Shelby A Labe1, Xi Wang2, Eric J Lehrer3, Amar U Kishan4, Daniel E Spratt5, Christine Lin1, Alicia K Morgans6, Lee Ponsky7, Jorge A Garcia8, Sara Garrett1, Ming Wang2, Nicholas G Zaorsky9. 1. Department of Radiation Oncology, Penn State Cancer Institute, Hershey, PA. 2. Department of Public Health Sciences, Penn State College of Medicine, Hershey, PA. 3. Department of Radiation Oncology, Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York, NY. 4. Department of Radiation Oncology, University of California, Los Angeles, CA. 5. Department of Radiation Oncology, University Hospitals Cleveland Medical Center, Cleveland, OH. 6. Department of Medical Oncology, Northwestern University Feinberg School of Medicine, Chicago, IL. 7. Department of Urology, University Hospitals Cleveland Medical Center, Cleveland, OH. 8. Department of Medical Oncology, University Hospitals Cleveland Medical Center, Cleveland, OH. 9. Department of Medical Oncology, University Hospitals Cleveland Medical Center, Cleveland, OH. Electronic address: nicholas.zaorsky@uhhospitals.org.
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: Castration-sensitive metastatic prostate cancer is heterogeneous. Our objective is to identify metastatic prostate cancer phenotypes and their prognostic impact on survival. MATERIALS AND METHODS: The National Cancer Database was queried. The Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results database was used for validation. Patterns were split into: nonregional lymph node, bone only, and visceral (any brain/liver/lung). Hazard ratios (HR) with 95% confidence intervals (CI) were calculated for the univariate and multivariate Cox proportional hazards regression models, odds ratios were calculated, Kaplan-Meier curves were generated, and a nomogram of the multivariate regression model was created. RESULTS: The training set included 13,818 men; bone only was most common (n = 11,632, 84.2%), then nonregional lymph node (n = 1388, 10.0%), and any visceral (brain/liver/lung; n = 798, 5.8%). Risk of death was increased by metastases to a visceral organ versus nonregional lymph node (HR = 2.26; 95% CI [2.00, 2.56]), bone only metastases versus nonregional lymph node (HR = 1.57; 95% CI [1.43, 1.72]), T-stage 4 versus 1 (HR = 1.27; 95% CI [1.17, 1.36]), Grade Group 5 versus 1 (HR = 1.93; 95% CI [1.61, 2.31]), PSA > 20 ng/mL versus < 10 ng/mL (HR = 1.32; 95% CI [1.23, 1.42]), and age ≥ 80 versus < 50 (HR = 1.96; 95% CI [1.69, 2.29]). On internal validation, the model had C-indices 20.5%, 22.7%, and 14.6% higher than the current staging system for overall survival, 1-year, and 5-year survival, respectively. CONCLUSION: We developed and validated prognostic metastatic prostate cancer phenotypes that can assist risk stratification to potentially personalize therapy. Our nomogram (https://tinyurl.com/prostate-met) may be used to predict survival.
INTRODUCTION: Castration-sensitive metastatic prostate cancer is heterogeneous. Our objective is to identify metastatic prostate cancer phenotypes and their prognostic impact on survival. MATERIALS AND METHODS: The National Cancer Database was queried. The Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results database was used for validation. Patterns were split into: nonregional lymph node, bone only, and visceral (any brain/liver/lung). Hazard ratios (HR) with 95% confidence intervals (CI) were calculated for the univariate and multivariate Cox proportional hazards regression models, odds ratios were calculated, Kaplan-Meier curves were generated, and a nomogram of the multivariate regression model was created. RESULTS: The training set included 13,818 men; bone only was most common (n = 11,632, 84.2%), then nonregional lymph node (n = 1388, 10.0%), and any visceral (brain/liver/lung; n = 798, 5.8%). Risk of death was increased by metastases to a visceral organ versus nonregional lymph node (HR = 2.26; 95% CI [2.00, 2.56]), bone only metastases versus nonregional lymph node (HR = 1.57; 95% CI [1.43, 1.72]), T-stage 4 versus 1 (HR = 1.27; 95% CI [1.17, 1.36]), Grade Group 5 versus 1 (HR = 1.93; 95% CI [1.61, 2.31]), PSA > 20 ng/mL versus < 10 ng/mL (HR = 1.32; 95% CI [1.23, 1.42]), and age ≥ 80 versus < 50 (HR = 1.96; 95% CI [1.69, 2.29]). On internal validation, the model had C-indices 20.5%, 22.7%, and 14.6% higher than the current staging system for overall survival, 1-year, and 5-year survival, respectively. CONCLUSION: We developed and validated prognostic metastatic prostate cancer phenotypes that can assist risk stratification to potentially personalize therapy. Our nomogram (https://tinyurl.com/prostate-met) may be used to predict survival.
Authors: Elio Mazzone; Felix Preisser; Sebastiano Nazzani; Zhe Tian; Marco Bandini; Giorgio Gandaglia; Nicola Fossati; Denis Soulières; Markus Graefen; Francesco Montorsi; Shahrokh F Shariat; Fred Saad; Alberto Briganti; Pierre I Karakiewicz Journal: Clin Genitourin Cancer Date: 2018-06-05 Impact factor: 2.872
Authors: Gregory R Pond; Guru Sonpavde; Ronald de Wit; Mario A Eisenberger; Ian F Tannock; Andrew J Armstrong Journal: Eur Urol Date: 2013-10-05 Impact factor: 20.096
Authors: Daniel J Boffa; Joshua E Rosen; Katherine Mallin; Ashley Loomis; Greer Gay; Bryan Palis; Kathleen Thoburn; Donna Gress; Daniel P McKellar; Lawrence N Shulman; Matthew A Facktor; David P Winchester Journal: JAMA Oncol Date: 2017-12-01 Impact factor: 31.777
Authors: Timothy A Damron; Hannah Morgan; Dave Prakash; William Grant; Jesse Aronowitz; John Heiner Journal: Clin Orthop Relat Res Date: 2003-10 Impact factor: 4.176
Authors: Giorgio Gandaglia; Firas Abdollah; Jonas Schiffmann; Vincent Trudeau; Shahrokh F Shariat; Simon P Kim; Paul Perrotte; Francesco Montorsi; Alberto Briganti; Quoc-Dien Trinh; Pierre I Karakiewicz; Maxine Sun Journal: Prostate Date: 2013-10-16 Impact factor: 4.104
Authors: Nicholas G Zaorsky; Menglu Liang; Rutu Patel; Christine Lin; Leila T Tchelebi; Kristina B Newport; Edward J Fox; Ming Wang Journal: Radiother Oncol Date: 2021-02-19 Impact factor: 6.901