BACKGROUND: To test for differences in cancer-specific mortality (CSM) rates between radical prostatectomy (RP) vs external beam radiotherapy (EBRT) in National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN) high-risk African American patients, as well as Johns Hopkins University (JHU) high-risk and very high-risk patients. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Within the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results database (2010-2016), we identified 4165 NCCN high-risk patients, of whom 1944 (46.7%) and 2221 (53.3%) patients qualified for JHU high-risk or very high-risk definitions. Of all 4165 patients, 1390 (33.5%) were treated with RP versus 2775 (66.6%) with EBRT. Cumulative incidence plots and competing risks regression models addressed CSM before and after 1:1 propensity score matching between RP and EBRT NCCN high-risk patients. Subsequently, analyses were repeated separately in JHU high-risk and very high-risk subgroups. Finally, all analyses were repeated after landmark analyses were applied. RESULTS: In the NCCN high-risk cohort, 5-year CSM rates for RP versus EBRT were 2.4 versus 5.2%, yielding a multivariable hazard ratio of 0.50 (95% confidence interval [CI] 0.30-0.84, p = 0.009) favoring RP. In JHU very high-risk patients 5-year CSM rates for RP versus EBRT were 3.7 versus 8.4%, respectively, yielding a multivariable hazard ratio of 0.51 (95% CI: 0.28-0.95, p = 0.03) favoring RP. Conversely, in JHU high-risk patients, no significant CSM difference was recorded between RP vs EBRT (5-year CSM rates: 1.3 vs 1.3%; multivariable hazard ratio: 0.55, 95% CI: 0.16-1.90, p = 0.3). Observations were confirmed in propensity score-matched and landmark analyses adjusted cohorts. CONCLUSIONS: In JHU very high-risk African American patients, RP may hold a CSM advantage over EBRT, but not in JHU high-risk African American patients.

Department of Maternal Child and Urological Sciences Policlinico Umberto 1 Hospital Sapienza Rome University Rome Italy

Department of Surgical and Diagnostic Integrated Sciences University of Genova Genova Italy

Department of Urology 2nd Faculty of Medicine Charles University Prague Czech Republic

Department of Urology Comprehensive Cancer Center Medical University of Vienna Vienna Austria

Department of Urology University Hospital Frankfurt Goethe University Frankfurt am Main Frankfurt am Main Germany

Department of Urology University of Texas Southwestern Dallas Texas USA

Department of Urology Weill Cornell Medical College New York New York USA

Division of Experimental Oncology Unit of Urology URI Urological Research Institute IRCCS San Raffaele Scientific Institute Milan Italy

Division of Urology Cancer Prognostics and Health Outcomes Unit University of Montréal Health Center Montréal Québec Canada

Division of Urology Department of Special Surgery Jordan University Hospital The University of Jordan Amman Jordan

Institute for Urology and Reproductive Health 1 M Sechenov 1st Moscow State Medical University Moscow Russia

Martini Klinik Prostate Cancer Center University Hospital Hamburg Eppendorf Hamburg Germany

Zobrazit více v PubMed

Dess RT, Hartman HE, Mahal BA, et al. Association of black race with prostate cancer-specific and other-cause mortality. JAMA Oncol. 2019;5(7):975-983.

Hoffman RM, Gilliland FD, Eley JW, et al. Racial and ethnic differences in advanced-stage prostate cancer: the prostate cancer outcomes study. J Natl Cancer Inst. 2001;93(5):388-395.

Mahal BA, Aizer AA, Ziehr DR, et al. Trends in disparate treatment of African American men with localized prostate cancer across National Comprehensive Cancer Network risk groups. Urology. 2014;84(2):386-392.

Beebe-Dimmer JL, Ruterbusch JJ, Cooney KA, et al. Racial differences in patterns of treatment among men diagnosed with de novo advanced prostate cancer: a SEER-Medicare investigation. Cancer Med. 2019;8(6):3325-3335.

Schmid M, Meyer CP, Reznor G, et al. Racial differences in the surgical care of medicare beneficiaries with localized prostate cancer. JAMA Oncol. 2016;2(1):85-93.

Pompe RS, Karakiewicz PI, Tian Z, et al. Oncologic and functional outcomes after radical prostatectomy for high or very high risk prostate cancer: European validation of the current NCCN® guideline. J Urol. 2017;198(2):354-361.

Sundi D, Tosoian JJ, Nyame YA, et al. Outcomes of very high-risk prostate cancer after radical prostatectomy: validation study from 3 centers. Cancer. 2019;125(3):391-397.

About the SEER Program [Internet]. SEER. Accessed April 20, 2021. https://seer.cancer.gov/about/overview.html

Mohler JL, Antonarakis ES, Armstrong AJ, et al. Prostate cancer, version 2.2019, NCCN clinical practice guidelines in oncology. J Natl Compr Cancer Netw. 2019;17(5):479-505.

Sundi D, Wang VM, Pierorazio PM, et al. Very-high-risk localized prostate cancer: definition and outcomes. Prostate Cancer Prostatic Dis. 2014;17(1):57-63.

Wenzel M, Würnschimmel C, Ruvolo CC, et al. Increasing rates of NCCN high and very high-risk prostate cancer versus number of prostate biopsy cores. Prostate. 2021;81(12):874-881.

RCT. R: A language and environment for statistical computing; 2017. https://wwwr-projectorg

Knipper S, Palumbo C, Pecoraro A, et al. Survival outcomes of radical prostatectomy vs. external beam radiation therapy in prostate cancer patients with Gleason Score 9-10 at biopsy: a population-based analysis. Urol Oncol. 2020;38(3):79.e9-79.e14.

Abdollah F, Sun M, Thuret R, et al. A competing-risks analysis of survival after alternative treatment modalities for prostate cancer patients: 1988-2006. Eur Urol. 2011;59(1):88-95.

Reichard CA, Nyame YA, Sundi D, et al. Does time from diagnosis to treatment of high- or very-high-risk prostate cancer affect outcome? BJU Int. 2019;124(2):282-289.

Emam A, Hermann G, Attwood K, et al. Oncologic outcome of radical prostatectomy versus radiotherapy as primary treatment for high and very high risk localized prostate cancer. Prostate. 2021;81(4):223-230.

Tward JD, O'neil B, Boucher K, et al. Metastasis, mortality, and quality of life for men with NCCN high and very high risk localized prostate cancer after surgical and/or combined modality radiotherapy. Clin Genitourin Cancer. 2020;18(4):274-283.e5.

National Cancer Database. Accessed July 05, 2021. http://ncdbpuf.facs.org/

Wilt TJ, Brawer MK, Jones KM, et al. Radical prostatectomy versus observation for localized prostate cancer. N Engl J Med. 2012;367(3):203-213.

James ND, Sydes MR, Clarke NW, et al. Addition of docetaxel, zoledronic acid, or both to first-line long-term hormone therapy in prostate cancer (STAMPEDE): survival results from an adaptive, multiarm, multistage, platform randomised controlled trial. The Lancet. 2016;387(10024):1163-1177.

Bernard B, Muralidhar V, Chen Y-H, et al. Impact of ethnicity on the outcome of men with metastatic, hormone-sensitive prostate cancer. Cancer. 2017;123(9):1536-1544.

Balakrishnan AS, Palmer NR, Fergus KB, et al. Minority recruitment trends in phase III prostate cancer clinical trials (2003 to 2014): progress and critical areas for improvement. J Urol. 2019;201(2):259-267.

Bandini M, Preisser F, Nazzani S, et al. The effect of other-cause mortality adjustment on access to alternative treatment modalities for localized prostate cancer among African American patients. Eur Urol Oncol. 2018;1(3):215-222.

Knipper S, Pecoraro A, Palumbo C, et al. A 25-year period analysis of other-cause mortality in localized prostate cancer. Clin Genitourin Cancer. 2019;17(5):395-401.

Abouot SEER-Medicare Linked Database. Accessed July 05, 2021. https://healthcaredelivery.cancer.gov/seermedicare/

Gleiss A, Oberbauer R, Heinze G. An unjustified benefit: immortal time bias in the analysis of time-dependent events. Transpl Int. 2018;31(2):125-130.

Racial/ethnic disparities in the distribution and effect of type and number of high-risk criteria on mortality in prostate cancer patients treated with radiotherapy

Contemporary seminal vesicle invasion rates in NCCN high-risk prostate cancer patients