Piotr Zareba1, James Eastham2, Peter T Scardino2, Karim Touijer2. 1. Division of Urology, McMaster University, Hamilton, Ontario, Canada. Electronic address: pzareba85@icloud.com. 2. Urology Service, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center and Department of Urology, Weill Cornell Medical College, New York, New York.
Abstract
PURPOSE: A thorough understanding of the natural history and consensus regarding the optimal management of pathological lymph node positive (pN1) prostate cancer are lacking. Our objective was to describe patterns of care and outcomes of a contemporary cohort of men with pN1 prostate cancer. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We used the National Cancer Database to identify 7,791 men who were found to have lymph node metastases at radical prostatectomy. Multinomial logistic regression and Cox proportional hazards regression were used to identify patient, tumor and facility characteristics associated with the choice of management strategy after radical prostatectomy and overall survival, respectively. RESULTS: Initial post-prostatectomy management was observation in 63% of the men, androgen deprivation therapy alone in 20%, radiation therapy alone in 5%, and androgen deprivation therapy and radiation therapy in 13%. Younger age, lower comorbidity burden, higher grade and stage, and positive surgical margins were associated with a higher likelihood of receiving combination therapy. Grade group 4-5 disease, pT3b-T4 disease, positive surgical margins and a higher number of positive lymph nodes were independent predictors of worse overall survival. The adjusted 10-year overall survival probability decreased from 84% to 32% with the presence of an increasing number of adverse prognostic factors. Treatment with combined androgen deprivation therapy and radiation therapy was associated with better overall survival (multivariable HR 0.69, 95% CI 0.52-0.92, p = 0.010 for combination therapy vs observation). CONCLUSIONS: Patient and tumor characteristics are associated with the choice of management strategy after radical prostatectomy and survival in men with pN1 prostate cancer. Multimodal therapy may be of benefit in this patient population.
PURPOSE: A thorough understanding of the natural history and consensus regarding the optimal management of pathological lymph node positive (pN1) prostate cancer are lacking. Our objective was to describe patterns of care and outcomes of a contemporary cohort of men with pN1prostate cancer. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We used the National Cancer Database to identify 7,791 men who were found to have lymph node metastases at radical prostatectomy. Multinomial logistic regression and Cox proportional hazards regression were used to identify patient, tumor and facility characteristics associated with the choice of management strategy after radical prostatectomy and overall survival, respectively. RESULTS: Initial post-prostatectomy management was observation in 63% of the men, androgen deprivation therapy alone in 20%, radiation therapy alone in 5%, and androgen deprivation therapy and radiation therapy in 13%. Younger age, lower comorbidity burden, higher grade and stage, and positive surgical margins were associated with a higher likelihood of receiving combination therapy. Grade group 4-5 disease, pT3b-T4 disease, positive surgical margins and a higher number of positive lymph nodes were independent predictors of worse overall survival. The adjusted 10-year overall survival probability decreased from 84% to 32% with the presence of an increasing number of adverse prognostic factors. Treatment with combined androgen deprivation therapy and radiation therapy was associated with better overall survival (multivariable HR 0.69, 95% CI 0.52-0.92, p = 0.010 for combination therapy vs observation). CONCLUSIONS:Patient and tumor characteristics are associated with the choice of management strategy after radical prostatectomy and survival in men with pN1prostate cancer. Multimodal therapy may be of benefit in this patient population.
Authors: Edward M Messing; Judith Manola; Jorge Yao; Maureen Kiernan; David Crawford; George Wilding; P Anthony di'SantAgnese; Donald Trump Journal: Lancet Oncol Date: 2006-06 Impact factor: 41.316
Authors: Scott E Eggener; Peter T Scardino; Patrick C Walsh; Misop Han; Alan W Partin; Bruce J Trock; Zhaoyong Feng; David P Wood; James A Eastham; Ofer Yossepowitch; Danny M Rabah; Michael W Kattan; Changhong Yu; Eric A Klein; Andrew J Stephenson Journal: J Urol Date: 2011-01-15 Impact factor: 7.450
Authors: Firas Abdollah; Maxine Sun; Rodolphe Thuret; Lars Budäus; Claudio Jeldres; Markus Graefen; Alberto Briganti; Paul Perrotte; Patrizio Rigatti; Francesco Montorsi; Pierre I Karakiewicz Journal: Eur Urol Date: 2010-09-28 Impact factor: 20.096
Authors: Lorenzo Bianchi; Alessandro Nini; Marco Bianchi; Giorgio Gandaglia; Nicola Fossati; Nazareno Suardi; Marco Moschini; Paolo Dell'Oglio; Riccardo Schiavina; Francesco Montorsi; Alberto Briganti Journal: Eur Urol Date: 2015-12-31 Impact factor: 20.096
Authors: Thomas Wiegel; Dirk Bottke; Ursula Steiner; Alessandra Siegmann; Reinhard Golz; Stephan Störkel; Norman Willich; Axel Semjonow; Rainer Souchon; Michael Stöckle; Christian Rübe; Lothar Weissbach; Peter Althaus; Udo Rebmann; Tilman Kälble; Horst Jürgen Feldmann; Manfred Wirth; Axel Hinke; Wolfgang Hinkelbein; Kurt Miller Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2009-05-11 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: Joshua R Kaplan; Keith J Kowalczyk; Tudor Borza; Xiangmei Gu; Stuart R Lipsitz; Paul L Nguyen; David F Friedlander; Quoc-Dien Trinh; Jim C Hu Journal: BJU Int Date: 2013-04-02 Impact factor: 5.588
Authors: F Abdollah; N Suardi; A Gallina; M Bianchi; M Tutolo; N Passoni; N Fossati; M Sun; P dell'Oglio; A Salonia; P I Karakiewicz; P Rigatti; F Montorsi; A Briganti Journal: Ann Oncol Date: 2013-03-18 Impact factor: 32.976
Authors: Marianne Schmid; Christian P Meyer; Gally Reznor; Toni K Choueiri; Julian Hanske; Jesse D Sammon; Firas Abdollah; Felix K H Chun; Adam S Kibel; Reginald D Tucker-Seeley; Philip W Kantoff; Stuart R Lipsitz; Mani Menon; Paul L Nguyen; Quoc-Dien Trinh Journal: JAMA Oncol Date: 2016-01 Impact factor: 31.777