Defining Prostate Cancer at Favorable Intermediate Risk: The Potential Utility of Magnetic Resonance Imaging and Genomic Tests
This article is commented on by the following:
Abstract
Purpose:
We determined whether prostate multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging and genomic biomarkers might help further define patients with favorable intermediate risk prostate cancer which could safely be considered suitable for active surveillance.
Materials and Methods:
From our institutional database we identified 509 patients who underwent radical prostatectomy with preoperative magnetic resonance imaging and a postoperative Decipher® prostate cancer test. According to the NCCN® (National Comprehensive Cancer Network®) risk stratification 125 men had favorable intermediate and 171 had unfavorable intermediate risk disease. Univariable and multivariable binary logistic regression analyses were done to test the utility of different variables in predicting adverse pathology, defined as Gleason Grade Group greater than 2, pT3b or pN1.
Results:
On univariable analysis favorable intermediate risk, multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging and the prostate cancer test significantly predicted adverse pathology. On multivariable analysis favorable intermediate risk and the prostate cancer test maintained independent predictive value while multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging did not meet statistical significance (p = 0.059). The 19 patients at favorable intermediate risk with high genomic risk had an adverse pathology rate slightly higher than patients at unfavorable intermediate risk (42.1% vs 39.8%, p = 0.56). Those at low genomic risk had an adverse pathology rate slightly lower than patients at very low or low risk (7.5% vs 10.2%, p = 0.84). The 31 patients at favorable intermediate risk but at high multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging and genomic risk had an adverse pathology rate slightly lower than patients at unfavorable intermediate risk (25.8% vs 39.8%, p = 0.14). Those at low multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging and genomic risk had an adverse pathology rate slightly lower than patients at very low or low risk (8.5% vs 10.2%, p = 0.89).
Conclusions:
Multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging and the Decipher test allowed us to better define the risk of adverse pathology in patients at favorable intermediate risk who were diagnosed with prostate cancer.
References
- 1. : The diagnosis and treatment of prostate cancer: a review. JAMA 2017; 317: 2532. Google Scholar
- 2. : NCCN Clinical Practice Guidelines in Oncology. Prostate Cancer Version 3.2018. Available at https://www.nccn.org/professionals/physician_gls/recently_updated.aspx. Accessed January 7, 2019. Google Scholar
- 3. : Active surveillance for intermediate-risk prostate cancer. Prostate Cancer Prostatic Dis 2017; 20: 1. Google Scholar
- 4. : Metastatic prostate cancer in men initially treated with active surveillance. J Urol 2016; 195: 1409. Link, Google Scholar
- 5. : Clinically localized prostate cancer: AUA/ASTRO/SUO guideline. Part I: risk stratification, shared decision making, and care options. J Urol 2018; 199: 683. Link, Google Scholar
- 6. : EAU-ESTRO-SIOG guidelines on prostate cancer. Part 1: screening, diagnosis, and local treatment with curative intent. Eur Urol 2017; 71: 618. Google Scholar
- 7. : A contemporary prostate cancer grading system: a validated alternative to the Gleason score. Eur Urol 2016; 69: 428. Google Scholar
- 8. : Development and internal validation of a side-specific, multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging-based nomogram for the prediction of extracapsular extension of prostate cancer. BJU Int 2018; 122: 1025. Google Scholar
- 9. : Multiparametric MRI features identify aggressive prostate cancer at the phenotypic and transcriptomic level. J Urol 2018; 200: 1241. Link, Google Scholar
- 10. : Active surveillance for prostate cancer: patient selection and management. Curr Oncol Tor Ont, suppl., 2010; 17: S11. Google Scholar
- 11. : Adverse pathologic findings for men electing immediate radical prostatectomy: defining a favorable intermediate-risk group. JAMA Oncol 2018; 4: 89. Google Scholar
- 12. : Variability in outcomes for patients with intermediate-risk prostate cancer (Gleason score 7, International Society of Urological Pathology Gleason group 2-3) and implications for risk stratification: a systematic review. Eur Urol Focus 2017; 3: 487. Google Scholar
- 13. : Genomic classifier for guiding treatment of intermediate-risk prostate cancers to dose-escalated image-guided radiotherapy without hormone therapy. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 2018. Google Scholar
- 14. : How can we expand active surveillance criteria in patients with low- and intermediate-risk prostate cancer without increasing the risk of misclassification? Development of a novel risk calculator. BJU Int 2018; 122: 823. Google Scholar
- 15. : Genomic prostate score, PI-RADSv2, and progression in men with prostate cancer on active surveillance. J Urol 2018; 201: 300. Google Scholar
- 16. : The diverse genomic landscape of clinically low-risk prostate cancer. Eur Urol 2018; 74: 444. Google Scholar
- 17. : Pentraxin 3: a novel biomarker for predicting progression from prostatic inflammation to prostate cancer. Cancer Res 2014; 74: 4230. Google Scholar
- 18. : Urine TMPRSS2: ERG fusion transcript as a biomarker for prostate cancer: literature review. Clin Genitourin Cancer 2016; 14: 117. Google Scholar
- 19. : Application of a clinical whole-transcriptome assay for staging and prognosis of prostate cancer diagnosed in needle core biopsy specimens. J Mol Diagn 2016; 18: 395. Google Scholar
- 20. : Evaluation of a genomic classifier in radical prostatectomy patients with lymph node metastasis. Res Rep Urol 2016; 8: 77. Google Scholar
- 21. : Poor reproducibility of PIRADS score in two multiparametric MRIs before biopsy in men with elevated PSA. World J Urol 2018; 36: 687. Google Scholar
The corresponding author certifies that, when applicable, a statement(s) has been included in the manuscript documenting institutional review board, ethics committee or ethical review board study approval; principles of Helsinki Declaration were followed in lieu of formal ethics committee approval; institutional animal care and use committee approval; all human subjects provided written informed consent with guarantees of confidentiality; IRB approved protocol number; animal approved project number.
No direct or indirect commercial, personal, academic, political, religious or ethical incentive is associated with publishing this article.
