Che-Kai Tsao1, Kathryn P Gray2, Mari Nakabayashi2, Carolyn Evan2, Philip W Kantoff2, Jiaoti Huang3, Matthew D Galsky4, Mark Pomerantz2, William K Oh4. 1. Division of Hematology and Medical Oncology, Tisch Cancer Institute, Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York, New York. Electronic address: Che-kai.tsao@mssm.edu. 2. Lank Center for Genitourinary Oncology, Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, Harvard Medical School, Boston, Massachusetts. 3. Department of Pathology, David Geffen School of Medicine at University of California-Los Angeles, Los Angeles, California. 4. Division of Hematology and Medical Oncology, Tisch Cancer Institute, Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York, New York.
Abstract
PURPOSE: We examined differences in outcome in patients with biopsy Gleason score 8 vs 9-10 who received definitive local therapy. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Using an institutional database we identified a cohort of 847 patients with biopsy Gleason 8-10 disease who received definitive local therapy with radiation therapy or radical prostatectomy between January 2001 and December 2011. Multivariable Cox modeling was used to assess the association of Gleason score 8 vs 9-10 with time to biochemical recurrence, metastasis and overall survival, and evaluate treatment by Gleason score interaction. Median followup in the cohort was 5.3 years. RESULTS: Baseline patient characteristics were similar for biopsy Gleason 8 vs 9-10. Gleason 9-10 disease was associated with higher prostate specific antigen at diagnosis. As local treatment such patients were also more likely to have received radiation therapy (58% vs 46%, p = 0.001) and neoadjuvant/adjuvant androgen deprivation therapy (64% vs 49%, p <0.001). Those with higher grade disease were at increased risk for metastasis (HR 1.41, 95% CI 1.11-1.79). There was a trend toward an increased risk of death in Gleason 9-10 vs 8 cases (HR 1.28, 95% CI 0.98-1.66). The increased risk of death for Gleason 9-10 was mainly observed in patients treated with radical prostatectomy with or without additional radiation therapy (HR 1.74, 95% CI 1.15-2.65). CONCLUSIONS: Patients with localized biopsy Gleason 9-10 disease treated with definitive local therapy had worse outcomes than those diagnosed with biopsy Gleason 8 disease. Clinical trials are urgently needed that incorporate newer approaches to Gleason 9-10 cancer.
PURPOSE: We examined differences in outcome in patients with biopsy Gleason score 8 vs 9-10 who received definitive local therapy. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Using an institutional database we identified a cohort of 847 patients with biopsy Gleason 8-10 disease who received definitive local therapy with radiation therapy or radical prostatectomy between January 2001 and December 2011. Multivariable Cox modeling was used to assess the association of Gleason score 8 vs 9-10 with time to biochemical recurrence, metastasis and overall survival, and evaluate treatment by Gleason score interaction. Median followup in the cohort was 5.3 years. RESULTS: Baseline patient characteristics were similar for biopsy Gleason 8 vs 9-10. Gleason 9-10 disease was associated with higher prostate specific antigen at diagnosis. As local treatment such patients were also more likely to have received radiation therapy (58% vs 46%, p = 0.001) and neoadjuvant/adjuvant androgen deprivation therapy (64% vs 49%, p <0.001). Those with higher grade disease were at increased risk for metastasis (HR 1.41, 95% CI 1.11-1.79). There was a trend toward an increased risk of death in Gleason 9-10 vs 8 cases (HR 1.28, 95% CI 0.98-1.66). The increased risk of death for Gleason 9-10 was mainly observed in patients treated with radical prostatectomy with or without additional radiation therapy (HR 1.74, 95% CI 1.15-2.65). CONCLUSIONS:Patients with localized biopsy Gleason 9-10 disease treated with definitive local therapy had worse outcomes than those diagnosed with biopsy Gleason 8 disease. Clinical trials are urgently needed that incorporate newer approaches to Gleason 9-10 cancer.
Authors: Sean P Stroup; Daniel M Moreira; Zinan Chen; Lauren Howard; Jonathan H Berger; Martha K Terris; William J Aronson; Matthew R Cooperberg; Christopher L Amling; Christopher J Kane; Stephen J Freedland Journal: J Urol Date: 2017-07-11 Impact factor: 7.450
Authors: Helen Davis Bondarenko; Marc Zanaty; Sabrina S Harmouch; Cristina Negrean; Raisa S Pompe; Daniel Liberman; Naeem Bhojani; Pierre I Karakiewicz; Kevin C Zorn; Assaad El-Hakim Journal: Can Urol Assoc J Date: 2018-06-19 Impact factor: 1.862
Authors: R Mathieu; M Moschini; B Beyer; K M Gust; T Seisen; A Briganti; P Karakiewicz; C Seitz; L Salomon; A de la Taille; M Rouprêt; M Graefen; S F Shariat Journal: Prostate Cancer Prostatic Dis Date: 2017-01-10 Impact factor: 5.554
Authors: John V Hegde; Darlene Veruttipong; Jonathan W Said; Robert E Reiter; Michael L Steinberg; Christopher R King; Amar U Kishan Journal: Urology Date: 2017-05-25 Impact factor: 2.649
Authors: D E Spratt; W C Jackson; A Abugharib; S A Tomlins; R T Dess; P D Soni; J Y Lee; S G Zhao; A I Cole; Z S Zumsteg; H Sandler; D Hamstra; J W Hearn; G Palapattu; R Mehra; T M Morgan; F Y Feng Journal: Prostate Cancer Prostatic Dis Date: 2016-05-24 Impact factor: 5.554
Authors: Sonia Manca; Cole P Frisbie; Chad A LaGrange; Carol A Casey; Jean-Jack M Riethoven; Armen Petrosyan Journal: Mol Cancer Res Date: 2018-09-17 Impact factor: 5.852