A Limited-Versus-Extensive Staging Strategy for Small Cell Prostate Cancer.
Adult
Aged
Aged, 80 and over
Antineoplastic Agents
/ therapeutic use
Carcinoma, Small Cell
/ blood
Humans
Incidence
Lymph Nodes
/ pathology
Male
Middle Aged
Multivariate Analysis
Neoplasm Staging
Prognosis
Proportional Hazards Models
Prostate-Specific Antigen
/ blood
Prostatectomy
Prostatic Neoplasms
/ blood
Radiotherapy
SEER Program
Survival Rate
Transurethral Resection of Prostate
United States
/ epidemiology
Journal
American journal of clinical oncology
ISSN: 1537-453X
Titre abrégé: Am J Clin Oncol
Pays: United States
ID NLM: 8207754
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
02 2020
02 2020
Historique:
pubmed:
26
11
2019
medline:
7
5
2020
entrez:
26
11
2019
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
Small cell prostate cancer (SCPC) is a rare histologic subtype of prostate cancer, for which the optimal staging strategy remains unclear. The Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results database was used to analyze the incidence and outcomes of SCPC between the years 2004 through 2016. Limited-stage SCPC (LS-SCPC) was defined as SCPC without any metastasis regardless of local invasion. Extensive stage SCPC (ES-SCPC) was defined as any metastasis to lymph nodes and/or to distant organs. A total of 403 SCPC patients were included in the study cohort, accounting for 0.056% of all prostate cancer cases (n=719,655). Of the 358 patients with known metastasis status, 275 (76.8%) patients had ES-SCPC, whereas 83 (23.2%) patients had LS-SCPC. LS-SCPC was associated with better overall survival (17 vs. 9 mo, P<0.001) and disease-specific survival (25 vs. 10 mo, P<0.001) compared with ES-SCPC. All LS-SCPC patients had a similar overall survival regardless of T stage. Similarly, all ES-SCPC patients had similar outcomes regardless of metastasis sites. High prostate-specific antigen (PSA) is paradoxically associated with superior outcome in both localized stage patients (PSA≥4 vs. PSA<4, 19 vs. 10 mo, P=0.002) and extensive stage patients (PSA≥20 vs. PSA<20, 13 vs. 9 mo, P=0.02). Multivariate analysis of treatment showed that chemotherapy was associated with improved survival in ES-SCPC with hazard ratio of 0.52. Similar to small cell lung cancer, SCPC can be staged into LS-SCPC or ES-SCPC. The binary staging system correlates well with prognosis.
Identifiants
pubmed: 31764016
doi: 10.1097/COC.0000000000000631
pii: 00000421-202002000-00003
doi:
Substances chimiques
Antineoplastic Agents
0
Prostate-Specific Antigen
EC 3.4.21.77
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
87-93Références
Siegel RL, Miller KD, Jemal A. Cancer statistics, 2019. CA Cancer J Clin. 2019;69:7–34.
Candini D, López-Campos F. Small cell prostate cancer: a potential prophylactic treatment for a rare and aggressive Tumor. J Cancer Prev Curr Res. 2016;6:00205.
Wang W, Epstein JI. Small cell carcinoma of the prostate: a morphologic and immunohistochemical study of 95 cases. Am J Surg Pathol. 2008;32:65–71.
Weprin S, Yonover P. Small cell carcinoma of the prostate: a case report and brief review of the literature. Urol Case Reports. 2017;13:61–62.
Palmgren JS, Karavadia SS, Wakefield MR. Unusual and underappreciated: small cell carcinoma of the prostate. Semin Oncol. 2007;34:22–29.
Beltran H, Tagawa ST, Park K, et al. Challenges in recognizing treatment-related neuroendocrine prostate cancer. J Clin Oncol. 2012;30:e386–e389.
National Cancer Institute. SEER Data & Software. Available at: https://seer.cancer.gov/data-software/. Accessed October 14, 2019.
Alanee S, Moore A, Nutt M, et al. Contemporary incidence and mortality rates of neuroendocrine prostate cancer. Anticancer Res. 2015;35:4145–4150.
Muralidhar V, Nezolosky MD, Chen YW, et al. National trends in androgen deprivation therapy use for prostate cancer after versus before the controversy surrounding cardiovascular toxicity. Int J Radiat Oncol. 2016;96:E241–E242.
Zaffuto E, Pompe R, Zanaty M, et al. Contemporary incidence and cancer control outcomes of primary neuroendocrine prostate cancer: a SEER database analysis. Clin Genitourin Cancer. 2017;15:e793–e800.
Weiner AB, Patel SG, Richards KA, et al. Population-based analysis of treatment modalities and survival for clinically localized small-cell carcinoma of the prostate. Prostate Cancer Prostatic Dis. 2014;17:286–291.
Cohen A, Richards KA, Patel S, et al. Metastatic small cell carcinoma of the prostate: population-based analysis of patient characteristics and treatment paradigms. Urol Oncol. 2015;33:70.e1–70.e7.
Mohanty S, Bilimoria KY. Comparing national cancer registries: The National Cancer Data Base (NCDB) and the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER) program. J Surg Oncol. 2014;109:629–630.
Gkolfinopoulos S, Tsapakidis K, Papadimitriou K, et al. Chromogranin a as a valid marker in oncology: clinical application or false hopes? World J Methodol. 2017;7:9–15.
Shimomura T, Kurauchi T, Sakanaka K, et al. Treatment outcome of everolimus against neuroendocrine prostate cancer (NEPC). J Clin Oncol. 2018;36:365.
National Comprehensive Cancer Network. Prostate Cancer (Version 4). 2019. Available at: www.nccn.org/professionals/physician_gls/pdf/prostate.pdf.
Amato RJ, Logothetis CJ, Hallinan R, et al. Chemotherapy for small cell carcinoma of prostatic origin. J Urol. 1992;147:935–937.
Papandreou CN, Daliani DD, Thall PF, et al. Results of a phase II study with doxorubicin, etoposide, and cisplatin in patients with fully characterized small-cell carcinoma of the prostate. J Clin Oncol. 2002;20:3072–3080.
Beltran H, Oromendia C, Danila DC, et al. A phase II trial of the aurora kinase A inhibitor alisertib for patients with castration-resistant and neuroendocrine prostate cancer: efficacy and biomarkers. Clin Cancer Res. 2019;25:43–51.
Armstrong AJ. PD-L1 Inhibition as ChecKpoint Immunotherapy for NeuroEndocrine Phenotype Prostate Cancer (PICK-NEPC). Available at: https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT03179410. Accessed October 14, 2019.
Yu JB, Gross CP, Wilson LD, et al. NCI SEER public-use data: applications and limitations in oncology research. Oncology (Williston Park). 2009;23:288–295.