Gleason pattern 5 is associated with an increased risk for metastasis following androgen deprivation therapy and radiation: An analysis of RTOG 9202 and 9902.


Journal

Radiotherapy and oncology : journal of the European Society for Therapeutic Radiology and Oncology
ISSN: 1879-0887
Titre abrégé: Radiother Oncol
Pays: Ireland
ID NLM: 8407192

Informations de publication

Date de publication:
12 2019
Historique:
received: 14 05 2019
revised: 16 08 2019
accepted: 20 08 2019
pubmed: 22 9 2019
medline: 2 6 2020
entrez: 22 9 2019
Statut: ppublish

Résumé

Stratification of Gleason score (GS) into three categories (2-6, 7, and 8-10) may not fully utilize its prognostic discrimination, with Gleason pattern 5 (GP5) previously identified as an independent adverse factor. Patients treated on RTOG 9202 (n = 1292) or RTOG 9902 (n = 378) were pooled and assessed for association of GS and GP5 on biochemical failure (BF), local failure (LF), distant metastasis (DM), and overall survival (OS). Fine and Gray's regression and cumulative incidence methods were used for univariate and multivariate analyses. With median follow-up of 9.4 years, patients with GS 8-10 with GP5 had worse outcome than GS 4 + 4 for DM on both RTOG9202 (p = 0.038) and RTOG9902 (p < 0.001) with a trend toward worse OS (p = 0.059 and p = 0.089, respectively), but without differences in BF or LF. At 10-years DM was higher by 11% (RTOG 9202) and 18% (RTOG 9902) with GP5 compared to GS 4 + 4. On multivariate analysis restricted to long-term androgen deprivation therapy the presence of GP5 substantially increased distant metastasis (HR = 0.43, 95%CI: 0.24-0.76, p = 0.0039) with a trend toward worse OS (HR:0.74, 95% CI:0.54-1.0, p = 0.052) without association with LF (HR:0.55, 95%CI:0.28-1.09, p = 0.085) or BF (HR:1.15, 95%CI:0.84-1.59, p = 0.39). We did not observed substantial differences between Gleason 3 + 5, 5 + 3, or Gleason 9-10. These results validate GP5 as an independent prognostic factor which is strongest for DM. As a result GP5 should be considered when stratifying patients with GS 8 and may be a patient population in which to evaluate newly approved systemic therapies or additional local treatments.

Sections du résumé

BACKGROUND/PURPOSE
Stratification of Gleason score (GS) into three categories (2-6, 7, and 8-10) may not fully utilize its prognostic discrimination, with Gleason pattern 5 (GP5) previously identified as an independent adverse factor.
MATERIALS/METHODS
Patients treated on RTOG 9202 (n = 1292) or RTOG 9902 (n = 378) were pooled and assessed for association of GS and GP5 on biochemical failure (BF), local failure (LF), distant metastasis (DM), and overall survival (OS). Fine and Gray's regression and cumulative incidence methods were used for univariate and multivariate analyses.
RESULTS
With median follow-up of 9.4 years, patients with GS 8-10 with GP5 had worse outcome than GS 4 + 4 for DM on both RTOG9202 (p = 0.038) and RTOG9902 (p < 0.001) with a trend toward worse OS (p = 0.059 and p = 0.089, respectively), but without differences in BF or LF. At 10-years DM was higher by 11% (RTOG 9202) and 18% (RTOG 9902) with GP5 compared to GS 4 + 4. On multivariate analysis restricted to long-term androgen deprivation therapy the presence of GP5 substantially increased distant metastasis (HR = 0.43, 95%CI: 0.24-0.76, p = 0.0039) with a trend toward worse OS (HR:0.74, 95% CI:0.54-1.0, p = 0.052) without association with LF (HR:0.55, 95%CI:0.28-1.09, p = 0.085) or BF (HR:1.15, 95%CI:0.84-1.59, p = 0.39). We did not observed substantial differences between Gleason 3 + 5, 5 + 3, or Gleason 9-10.
CONCLUSIONS
These results validate GP5 as an independent prognostic factor which is strongest for DM. As a result GP5 should be considered when stratifying patients with GS 8 and may be a patient population in which to evaluate newly approved systemic therapies or additional local treatments.

Identifiants

pubmed: 31540746
pii: S0167-8140(19)33066-X
doi: 10.1016/j.radonc.2019.08.020
pmc: PMC6912855
mid: NIHMS1543079
pii:
doi:

Substances chimiques

Androgen Antagonists 0
Prostate-Specific Antigen EC 3.4.21.77

Types de publication

Clinical Trial, Phase III Journal Article Multicenter Study Research Support, N.I.H., Extramural

Langues

eng

Sous-ensembles de citation

IM

Pagination

137-143

Subventions

Organisme : NCI NIH HHS
ID : U10 CA180868
Pays : United States
Organisme : NCI NIH HHS
ID : UG1 CA189867
Pays : United States
Organisme : NCI NIH HHS
ID : UG1 CA233163
Pays : United States
Organisme : NCI NIH HHS
ID : U10 CA180822
Pays : United States
Organisme : NCI NIH HHS
ID : UG1 CA233323
Pays : United States
Organisme : NCI NIH HHS
ID : P30 CA022453
Pays : United States

Informations de copyright

Copyright © 2019 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

Références

Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2017 Jun 1;98(2):275-285
pubmed: 28262473
Urol Oncol. 2015 Feb;33(2):71.e11-9
pubmed: 25151595
Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2006 Jul 15;65(4):965-74
pubmed: 16798415
Cancer. 2013 Feb 1;119(3):681-90
pubmed: 22893254
Cancer Chemother Rep. 1966 Mar;50(3):125-8
pubmed: 5948714
BJU Int. 2016 Jul;118(1):95-101
pubmed: 26207642
Transl Androl Urol. 2018 Jun;7(3):459-471
pubmed: 30050804
J Urol. 2016 Oct;196(4):1076-81
pubmed: 27265220
J Clin Oncol. 2008 May 20;26(15):2497-504
pubmed: 18413638
Brachytherapy. 2015 Nov-Dec;14(6):773-80
pubmed: 26489921
JAMA. 1998 Sep 16;280(11):969-74
pubmed: 9749478
J Clin Oncol. 2005 May 1;23(13):2911-7
pubmed: 15860849
Cancer Chemother Rep. 1966 Mar;50(3):163-70
pubmed: 5910392
JAMA Oncol. 2019 Jan 1;5(1):91-96
pubmed: 30326032
J Urol. 2009 Oct;182(4):1364-70
pubmed: 19683280
Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2015 Oct 1;93(2):294-302
pubmed: 26209502
JAMA. 2018 Mar 6;319(9):896-905
pubmed: 29509865
J Clin Oncol. 2017 Sep 20;35(27):3097-3104
pubmed: 28796587
Am J Surg Pathol. 2016 Feb;40(2):244-52
pubmed: 26492179
Urol Oncol. 2014 Jul;32(5):707-13
pubmed: 24629494
Cancer. 2015 Mar 15;121(6):844-52
pubmed: 25410885
Cancer. 2013 Sep 15;119(18):3287-94
pubmed: 23821578
Int J Urol. 2018 Mar;25(3):220-231
pubmed: 29266472
Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2011 Nov 15;81(4):e351-60
pubmed: 21493015
Urology. 2000 Nov 1;56(5):823-7
pubmed: 11068310
Jpn J Clin Oncol. 2011 Apr;41(4):571-6
pubmed: 21233105

Auteurs

Daniel A Hamstra (DA)

William Beaumont Oakland University Medical School, The Department of Radiation Oncology, Beaumont Health - Dearborn, USA. Electronic address: Daniel.Hamstra@beaumont.org.

Stephanie L Pugh (SL)

NRG Oncology Statistics and Data Management Center, Philadelphia, USA. Electronic address: PughS@NRGOncology.org.

Herbert Lepor (H)

New York University, USA. Electronic address: herbert.lepor@med.nyu.edu.

Seth A Rosenthal (SA)

Sutter General Hospital, Radiation Oncology Center, Roseville, USA; Radiation Oncology Center, Sacramenta, USA. Electronic address: rosents@sutterhealth.org.

Kenneth J Pienta (KJ)

Johns Hopkins University/Sidney Kimmel Cancer Center, Baltimore, USA. Electronic address: kpienta1@jhmi.edu.

Leonard Gomella (L)

Thomas Jefferson University Hospital, Philadelphia, USA. Electronic address: leonard.gomella@jefferson.edu.

Christopher Peters (C)

Northeast Radiation Oncology Center, Dunmore, USA. Electronic address: chris.peters@hmrnet.com.

David Paul D'Souza (DP)

London Regional Cancer Program, London Health Sciences Centre, Canada. Electronic address: david.dsouza@lhsc.on.ca.

Kenneth L Zeitzer (KL)

Albert Einstein Medical Center, Department of Radiation Oncology, Philadelphia, USA. Electronic address: zeitzerk@einstein.edu.

Christopher U Jones (CU)

Sutter General Hospital, Radiation Oncology Center, Roseville, USA; Radiation Oncology Center, Sacramenta, USA.

William A Hall (WA)

Zablocki VA Medical Center-Wood, Milwaukee, USA. Electronic address: whall@mcw.edu.

Eric Horwitz (E)

Fox Chase Cancer Center, Philadelphia, USA. Electronic address: eric.horwitz@fccc.edu.

Thomas M Pisansky (TM)

Mayo Clinic, Rochester, USA. Electronic address: pisansky.thomas@mayo.edu.

Luis Souhami (L)

McGill University, Cedars Cancer Centre Glen Site, Montreal, USA. Electronic address: luis.souhami@mcgill.ca.

Alan C Hartford (AC)

Dartmouth-Hitchcock Medical Center/Norris Cotton Cancer Center, Radiation Oncology, Lebanon, USA. Electronic address: alan.c.hartford@dartmouth.edu.

Michael Dominello (M)

Wayne State University/Karmanos Cancer Institute, Gershenson Radiation Oncology Center, Detroit, USA. Electronic address: mdominel@med.wayne.edu.

Felix Feng (F)

University of California San Francisco, USA. Electronic address: felix.feng@ucsf.edu.

Howard M Sandler (HM)

Cedars-Sinai Medical Center, Department of Radiation Oncology, Los Angeles, USA. Electronic address: howard.sandler@cshs.org.

Articles similaires

[Redispensing of expensive oral anticancer medicines: a practical application].

Lisanne N van Merendonk, Kübra Akgöl, Bastiaan Nuijen
1.00
Humans Antineoplastic Agents Administration, Oral Drug Costs Counterfeit Drugs

Smoking Cessation and Incident Cardiovascular Disease.

Jun Hwan Cho, Seung Yong Shin, Hoseob Kim et al.
1.00
Humans Male Smoking Cessation Cardiovascular Diseases Female
Humans United States Aged Cross-Sectional Studies Medicare Part C
1.00
Humans Yoga Low Back Pain Female Male

Classifications MeSH