BACKGROUND: The patterns of recurrence of patients with node-positive prostate cancer (PCa) at radical prostatectomy (RP) are still unknown. OBJECTIVE: To describe recurrence patterns, to identify predictors of progression, and to test the impact of the site of clinical recurrence (CR) on cancer-specific mortality (CSM). DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: We included 1003 patients with node-positive PCa treated with RP and extended pelvic lymph node dissection. Patients who experienced biochemical recurrence (BCR; n=370) and CR (n=183) were identified. CR was defined as positive imaging after BCR. Patients were stratified according to the first site of CR: local and/or nodal (recurrence in the prostatic bed and/or pelvic nodes), retroperitoneal, bony, or visceral. OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS AND STATISTICAL ANALYSIS: Multivariable competing-risks regression analyses identified predictors of systemic recurrence (ie, retroperitoneal, bony, and/or visceral) and tested the association between the site of recurrence and CSM after accounting for the risk of other-cause mortality. RESULTS AND LIMITATIONS: When considering patients experiencing BCR, pathologic Gleason score, time to BCR, and the administration of a positron emission tomography/computed tomography scan represented predictors of systemic recurrence (all p ≤ 0.002). Among patients who experienced CR, recurrence was local and/or nodal in 56 (30.5%), retroperitoneal in 25 (13.7%), skeletal in 77 (42.1%), and visceral in 25 (13.7%). Among patients experiencing local recurrence, 27 (48.2%) had positive margins, 29 (51.8%) had adjuvant radiotherapy, and 22 (39.5%) had salvage radiotherapy. Patients experiencing local and/or nodal recurrence had higher 5-yr CSM-free survival rates compared with those with retroperitoneal, skeletal, and visceral recurrence (79.3%, 76.3%, 50.8%, and 35.3%, respectively; p<0.001). The site of recurrence represented an independent predictor of CSM (p ≤ 0.04). CONCLUSIONS: In approximately one-third of patients who are pN+ and experience CR, the prostatic bed and pelvic lymph nodes represent the first sites of recurrence. These patients have a more favorable prognosis compared with those with skeletal and visceral metastases. These data have important implications for the selection of the optimal postoperative management of pN+ patients who experience CR. Although patients with local and/or pelvic nodal recurrence might benefit from nonsystemic salvage therapies, men with visceral and skeletal recurrence might represent ideal candidates for systemic approaches. PATIENT SUMMARY: Not all patients with pN+ prostate cancer who experience clinical recurrence harbor distant metastatic disease. Local and/or nodal recurrence occurs in one-third of these cases. These patients share a more favorable prognosis than their counterparts with systemic recurrence. These results are important for tailoring the optimal postoperative management for each node-positive patient with recurrent disease after surgery.
BACKGROUND: The patterns of recurrence of patients with node-positive prostate cancer (PCa) at radical prostatectomy (RP) are still unknown. OBJECTIVE: To describe recurrence patterns, to identify predictors of progression, and to test the impact of the site of clinical recurrence (CR) on cancer-specific mortality (CSM). DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: We included 1003 patients with node-positive PCa treated with RP and extended pelvic lymph node dissection. Patients who experienced biochemical recurrence (BCR; n=370) and CR (n=183) were identified. CR was defined as positive imaging after BCR. Patients were stratified according to the first site of CR: local and/or nodal (recurrence in the prostatic bed and/or pelvic nodes), retroperitoneal, bony, or visceral. OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS AND STATISTICAL ANALYSIS: Multivariable competing-risks regression analyses identified predictors of systemic recurrence (ie, retroperitoneal, bony, and/or visceral) and tested the association between the site of recurrence and CSM after accounting for the risk of other-cause mortality. RESULTS AND LIMITATIONS: When considering patients experiencing BCR, pathologic Gleason score, time to BCR, and the administration of a positron emission tomography/computed tomography scan represented predictors of systemic recurrence (all p ≤ 0.002). Among patients who experienced CR, recurrence was local and/or nodal in 56 (30.5%), retroperitoneal in 25 (13.7%), skeletal in 77 (42.1%), and visceral in 25 (13.7%). Among patients experiencing local recurrence, 27 (48.2%) had positive margins, 29 (51.8%) had adjuvant radiotherapy, and 22 (39.5%) had salvage radiotherapy. Patients experiencing local and/or nodal recurrence had higher 5-yr CSM-free survival rates compared with those with retroperitoneal, skeletal, and visceral recurrence (79.3%, 76.3%, 50.8%, and 35.3%, respectively; p<0.001). The site of recurrence represented an independent predictor of CSM (p ≤ 0.04). CONCLUSIONS: In approximately one-third of patients who are pN+ and experience CR, the prostatic bed and pelvic lymph nodes represent the first sites of recurrence. These patients have a more favorable prognosis compared with those with skeletal and visceral metastases. These data have important implications for the selection of the optimal postoperative management of pN+ patients who experience CR. Although patients with local and/or pelvic nodal recurrence might benefit from nonsystemic salvage therapies, men with visceral and skeletal recurrence might represent ideal candidates for systemic approaches. PATIENT SUMMARY: Not all patients with pN+ prostate cancer who experience clinical recurrence harbor distant metastatic disease. Local and/or nodal recurrence occurs in one-third of these cases. These patients share a more favorable prognosis than their counterparts with systemic recurrence. These results are important for tailoring the optimal postoperative management for each node-positive patient with recurrent disease after surgery.
Authors: Maria Vinsensia; Peter L Chyoke; Boris Hadaschik; Tim Holland-Letz; Jan Moltz; Klaus Kopka; Isabel Rauscher; Walter Mier; Markus Schwaiger; Uwe Haberkorn; Tobias Mauer; Clemens Kratochwil; Matthias Eiber; Frederik L Giesel Journal: J Nucl Med Date: 2017-06-21 Impact factor: 10.057
Authors: William P Parker; Jaden D Evans; Bradley J Stish; Sean S Park; Kenneth Olivier; Richard Choo; Mark A Nathan; Brian T Welch; R Jeffrey Karnes; Lance A Mynderse; Thomas M Pisansky; Eugene D Kwon; Val J Lowe; Brian J Davis Journal: Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys Date: 2016-11-17 Impact factor: 7.038
Authors: Andreas Hiester; Alessandro Nini; Günter Niegisch; Christian Arsov; Hubertus Hautzel; Christina Antke; Lars Schimmöller; Peter Albers; Robert Rabenalt Journal: World J Urol Date: 2019-01-14 Impact factor: 4.226
Authors: Nieroshan Rajarubendra; Fabio Almeida; Zarko Manojlovic; Chisato Ohe; Nariman Ahmadi; Giovanni Cacciamani; Michael Qiu; Andre Abreu; Jie Cai; Gus Miranda; Mariana C Stern; John Carpten; Peter Kuhn; Mahul B Amin; Parkash S Gill; Manju Aron; Inderbir S Gill Journal: J Urol Date: 2019-02 Impact factor: 7.600
Authors: Dae Keun Kim; Kyo Chul Koo; Ali Abdel Raheem; Ki Hong Kim; Byung Ha Chung; Young Deuk Choi; Koon Ho Rha Journal: PLoS One Date: 2016-03-31 Impact factor: 3.240