Dataset Information

Development and Validation of a Clinical Prognostic Stage Group System for Nonmetastatic Prostate Cancer Using Disease-Specific Mortality Results From the International Staging Collaboration for Cancer of the Prostate.

ABSTRACT:

Importance

In 2016, the American Joint Committee on Cancer (AJCC) established criteria to evaluate prediction models for staging. No localized prostate cancer models were endorsed by the Precision Medicine Core committee, and 8th edition staging was based on expert consensus.

Objective

To develop and validate a pretreatment clinical prognostic stage group system for nonmetastatic prostate cancer.

Design, setting, and participants

This multinational cohort study included 7 centers from the United States, Canada, and Europe, the Shared Equal Access Regional Cancer Hospital (SEARCH) Veterans Affairs Medical Centers collaborative (5 centers), and the Cancer of the Prostate Strategic Urologic Research Endeavor (CaPSURE) registry (43 centers) (the STAR-CAP cohort). Patients with cT1-4N0-1M0 prostate adenocarcinoma treated from January 1, 1992, to December 31, 2013 (follow-up completed December 31, 2017). The STAR-CAP cohort was randomly divided into training and validation data sets; statisticians were blinded to the validation data until the model was locked. A Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER) cohort was used as a second validation set. Analysis was performed from January 1, 2018, to November 30, 2019.

Exposures

Curative intent radical prostatectomy (RP) or radiotherapy with or without androgen deprivation therapy.

Main outcomes and measures

Prostate cancer-specific mortality (PCSM). Based on a competing-risk regression model, a points-based Score staging system was developed. Model discrimination (C index), calibration, and overall performance were assessed in the validation cohorts.

Results

Of 19 684 patients included in the analysis (median age, 64.0 [interquartile range (IQR), 59.0-70.0] years), 12 421 were treated with RP and 7263 with radiotherapy. Median follow-up was 71.8 (IQR, 34.3-124.3) months; 4078 (20.7%) were followed up for at least 10 years. Age, T category, N category, Gleason grade, pretreatment serum prostate-specific antigen level, and the percentage of positive core biopsy results among biopsies performed were included as variables. In the validation set, predicted 10-year PCSM for the 9 Score groups ranged from 0.3% to 40.0%. The 10-year C index (0.796; 95% CI, 0.760-0.828) exceeded that of the AJCC 8th edition (0.757; 95% CI, 0.719-0.792), which was improved across age, race, and treatment modality and within the SEER validation cohort. The Score system performed similarly to individualized random survival forest and interaction models and outperformed National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN) and Cancer of the Prostate Risk Assessment (CAPRA) risk grouping 3- and 4-tier classification systems (10-year C index for NCCN 3-tier, 0.729; for NCCN 4-tier, 0.746; for Score, 0.794) as well as CAPRA (10-year C index for CAPRA, 0.760; for Score, 0.782).

Conclusions and relevance

Using a large, diverse international cohort treated with standard curative treatment options, a proposed AJCC-compliant clinical prognostic stage group system for prostate cancer has been developed. This system may allow consistency of reporting and interpretation of results and clinical trial design.

SUBMITTER: Dess RT

PROVIDER: S-EPMC7582232 | biostudies-literature | 2020 Dec

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Development and Validation of a Clinical Prognostic Stage Group System for Nonmetastatic Prostate Cancer Using Disease-Specific Mortality Results From the International Staging Collaboration for Cancer of the Prostate.

Dess Robert T RT Suresh Krithika K Zelefsky Michael J MJ Freedland Stephen J SJ Mahal Brandon A BA Cooperberg Matthew R MR Davis Brian J BJ Horwitz Eric M EM Terris Martha K MK Amling Christopher L CL Aronson William J WJ Kane Christopher J CJ Jackson William C WC Hearn Jason W D JWD Deville Curtiland C DeWeese Theodore L TL Greco Stephen S McNutt Todd R TR Song Daniel Y DY Sun Yilun Y Mehra Rohit R Kaffenberger Samuel D SD Morgan Todd M TM Nguyen Paul L PL Feng Felix Y FY Sharma Vidit V Tran Phuoc T PT Stish Bradley J BJ Pisansky Thomas M TM Zaorsky Nicholas G NG Moraes Fabio Ynoe FY Berlin Alejandro A Finelli Antonio A Fossati Nicola N Gandaglia Giorgio G Briganti Alberto A Carroll Peter R PR Karnes R Jeffrey RJ Kattan Michael W MW Schipper Matthew J MJ Spratt Daniel E DE

JAMA oncology 20201201 12

<h4>Importance</h4>In 2016, the American Joint Committee on Cancer (AJCC) established criteria to evaluate prediction models for staging. No localized prostate cancer models were endorsed by the Precision Medicine Core committee, and 8th edition staging was based on expert consensus.<h4>Objective</h4>To develop and validate a pretreatment clinical prognostic stage group system for nonmetastatic prostate cancer.<h4>Design, setting, and participants</h4>This multinational cohort study included 7 c ...[more]

PMID: 33090219

Similar Datasets

Project description:There is growing evidence supporting incorporating multiparametric (mp) magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) scans into risk stratification, active surveillance, and treatment paradigms for prostate cancer. The purpose of our study was to determine whether demographic disparities exist in staging MRI utilization for prostate cancer patients.An institutional database of 705 nonmetastatic prostate cancer patients treated with radiation therapy from 2005 through 2013 was used to identify patients undergoing versus not undergoing pretreatment diagnostic prostate mpMRI. Uni- and multivariable logistic regression evaluated the relationship of clinical and demographic characteristics with MRI utilization.All demographic variables assessed, except the other race category, were significantly associated with MRI utilization (all P < .05), including age (odds ratio [OR], 0.92), black race (OR, 0.51), poverty (OR, 0.53), closer distance to radiation facility (OR, 1.79), and nonprivate primary insurance (OR, 0.57) on univariable analysis, while clinical stage T3 (OR, 3.37) was the only clinical characteristic. On multivariable analysis stratified by D'Amico risk group, age remained significant across all risk groups, whereas the black versus white racial (OR, 0.21; 95% confidence interval, 0.08-0.55) and nonprivate versus private insurance type (OR, 0.37; 95% confidence interval, 0.16-0.86) disparities persisted in the low-risk group. Clinical stage T3 remained associated in the high-risk group. For race specifically, the percentages of whites, blacks, and others undergoing MRI in the overall cohort and by risk group were, respectively: overall, 80% (343/427), 68% (156/231), and 85% (40/47); low risk, 86%, 56%, and 63%; intermediate risk, 79%, 72%, and 95%; and high risk, 72%, 72%, and 100%.In this urban, academic center cohort, older patients across all risk groups and black or nonprivate insurance patients in the low risk group were less likely to undergo staging prostate MRI scans. Further research should investigate these differences to ensure equitable utilization across all demographic groups considering the burden of prostate cancer disparities.

Project description:BackgroundPrognostic stratification is the cornerstone of management in nonmetastatic prostate cancer (PCa). However, existing prognostic models are inadequate-often using treatment outcomes rather than survival, stratifying by broad heterogeneous groups and using heavily treated cohorts. To address this unmet need, we developed an individualised prognostic model that contextualises PCa-specific mortality (PCSM) against other cause mortality, and estimates the impact of treatment on survival.Methods and findingsUsing records from the United Kingdom National Cancer Registration and Analysis Service (NCRAS), data were collated for 10,089 men diagnosed with nonmetastatic PCa between 2000 and 2010 in Eastern England. Median follow-up was 9.8 years with 3,829 deaths (1,202 PCa specific). Totals of 19.8%, 14.1%, 34.6%, and 31.5% of men underwent conservative management, prostatectomy, radiotherapy (RT), and androgen deprivation monotherapy, respectively. A total of 2,546 men diagnosed in Singapore over a similar time period represented an external validation cohort. Data were randomly split 70:30 into model development and validation cohorts. Fifteen-year PCSM and non-PCa mortality (NPCM) were explored using separate multivariable Cox models within a competing risks framework. Fractional polynomials (FPs) were utilised to fit continuous variables and baseline hazards. Model accuracy was assessed by discrimination and calibration using the Harrell C-index and chi-squared goodness of fit, respectively, within both validation cohorts. A multivariable model estimating individualised 10- and 15-year survival outcomes was constructed combining age, prostate-specific antigen (PSA), histological grade, biopsy core involvement, stage, and primary treatment, which were each independent prognostic factors for PCSM, and age and comorbidity, which were prognostic for NPCM. The model demonstrated good discrimination, with a C-index of 0.84 (95% CI: 0.82-0.86) and 0.84 (95% CI: 0.80-0.87) for 15-year PCSM in the UK and Singapore validation cohorts, respectively, comparing favourably to international risk-stratification criteria. Discrimination was maintained for overall mortality, with C-index 0.77 (95% CI: 0.75-0.78) and 0.76 (95% CI: 0.73-0.78). The model was well calibrated with no significant difference between predicted and observed PCa-specific (p = 0.19) or overall deaths (p = 0.43) in the UK cohort. Key study limitations were a relatively small external validation cohort, an inability to account for delayed changes to treatment beyond 12 months, and an absence of tumour-stage subclassifications.Conclusions'PREDICT Prostate' is an individualised multivariable PCa prognostic model built from baseline diagnostic information and the first to our knowledge that models potential treatment benefits on overall survival. Prognostic power is high despite using only routinely collected clinicopathological information.

Project description:BackgroundComparative assessment of treatment results in paediatric hepatoblastoma trials has been hampered by small patient numbers and the use of multiple disparate staging systems by the four major trial groups. To address this challenge, we formed a global coalition, the Children's Hepatic tumors International Collaboration (CHIC), with the aim of creating a common approach to staging and risk stratification in this rare cancer.MethodsThe CHIC steering committee-consisting of leadership from the four major cooperative trial groups (the International Childhood Liver Tumours Strategy Group, Children's Oncology Group, the German Society for Paediatric Oncology and Haematology, and the Japanese Study Group for Paediatric Liver Tumours)-created a shared international database that includes comprehensive data from 1605 children treated in eight multicentre hepatoblastoma trials over 25 years. Diagnostic factors found to be most prognostic on initial analysis were PRETreatment EXTent of disease (PRETEXT) group; age younger than 3 years, 3-7 years, and 8 years or older; α fetoprotein (AFP) concentration of 100 ng/mL or lower and 101-1000 ng/mL; and the PRETEXT annotation factors metastatic disease (M), macrovascular involvement of all hepatic veins (V) or portal bifurcation (P), contiguous extrahepatic tumour (E), multifocal tumour (F), and spontaneous rupture (R). We defined five clinically relevant backbone groups on the basis of established prognostic factors: PRETEXT I/II, PRETEXT III, PRETEXT IV, metastatic disease, and AFP concentration of 100 ng/mL or lower at diagnosis. We then carried the additional factors into a hierarchical backwards elimination multivariable analysis and used the results to create a new international staging system.ResultsWithin each backbone group, we identified constellations of factors that were most predictive of outcome in that group. The robustness of candidate models was then interrogated using the bootstrapping procedure. Using the clinically established PRETEXT groups I, II, III, and IV as our stems, we created risk stratification trees based on 5 year event-free survival and clinical applicability. We defined and adopted four risk groups: very low, low, intermediate, and high.InterpretationWe have created a unified global approach to risk stratification in children with hepatoblastoma on the basis of rigorous statistical interrogation of what is, to the best of our knowledge, the largest dataset ever assembled for this rare paediatric tumour. This achievement provides the structural framework for further collaboration and prospective international cooperative study, such as the Paediatric Hepatic International Tumour Trial (PHITT).FundingEuropean Network for Cancer Research in Children and Adolescents, funded through the Framework Program 7 of the European Commission (grant number 261474); Children's Oncology Group CureSearch grant contributed by the Hepatoblastoma Foundation; Practical Research for Innovative Cancer Control and Project Promoting Clinical Trials for Development of New Drugs and Medical Devices, Japan Agency for Medical Research; and Swiss Cancer Research grant.

Dataset Information

Development and Validation of a Clinical Prognostic Stage Group System for Nonmetastatic Prostate Cancer Using Disease-Specific Mortality Results From the International Staging Collaboration for Cancer of the Prostate.

Importance

Objective

Design, setting, and participants

Exposures

Main outcomes and measures

Results

Conclusions and relevance

Publications

Development and Validation of a Clinical Prognostic Stage Group System for Nonmetastatic Prostate Cancer Using Disease-Specific Mortality Results From the International Staging Collaboration for Cancer of the Prostate.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets