Cancer Prognostics and Health Outcomes Unit, University of Montreal Health Center, Montreal, Canada; Martini-Klinik, Prostate Cancer Center Hamburg-Eppendorf, Hamburg, Germany; Department of Urology, University Hospital Hamburg-Eppendorf, Hamburg, Germany.
Department of Urology and Division of Experimental Oncology, Urological Research Institute, IRCCS San Raffaele Scientific Institute, Milan, Italy.
Eur Urol Focus. 2019 Jul;5(4):568-576. doi: 10.1016/j.euf.2017.10.015. Epub 2017 Nov 10.
Among prostate cancer (PCa) patients undergoing radical prostatectomy (RP) and with virtually identical unfavorable pathological characteristics, those deemed at low risk (LR) preoperatively had better oncological outcomes than those with intermediate (IR) or high risk (HR) preoperatively.
To examine if this phenomenon still applies when preoperative Cancer of the Prostate Risk Assessment (CAPRA) scores are compared to postoperative scores (CAPRA-S) in RP patients.
DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: We evaluated 10 290 PCa patients who underwent RP at tertiary care centers in Hamburg (Germany) and Milan (Italy) during 1991-2011.
All patients were classified as CAPRA/CAPRA-S LR, IR, or HR (≤2, 3-5, and ≥6 points, respectively). Kaplan-Meier and Cox regression analyses were performed to assess the risk of biochemical recurrence (BCR) and metastatic disease (metD).
Overall, 59.6%, 29.3%, and 11.1% patients were CAPRA-S LR, IR, and HR respectively. For CAPRA-S LR patients, 5-yr BCR-free and metD-free rates for preoperative CAPRA LR versus IR/HR patients were 93.1% versus 85.7% (p<0.001) and 99.7% versus 98.9% (p=0.017), respectively. For CAPRA-S IR/HR patients, the corresponding rates were 69.9% versus 57.2% and 98.2 versus 93.7% (both p<0.001). On multivariable Cox regression analyses, a combination of CAPRA-S and preoperative CAPRA resulted in increases in predictive accuracy for BCR (from 76.0% to 78.3%) and metD (from 82.0% to 84.0%). Specifically, biopsy Gleason patterns and the percentage of positive cores added information to the CAPRA-S score. Long-term follow-up is needed to discern clinical metD differences between preoperative CAPRA risk groups.
CAPRA-S LR patients in the CAPRA IR/HR group had higher BCR/metD risk. Conversely, CAPRA-S IR/HR patients in the CAPRA LR group had lower BCR/metD risk. Future tools should incorporate better tumor and Gleason quantification to optimize prediction.
We demonstrated that among 10290 European patients with prostate cancer who underwent radical prostatectomy, those deemed at low risk preoperatively had better oncological outcomes than their peers with intermediate or high risk, despite virtually identical unfavorable pathological characteristics.
在接受根治性前列腺切除术(RP)且具有几乎相同的不利病理特征的前列腺癌(PCa)患者中,术前被认为处于低危(LR)的患者的肿瘤学结果优于术前处于中危(IR)或高危(HR)的患者。
检查在 RP 患者中比较术前前列腺癌风险评估(CAPRA)评分与术后评分(CAPRA-S)时,是否仍然存在这种现象。
设计、地点和参与者:我们评估了 1991 年至 2011 年间在德国汉堡和意大利米兰的三级护理中心接受 RP 的 10290 例 PCa 患者。
所有患者均被归类为 CAPRA/CAPRA-S LR、IR 或 HR(分别为≤2、3-5 和≥6 分)。进行 Kaplan-Meier 和 Cox 回归分析以评估生化复发(BCR)和转移性疾病(metD)的风险。
总体而言,59.6%、29.3%和 11.1%的患者分别为 CAPRA-S LR、IR 和 HR。对于 CAPRA-S LR 患者,术前 CAPRA LR 与 IR/HR 患者的 5 年 BCR 无复发生存率和 metD 无复发生存率分别为 93.1%与 85.7%(p<0.001)和 99.7%与 98.9%(p=0.017)。对于 CAPRA-S IR/HR 患者,相应的比率分别为 69.9%与 57.2%和 98.2%与 93.7%(均为 p<0.001)。在多变量 Cox 回归分析中,CAPRA-S 与术前 CAPRA 的组合增加了 BCR(从 76.0%增加至 78.3%)和 metD(从 82.0%增加至 84.0%)的预测准确性。具体而言,活检 Gleason 模式和阳性核心百分比增加了 CAPRA-S 评分的信息量。需要进行长期随访以辨别术前 CAPRA 风险组之间的临床 metD 差异。
CAPRA-S LR 患者在 CAPRA IR/HR 组中的 BCR/metD 风险更高。相反,CAPRA-S IR/HR 患者在 CAPRA LR 组中的 BCR/metD 风险较低。未来的工具应结合更好的肿瘤和 Gleason 定量,以优化预测。
我们的研究表明,在 10290 名接受根治性前列腺切除术的欧洲前列腺癌患者中,尽管具有几乎相同的不利病理特征,但术前被认为处于低危的患者的肿瘤学结果优于中危或高危患者。