective data suggest that a ...
Recently, Epstein et al proposed using a Grade Group system of Groups 1 (GS < 6), 2 (GS 3+4=7), 3 (GS 4+3=7), 4 (GS 4+4=8), and 5 (GS 9-10). T...
New answer by Radiation Oncologist at UCLA | VA Greater Los Angeles Healthcare System (May 26, 2016)
@W. Robert Lee should've been at the table. I prefer the 6 categories as well since it fits better into our clinical decision making alforithm. Never understood how they ...
New comment by Radiation Oncologist at Mon Health ( May 5, 2023)
Are there any updates on the above recommendation?
Specifically, does the Decipher score influence the incorporation and/or duration of ADT? Can it be used to better stratify intermediate risk patients...
New answer by Radiation Oncologist at Case Western Reserve University/ University Hospitals Seidman Cancer Center (July 10, 2018)
This is an excellent question.Before I can answer the question directly, you must ask yourself how do you currently decide who to give ADT to with RT?The easy answer is that y...
New comment by Radiation Oncologist at Jacob E Locke MD PA ( February 27, 2023)
A favorable intermediate patient with otherwise intermediate risk (no nodule, PSA velocity 2 years and under 10, Gleason 3+4) and then a Decipher comes in at HI risk (0.76).
...