Observation With or Without Subsequent Salvage Therapy for Pathologically Node-positive Prostate Cancer With Negative Conventional Imaging: Results From a Large Multicenter Cohort.

Negative conventional imaging Observation Positive lymph nodes Prostate cancer Salvage therapies

Journal

European urology open science
ISSN: 2666-1683
Titre abrégé: Eur Urol Open Sci
Pays: Netherlands
ID NLM: 101771568

Informations de publication

Date de publication:
Oct 2024
Historique:
accepted: 24 06 2024
medline: 12 9 2024
pubmed: 12 9 2024
entrez: 12 9 2024
Statut: epublish

Résumé

More than 10% of patients with negative clinical metastatic status (cN0M0) on conventional imaging for prostate cancer (PCa) harbor lymph node involvement (pN+) at final pathology following radical prostatectomy (RP) and lymphadenectomy. Our aim was to assess outcomes of initial observation for cN0M0 pN+ PCa and identify prognostic factors that may help in clinical decision-making. We performed a retrospective multicenter study of patients with cN0M0 PCa on conventional imaging (computed tomography and/or magnetic resonance imaging, and a bone scan) who were found to have pN+ disease at RP between 2000 and 2021. Biochemical recurrence (BCR) and systemic progression/recurrence were the primary outcomes. Kaplan-Meier curves and Cox proportional hazards model were used for survival and multivariate analysis. A total of 469 men were included in this retrospective multicenter trial. Median prostate-specific antigen (PSA) was 10.1 ng/ml (interquartile range [IQR] 6.6-18.0). Among these patients, 56% had grade group ≥4, 53.7% had stage ≥pT3b, 42.6% had positive margins, and 19.6% had PSA persistence. The median number of positive nodes and of nodes removed were 1 (IQR 1-3) and 20 (14-28), respectively. At median follow-up of 41 mo, 48.5% experienced BCR. The 5-yr BCR-free survival rate was 31.7% (95% confidence interval [CI] 26.33-37.1%). Salvage treatments were needed in 211 patients and included radiotherapy (RT; Initial observation in the management of pN+ cN0M0 PCa is feasible and has excellent survival rates in the intermediate term. Patients with worse disease features, especially PSA persistence, have a higher likelihood of recurrence and progression and may be candidates for more aggressive upfront management. We investigated the value of initial observation for men with prostate cancer with negative scan findings for metastasis who were then found to have positive lymph nodes after surgery to remove the prostate. Our results show that initial observation is a good option for patients with less aggressive prostate cancer features.

Sections du résumé

Background and objective UNASSIGNED
More than 10% of patients with negative clinical metastatic status (cN0M0) on conventional imaging for prostate cancer (PCa) harbor lymph node involvement (pN+) at final pathology following radical prostatectomy (RP) and lymphadenectomy. Our aim was to assess outcomes of initial observation for cN0M0 pN+ PCa and identify prognostic factors that may help in clinical decision-making.
Methods UNASSIGNED
We performed a retrospective multicenter study of patients with cN0M0 PCa on conventional imaging (computed tomography and/or magnetic resonance imaging, and a bone scan) who were found to have pN+ disease at RP between 2000 and 2021. Biochemical recurrence (BCR) and systemic progression/recurrence were the primary outcomes. Kaplan-Meier curves and Cox proportional hazards model were used for survival and multivariate analysis.
Key findings and limitations UNASSIGNED
A total of 469 men were included in this retrospective multicenter trial. Median prostate-specific antigen (PSA) was 10.1 ng/ml (interquartile range [IQR] 6.6-18.0). Among these patients, 56% had grade group ≥4, 53.7% had stage ≥pT3b, 42.6% had positive margins, and 19.6% had PSA persistence. The median number of positive nodes and of nodes removed were 1 (IQR 1-3) and 20 (14-28), respectively. At median follow-up of 41 mo, 48.5% experienced BCR. The 5-yr BCR-free survival rate was 31.7% (95% confidence interval [CI] 26.33-37.1%). Salvage treatments were needed in 211 patients and included radiotherapy (RT;
Conclusions UNASSIGNED
Initial observation in the management of pN+ cN0M0 PCa is feasible and has excellent survival rates in the intermediate term. Patients with worse disease features, especially PSA persistence, have a higher likelihood of recurrence and progression and may be candidates for more aggressive upfront management.
Patient summary UNASSIGNED
We investigated the value of initial observation for men with prostate cancer with negative scan findings for metastasis who were then found to have positive lymph nodes after surgery to remove the prostate. Our results show that initial observation is a good option for patients with less aggressive prostate cancer features.

Identifiants

pubmed: 39263349
doi: 10.1016/j.euros.2024.06.016
pii: S2666-1683(24)00493-2
pmc: PMC11387258
doi:

Types de publication

Journal Article

Langues

eng

Pagination

32-39

Investigateurs

William Berchiche (W)
Guillaume Ploussard (G)
Peter Chiu (P)
Charles Dariane (C)
Ignacio Puche-Sanz (I)
Kamil Kowalczyk (K)
Alberto Bianchi (A)
Alessandro Magli (A)
Fabrizio Tonetto (F)
Matteo Facco (M)

Informations de copyright

© 2024 Published by Elsevier B.V. on behalf of European Association of Urology.

Auteurs

Giancarlo Marra (G)

Division of Urology, Department of Surgical Sciences, University of Turin and Città della Salute e della Scienza, Turin, Italy.

Federico Lesma (F)

Division of Urology, Department of Surgical Sciences, University of Turin and Città della Salute e della Scienza, Turin, Italy.

Gabriele Montefusco (G)

Division of Urology, Department of Surgical Sciences, University of Turin and Città della Salute e della Scienza, Turin, Italy.

Claudia Filippini (C)

Division of Urology, Department of Surgical Sciences, University of Turin and Città della Salute e della Scienza, Turin, Italy.

Jonathan Olivier (J)

Department of Urology, Lille University Hospital, Lille, France.

Andres Affentranger (A)

Department of Urology, University Hospital Zürich, Zurich, Switzerland.

Josias Bastian Grogg (JB)

Department of Urology, University Hospital Zürich, Zurich, Switzerland.

Thomas Hermanns (T)

Department of Urology, University Hospital Zürich, Zurich, Switzerland.

Luca Afferi (L)

Department of Urology, Luzerner Kantonsspital, Lucerne, Switzerland.

Christian D Fankhauser (CD)

Department of Urology, Luzerner Kantonsspital, Lucerne, Switzerland.

Agostino Mattei (A)

Department of Urology, Luzerner Kantonsspital, Lucerne, Switzerland.

Bartosz Malkiewicz (B)

University Center of Excellence in Urology, Department of Minimally Invasive and Robotic Urology, Wroclaw Medical University, Wroclaw, Poland.

Simone Scuderi (S)

Unit of Urology/Division of Oncology, IRCCS Ospedale San Raffaele, Milan, Italy.
Vita-Salute San Raffaele University, Milan, Italy.

Francesco Barletta (F)

Unit of Urology/Division of Oncology, IRCCS Ospedale San Raffaele, Milan, Italy.
Vita-Salute San Raffaele University, Milan, Italy.

Sebastian Gallina (S)

Department of Urology, University of Verona, Azienda Ospedaliera Universitaria Integrata, Verona, Italy.

Alessandro Antonelli (A)

Department of Urology, University of Verona, Azienda Ospedaliera Universitaria Integrata, Verona, Italy.

Fabio Zattoni (F)

Department of Surgery, Oncology and Gastroenterology, University of Padua, Padua, Italy.

Fabrizio Dal Moro (F)

Department of Surgery, Oncology and Gastroenterology, University of Padua, Padua, Italy.

Wever Lieke (W)

Department of Urology, St. Antonius Hospital, Utrecht, The Netherland.

Timo Soeterik (T)

Department of Urology, St. Antonius Hospital, Utrecht, The Netherland.

Roderick C N van den Bergh (RCN)

Department of Urology, St. Antonius Hospital, Utrecht, The Netherland.

Pawel Rajwa (P)

Department of Urology, Comprehensive Cancer Center, Vienna, Austria.

Shahrokh F Shariat (SF)

Department of Urology, Comprehensive Cancer Center, Vienna, Austria.

Lara Rodriguez-Sanchez (L)

Department of Urology, Institut Mutualiste Montsouris, Paris, France.

Rossella Nicoletti (R)

Unit of Urological Robotic Surgery and Renal Transplantation, Careggi Hospital, University of Florence, Florence, Italy.
Department of Experimental and Clinical Medicine, University of Florence, Florence, Italy.

Riccardo Campi (R)

Unit of Urological Robotic Surgery and Renal Transplantation, Careggi Hospital, University of Florence, Florence, Italy.
Department of Experimental and Clinical Medicine, University of Florence, Florence, Italy.

Mohamed Ahmed (M)

Department of Urology, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN, USA.

R Jeffrey Karnes (R)

Department of Urology, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN, USA.

Michael Ladurner (M)

Department of Urology, Medical University Innsbruck, Innsbruck, Austria.

Isabel Heidegger (I)

Department of Urology, Medical University Innsbruck, Innsbruck, Austria.

Alberto Briganti (A)

Unit of Urology/Division of Oncology, IRCCS Ospedale San Raffaele, Milan, Italy.
Vita-Salute San Raffaele University, Milan, Italy.

Paolo Gontero (P)

Division of Urology, Department of Surgical Sciences, University of Turin and Città della Salute e della Scienza, Turin, Italy.

Giorgio Gandaglia (G)

Unit of Urology/Division of Oncology, IRCCS Ospedale San Raffaele, Milan, Italy.
Vita-Salute San Raffaele University, Milan, Italy.

Classifications MeSH