BACKGROUND: Clinical stage T2c (cT2c) is an indeterminate factor in prostate cancer (PC) risk stratification. According to the D'Amico grouping and American Urological Association guidelines, cT2c is a high risk, whereas the National Comprehensive Cancer Network and the European Urological Association classify cT2c as an intermediate risk. This study assessed whether cT2c tumors without other high-risk factors (clinical stage T2c, not otherwise specified [cT2c-NOS]) behaved as an intermediate or high risk through an analysis of biochemical recurrence (BCR) after radical prostatectomy. METHODS: Two thousand seven hundred fifty-nine men from the Shared Equal Access Regional Cancer Hospital (SEARCH) Database and 12,900 men from Johns Hopkins Hospital (JHH) from 1988-2011 and 1982-2012, respectively, were analyzed. Patients were grouped into low-risk (prostate-specific antigen [PSA] < 10 ng/mL, Gleason sum ≤ 6, and cT1-T2a), intermediate-risk (PSA = 10-20 ng/mL, Gleason sum = 7, or cT2b), and high-risk PC categories (PSA > 20 ng/mL, Gleason sum = 8-10, or cT3). Men with cT2c tumors who were not otherwise at high risk (ie, PSA< 20 ng/mL and Gleason sum < 8) were placed into a separate category termed cT2c-NOS. Associations between cT2c-NOS and intermediate- and high-risk patients and BCR were tested with the log-rank test and Cox proportional analysis models. RESULTS: Ninety-nine men (4%) from SEARCH and 202 men (2%) from JHH had tumors classified as cT2c-NOS. The cT2c-NOS patients had a BCR risk similar to that of the intermediate-risk patients (SEARCH, P = .27; JHH, P = .23) but a significantly lower BCR risk in comparison with the high-risk patients (SEARCH, P < .001; JHH, P < .001). When they were specifically compared with intermediate- and high-risk patients, after adjustments for year and center, cT2c-NOS patients had outcomes comparable to those of intermediate-risk patients (SEARCH, P = .53; JHH, P = .54) but significantly better than those of high-risk patients (SEARCH, P = .003; JHH, P < .001). CONCLUSIONS: Patients with cT2c disease without other high-risk features had outcomes similar to the outcomes of patients with intermediate-risk PC and significantly better than the outcomes of patients with high-risk PC. These findings suggest that men with cT2c disease should be considered to be at intermediate risk.
BACKGROUND: Clinical stage T2c (cT2c) is an indeterminate factor in prostate cancer (PC) risk stratification. According to the D'Amico grouping and American Urological Association guidelines, cT2c is a high risk, whereas the National Comprehensive Cancer Network and the European Urological Association classify cT2c as an intermediate risk. This study assessed whether cT2c tumors without other high-risk factors (clinical stage T2c, not otherwise specified [cT2c-NOS]) behaved as an intermediate or high risk through an analysis of biochemical recurrence (BCR) after radical prostatectomy. METHODS: Two thousand seven hundred fifty-nine men from the Shared Equal Access Regional Cancer Hospital (SEARCH) Database and 12,900 men from Johns Hopkins Hospital (JHH) from 1988-2011 and 1982-2012, respectively, were analyzed. Patients were grouped into low-risk (prostate-specific antigen [PSA] < 10 ng/mL, Gleason sum ≤ 6, and cT1-T2a), intermediate-risk (PSA = 10-20 ng/mL, Gleason sum = 7, or cT2b), and high-risk PC categories (PSA > 20 ng/mL, Gleason sum = 8-10, or cT3). Men with cT2c tumors who were not otherwise at high risk (ie, PSA< 20 ng/mL and Gleason sum < 8) were placed into a separate category termed cT2c-NOS. Associations between cT2c-NOS and intermediate- and high-risk patients and BCR were tested with the log-rank test and Cox proportional analysis models. RESULTS: Ninety-nine men (4%) from SEARCH and 202 men (2%) from JHH had tumors classified as cT2c-NOS. The cT2c-NOS patients had a BCR risk similar to that of the intermediate-risk patients (SEARCH, P = .27; JHH, P = .23) but a significantly lower BCR risk in comparison with the high-risk patients (SEARCH, P < .001; JHH, P < .001). When they were specifically compared with intermediate- and high-risk patients, after adjustments for year and center, cT2c-NOS patients had outcomes comparable to those of intermediate-risk patients (SEARCH, P = .53; JHH, P = .54) but significantly better than those of high-risk patients (SEARCH, P = .003; JHH, P < .001). CONCLUSIONS:Patients with cT2c disease without other high-risk features had outcomes similar to the outcomes of patients with intermediate-risk PC and significantly better than the outcomes of patients with high-risk PC. These findings suggest that men with cT2c disease should be considered to be at intermediate risk.
Authors: Alberto Briganti; Felix K-H Chun; Andrea Salonia; Giuseppe Zanni; Vincenzo Scattoni; Luc Valiquette; Patrizio Rigatti; Francesco Montorsi; Pierre I Karakiewicz Journal: Eur Urol Date: 2006-02-17 Impact factor: 20.096
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: Matthew R Cooperberg; David J Pasta; Eric P Elkin; Mark S Litwin; David M Latini; Janeen Du Chane; Peter R Carroll Journal: J Urol Date: 2005-06 Impact factor: 7.450
Authors: Michel Bolla; Laurence Collette; Léo Blank; Padraig Warde; Jean Bernard Dubois; René-Olivier Mirimanoff; Guy Storme; Jacques Bernier; Abraham Kuten; Cora Sternberg; Johan Mattelaer; José Lopez Torecilla; J Rafael Pfeffer; Carmel Lino Cutajar; Alfredo Zurlo; Marianne Pierart Journal: Lancet Date: 2002-07-13 Impact factor: 79.321
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: A V D'Amico; R Whittington; S B Malkowicz; D Schultz; K Blank; G A Broderick; J E Tomaszewski; A A Renshaw; I Kaplan; C J Beard; A Wein Journal: JAMA Date: 1998-09-16 Impact factor: 56.272
Authors: Ilias Cagiannos; Pierre Karakiewicz; James A Eastham; Makato Ohori; Farhang Rabbani; Claudia Gerigk; Victor Reuter; Markus Graefen; Peter G Hammerer; Andreas Erbersdobler; Hartwig Huland; Patrick Kupelian; Eric Klein; David I Quinn; Susan M Henshall; John J Grygiel; Robert L Sutherland; Phillip D Stricker; Christopher G Morash; Peter T Scardino; Michael W Kattan Journal: J Urol Date: 2003-11 Impact factor: 7.450
Authors: Gerald E Hanks; Thomas F Pajak; Arthur Porter; David Grignon; Harmart Brereton; Varagur Venkatesan; Eric M Horwitz; Colleen Lawton; Seth A Rosenthal; Howard M Sandler; William U Shipley Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2003-11-01 Impact factor: 44.544