Matthew R Cooperberg1, Jeanette M Broering, Peter R Carroll. 1. Department of Urology, University of California-San Francisco, 1600 Divisadero Street A-607, San Francisco, CA 94143-1695, USA. mcooperberg@urology.ucsf.edu
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Although many tools for the assessment of prostate cancer risk have been published, most are designed to predict only biochemical recurrence, usually after a single specified treatment. We assessed the accuracy of the Cancer of the Prostate Risk Assessment (CAPRA) score, which was validated previously to predict pathological and biochemical outcomes after radical prostatectomy, to predict metastases, prostate cancer-specific mortality, and all-cause mortality. METHODS: We studied 10 627 men with clinically localized prostate cancer in the Cancer of the Prostate Strategic Urologic Research Endeavor registry, who underwent primary radical prostatectomy, radiation therapy (external beam or interstitial), androgen deprivation monotherapy, or watchful waiting/active surveillance, and had at least 6 months of follow-up after treatment. CAPRA scores were calculated at diagnosis from the prostate-specific antigen level, Gleason score, percentage of biopsy cores that were positive for cancer, clinical tumor stage, and age at diagnosis. Survival was studied with Kaplan-Meier analyses. Associations between increasing CAPRA scores and bone metastasis, cancer-specific mortality, and all-cause mortality were examined by use of proportional hazards regression, with adjustment for primary treatment; for all-cause mortality, the analysis also included adjustment for age and comorbidity. Accuracy of the CAPRA score was assessed with the concordance (c)-index. RESULTS: Among the 10 627 patients, 311 (2.9%) men developed bone metastases, 251 (2.4%) died of prostate cancer, and 1582 (14.9%) died of other causes. Each single-point increase in the CAPRA score was associated with increased bone metastases (hazard ratio [HR] for bone metastases = 1.47, 95% confidence interval [CI] = 1.39 to 1.56), cancer-specific mortality (HR for prostate cancer death = 1.39, 95% CI = 1.31 to 1.48), and all-cause mortality (HR for death = 1.13, 95% CI = 1.10 to 1.16). The CAPRA score was accurate for predicting metastases (c-index = 0.78), cancer-specific mortality (c-index = 0.80), and all-cause mortality (c-index = 0.71). CONCLUSIONS: In a large cohort of patients with clinically localized prostate cancer who were managed with one of five primary modalities, the CAPRA score predicted clinical prostate cancer endpoints with good accuracy. These results support the value of the CAPRA score as a risk assessment and stratification tool for both research studies and clinical practice.
BACKGROUND: Although many tools for the assessment of prostate cancer risk have been published, most are designed to predict only biochemical recurrence, usually after a single specified treatment. We assessed the accuracy of the Cancer of the Prostate Risk Assessment (CAPRA) score, which was validated previously to predict pathological and biochemical outcomes after radical prostatectomy, to predict metastases, prostate cancer-specific mortality, and all-cause mortality. METHODS: We studied 10 627 men with clinically localized prostate cancer in the Cancer of the Prostate Strategic Urologic Research Endeavor registry, who underwent primary radical prostatectomy, radiation therapy (external beam or interstitial), androgen deprivation monotherapy, or watchful waiting/active surveillance, and had at least 6 months of follow-up after treatment. CAPRA scores were calculated at diagnosis from the prostate-specific antigen level, Gleason score, percentage of biopsy cores that were positive for cancer, clinical tumor stage, and age at diagnosis. Survival was studied with Kaplan-Meier analyses. Associations between increasing CAPRA scores and bone metastasis, cancer-specific mortality, and all-cause mortality were examined by use of proportional hazards regression, with adjustment for primary treatment; for all-cause mortality, the analysis also included adjustment for age and comorbidity. Accuracy of the CAPRA score was assessed with the concordance (c)-index. RESULTS: Among the 10 627 patients, 311 (2.9%) men developed bone metastases, 251 (2.4%) died of prostate cancer, and 1582 (14.9%) died of other causes. Each single-point increase in the CAPRA score was associated with increased bone metastases (hazard ratio [HR] for bone metastases = 1.47, 95% confidence interval [CI] = 1.39 to 1.56), cancer-specific mortality (HR for prostate cancer death = 1.39, 95% CI = 1.31 to 1.48), and all-cause mortality (HR for death = 1.13, 95% CI = 1.10 to 1.16). The CAPRA score was accurate for predicting metastases (c-index = 0.78), cancer-specific mortality (c-index = 0.80), and all-cause mortality (c-index = 0.71). CONCLUSIONS: In a large cohort of patients with clinically localized prostate cancer who were managed with one of five primary modalities, the CAPRA score predicted clinical prostate cancer endpoints with good accuracy. These results support the value of the CAPRA score as a risk assessment and stratification tool for both research studies and clinical practice.
Authors: Michael S Cookson; Gunnar Aus; Arthur L Burnett; Edith D Canby-Hagino; Anthony V D'Amico; Roger R Dmochowski; David T Eton; Jeffrey D Forman; S Larry Goldenberg; Javier Hernandez; Celestia S Higano; Stephen R Kraus; Judd W Moul; Catherine Tangen; J Brantley Thrasher; Ian Thompson Journal: J Urol Date: 2007-02 Impact factor: 7.450
Authors: Andrew J Stephenson; Peter T Scardino; James A Eastham; Fernando J Bianco; Zohar A Dotan; Paul A Fearn; Michael W Kattan Journal: J Natl Cancer Inst Date: 2006-05-17 Impact factor: 13.506
Authors: Ofer Yossepowitch; Scott E Eggener; Angel M Serio; Brett S Carver; Fernando J Bianco; Peter T Scardino; James A Eastham Journal: Eur Urol Date: 2007-10-12 Impact factor: 20.096
Authors: Henry K Tsai; Anthony V D'Amico; Natalia Sadetsky; Ming-Hui Chen; Peter R Carroll Journal: J Natl Cancer Inst Date: 2007-10-09 Impact factor: 13.506
Authors: Marc A Dall'Era; Matthew R Cooperberg; June M Chan; Benjamin J Davies; Peter C Albertsen; Laurence H Klotz; Christopher A Warlick; Lars Holmberg; Donald E Bailey; Meredith E Wallace; Philip W Kantoff; Peter R Carroll Journal: Cancer Date: 2008-04-15 Impact factor: 6.860
Authors: Timothy J Wilt; Roderick MacDonald; Indulis Rutks; Tatyana A Shamliyan; Brent C Taylor; Robert L Kane Journal: Ann Intern Med Date: 2008-02-04 Impact factor: 25.391
Authors: Vincent Fradet; John Kurhanewicz; Janet E Cowan; Alexander Karl; Fergus V Coakley; Katsuto Shinohara; Peter R Carroll Journal: Radiology Date: 2010-05-26 Impact factor: 11.105
Authors: Giovanni Lughezzani; Alberto Briganti; Pierre I Karakiewicz; Michael W Kattan; Francesco Montorsi; Shahrokh F Shariat; Andrew J Vickers Journal: Eur Urol Date: 2010-08-06 Impact factor: 20.096
Authors: Andrea K Miyahira; Joshua M Lang; Robert B Den; Isla P Garraway; Tamara L Lotan; Ashley E Ross; Tanya Stoyanova; Steve Y Cho; Jonathan W Simons; Kenneth J Pienta; Howard R Soule Journal: Prostate Date: 2015-10-19 Impact factor: 4.104
Authors: C Gu; Q Li; Y Zhu; Y Qu; G Zhang; M Wang; Y Yang; J Wang; L Jin; Q Wei; D Ye Journal: Prostate Cancer Prostatic Dis Date: 2015-08-04 Impact factor: 5.554
Authors: S P Porten; A Smith; A Y Odisho; M S Litwin; C S Saigal; P R Carroll; M R Cooperberg Journal: Prostate Cancer Prostatic Dis Date: 2014-05-13 Impact factor: 5.554
Authors: Jianfeng Xu; Siqun Lilly Zheng; Sarah D Isaacs; Kathleen E Wiley; Fredrik Wiklund; Jielin Sun; A Karim Kader; Ge Li; Lina D Purcell; Seong-Tae Kim; Fang-Chi Hsu; Pär Stattin; Jonas Hugosson; Jan Adolfsson; Patrick C Walsh; Jeffrey M Trent; David Duggan; John Carpten; Henrik Grönberg; William B Isaacs Journal: Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A Date: 2010-01-11 Impact factor: 11.205