Xun Shangguan1, Hongyang Qian1, Zhou Jiang2, Zhixiang Xin1, Jiahua Pan1, Baijun Dong3, Wei Xue4. 1. Department of Urology, Renji Hospital, School of Medicine, Shanghai Jiaotong University, 1630 Dong Fang Road, 200127, Shanghai, China. 2. Department of Pathology, Renji Hospital, School of Medicine, Shanghai Jiaotong University, 1630 Dong Fang Road, 200127, Shanghai, China. 3. Department of Urology, Renji Hospital, School of Medicine, Shanghai Jiaotong University, 1630 Dong Fang Road, 200127, Shanghai, China. dongbaijun@renji.com. 4. Department of Urology, Renji Hospital, School of Medicine, Shanghai Jiaotong University, 1630 Dong Fang Road, 200127, Shanghai, China. xuewei@renji.com.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To assess the use of the cell cycle progression (CCP) score versus actual risk stratification practice in making treatment decisions for prostate cancer patients with locally adverse pathology after radical prostatectomy (RP). PATIENTS AND METHODS: Men with adverse pathologic features, pT3 or positive surgical margins who underwent RP in 2010-2014 at Renji hospital were retrospectively analyzed. The primary outcome was biochemical recurrence (BCR) after RP. RNA was quantified from paraffin-embedded RP specimens. The CCP score was calculated as average expression of 31 CCP genes, normalized to 15 housekeeper genes. The prognostic utility of the CCP score was assessed using Kaplan-Meier analysis and multivariable Cox proportional hazards model. RESULTS: Among the 100 men identified, 5-year BCR-free survival for the low- (< 0), intermediate- (0-1) and high- (> 1) CCP score groups was 89.3%, 38.8%, and 12.9%, respectively. In multivariable models adjusting for clinical and pathological variables with the cancer of the prostate risk assessment post-surgical (CAPRA-S) score, both continuous CCP score [hazard ratio (HR) 1.373 per unit score, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.006-1.874; p = 0.046) and the categorized CCP score (p < 0.001)were independent predictors of BCR. CONCLUSIONS: The present study provides insights into the role the CCP score plays in risk stratification of this cohort and in determining candidacy for deferred secondary treatment. From our perspective, the CCP score allows better stratification and can help identifying patients at lower risk of disease recurrence who could benefit from a wait-and-see policy.
OBJECTIVE: To assess the use of the cell cycle progression (CCP) score versus actual risk stratification practice in making treatment decisions for prostate cancerpatients with locally adverse pathology after radical prostatectomy (RP). PATIENTS AND METHODS: Men with adverse pathologic features, pT3 or positive surgical margins who underwent RP in 2010-2014 at Renji hospital were retrospectively analyzed. The primary outcome was biochemical recurrence (BCR) after RP. RNA was quantified from paraffin-embedded RP specimens. The CCP score was calculated as average expression of 31 CCP genes, normalized to 15 housekeeper genes. The prognostic utility of the CCP score was assessed using Kaplan-Meier analysis and multivariable Cox proportional hazards model. RESULTS: Among the 100 men identified, 5-year BCR-free survival for the low- (< 0), intermediate- (0-1) and high- (> 1) CCP score groups was 89.3%, 38.8%, and 12.9%, respectively. In multivariable models adjusting for clinical and pathological variables with the cancer of the prostate risk assessment post-surgical (CAPRA-S) score, both continuous CCP score [hazard ratio (HR) 1.373 per unit score, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.006-1.874; p = 0.046) and the categorized CCP score (p < 0.001)were independent predictors of BCR. CONCLUSIONS: The present study provides insights into the role the CCP score plays in risk stratification of this cohort and in determining candidacy for deferred secondary treatment. From our perspective, the CCP score allows better stratification and can help identifying patients at lower risk of disease recurrence who could benefit from a wait-and-see policy.
Authors: Fernando P Secin; Fernando J Bianco; Andrew J Vickers; Victor Reuter; Thomas Wheeler; Paul A Fearn; James A Eastham; Peter T Scardino Journal: Cancer Date: 2006-06-01 Impact factor: 6.860
Authors: Aurélien Forgues; François Rozet; François Audenet; Adil Ouzzane; Rafaël Sanchez-Salas; Eric Barret; Marc Galiano; Dominique Prapotnich; Xavier Cathelineau Journal: World J Urol Date: 2013-07-24 Impact factor: 4.226
Authors: Ian M Thompson; Catherine M Tangen; Jorge Paradelo; M Scott Lucia; Gary Miller; Dean Troyer; Edward Messing; Jeffrey Forman; Joseph Chin; Gregory Swanson; Edith Canby-Hagino; E David Crawford Journal: JAMA Date: 2006-11-15 Impact factor: 56.272
Authors: Andrew J Stephenson; Michael W Kattan; James A Eastham; Fernando J Bianco; Ofer Yossepowitch; Andrew J Vickers; Eric A Klein; David P Wood; Peter T Scardino Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2009-07-27 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: Ian M Thompson; Catherine M Tangen; Jorge Paradelo; M Scott Lucia; Gary Miller; Dean Troyer; Edward Messing; Jeffrey Forman; Joseph Chin; Gregory Swanson; Edith Canby-Hagino; E David Crawford Journal: J Urol Date: 2009-01-23 Impact factor: 7.450
Authors: J Cuzick; D M Berney; G Fisher; D Mesher; H Møller; J E Reid; M Perry; J Park; A Younus; A Gutin; C S Foster; P Scardino; J S Lanchbury; S Stone Journal: Br J Cancer Date: 2012-02-23 Impact factor: 7.640
Authors: J Cuzick; S Stone; G Fisher; Z H Yang; B V North; D M Berney; L Beltran; D Greenberg; H Møller; J E Reid; A Gutin; J S Lanchbury; M Brawer; P Scardino Journal: Br J Cancer Date: 2015-06-23 Impact factor: 7.640
Authors: Luke T Lavallée; Dean Fergusson; Ranjeeta Mallick; Renée Grenon; Scott C Morgan; Franco Momoli; Kelsey Witiuk; Chris Morash; Ilias Cagiannos; Rodney H Breau Journal: PLoS One Date: 2013-11-04 Impact factor: 3.240