Search

Importance: Stratifying patients with biochemical recurrence (BCR) after primary treatment for prostate cancer based on the risk of prostate cancer-specific mortality (PCSM) is essential for determining the need for further testing and treatments. Objective: To evaluate the association of BCR after radical prostatectomy or radiotherapy and its current risk stratification with PCSM. Design, Setting, and Participants: This population-based cohort study included a total of 16 311 male patients with 10 364 (64%) undergoing radical prostatectomy and 5947 (36%) undergoing radiotherapy with curative intent (cT1-3, cM0) and PSA follow-up in Stockholm, Sweden, between 2003 and 2019. Follow-up for all patients was until death, emigration, or end of the study (ie, December 31, 2018). Data were analyzed between September 2022 and March 2023. Main Outcomes and Measures: Primary outcomes of the study were the cumulative incidence of BCR and PCSM. Patients with BCR were stratified in low- and high-risk according to European Association of Urology (EAU) criteria. Exposures: Radical prostatectomy or radiotherapy. Results: A total of 16 311 patients were included. Median (IQR) age was 64 (59-68) years in the radical prostatectomy cohort (10 364 patients) and 69 (64-73) years in the radiotherapy cohort (5947 patients). Median (IQR) follow-up for survivors was 88 (55-138) months and 89 (53-134) months, respectively. Following radical prostatectomy, the 15-year cumulative incidences of BCR were 16% (95% CI, 15%-18%) for the 4024 patients in the low D'Amico risk group, 30% (95% CI, 27%-32%) for the 5239 patients in the intermediate D'Amico risk group, and 46% (95% CI, 42%-51%) for 1101 patients in the high D'Amico risk group. Following radiotherapy, the 15-year cumulative incidences of BCR were 18% (95% CI, 15%-21%) for the 1230 patients in the low-risk group, 24% (95% CI, 21%-26%) for the 2355 patients in the intermediate-risk group, and 36% (95% CI, 33%-39%) for the 2362 patients in

Objectives The objective of this study is to find clinical variables that predict the prognosis for men with castration-resistant prostate cancer (CRPC) in a Swedish real-life CRPC cohort, including a risk group classification to clarify the risk of succumbing to prostate cancer. This is a natural history cohort representing the premodern drug era before the introduction of novel hormonal drug therapies. Methods PSA tests from the clinical chemistry laboratories serving health care in six regions of Sweden were retrieved and cross-linked to the National Prostate Cancer Registry (NPCR) to identify men with a prostate cancer diagnosis. Through further cross-linking with data sources at the Swedish Board of Health and Welfare, we retrieved other relevant information such as prescribed drugs, hospitalizations, and cause of death. Men entered the CRPC cohort at the first date of doubling of their PSA nadir value with the last value being >2 ng/ml, or an absolute increase of >5 ng/ml or more, whilst on 3 months of medical castration or if they had been surgically castrated (n = 4098). By combining the two variables with the largest C-statistics, “PSA at time of CRPC” and “PSA doubling time,” a risk group classification was created. Rsults PSA-DT and PSA at date of CRPC are the strongest variables associated with PC specific survival. At the end of follow-up, the proportion of men who died due to PC was 57%, 71%, 81%, 86%, and 89% for risk categories one through five, respectively. The median overall survival in our cohort of men with CRPC was 1.86 years (95% CI: 1.79–1.97). Conclusion For a man with castration-resistant prostate cancer, there is a high probability that this will be the main cause contributing to his death. However, there is a significant difference in mortality that varies in relation to tumor burden assessed as PSA doubling time and PSA at time of CRCP. This information could be used in a clinical setting when deciding when to treat more or less ag

OBJECTIVE: To investigate the cause-specific mortality in the postoperative period after radical prostatectomy (RP) for prostate cancer (PCa). METHODS: In the National Prostate Cancer Register of Sweden (NPCR), we identified all men who died within 90 days after RP performed 1998-2018 and we assessed cause of death in a chart review. We compared the adjudications of death from our medical record review with those in in the Swedish Cause of Death Registry (CDR). RESULTS: Out of 44 635, 58 (0.13%) men who had undergone RP from 1998 through 2018 died within 90 days after RP. Per medical record review the most common causes of death were cardiac disease (30%) and venous thromboembolic events (VTE; 21%). No men died of metastatic PCa as was first indicated in the CDR. After robot-assisted RP (RARP) or open retropubic RP (RRP), the postoperative mortality was 0.09% (19/21 520) and 0.19% (37/19 635), respectively. The effect off modality was confounded mainly by year of surgery, age at surgery, Charlson Comorbidity Index score and the concomitant pelvic lymph node dissection. CONCLUSION: The validated absolute 90-day mortality after RP was 1.3/1000 during the 21-year study period. Cardiovascular diseases were the most common causes of death after RP. Our validation of the CDR refuted the occurrence of postoperative deaths from metastatic PCa. There were differences in rates and type of mortality between RRP and RARP, but the RARP cohort was more recent than the RRP cohort, which likely explain the differences.

Renata Zelic,1 Francesca Giunchi,2 Jonna Fridfeldt,3 Jessica Carlsson,3 Sabina Davidsson,3 Luca Lianas,4 Cecilia Mascia,4 Daniela Zugna,5 Luca Molinaro,6 Per Henrik Vincent,7,8 Gianluigi Zanetti4 ,† Ove Andrén,3 Lorenzo Richiardi,5 Olof Akre,7,8 Michelangelo Fiorentino,9 Andreas Pettersson1 1Clinical Epidemiology Division, Department of Medicine Solna, Karolinska Institutet, Stockholm, Sweden; 2Pathology Department, IRCCS Azienda Ospedaliero-Universitaria di Bologna, Bologna, Italy; 3Department of Urology, Faculty of Medicine and Health, Örebro University, Örebro, Sweden; 4Data-Intensive Computing Division, Center for Advanced Studies, Research and Development in Sardinia (CRS4), Pula, Italy; 5Cancer Epidemiology Unit, Department of Medical Sciences, University of Turin, and CPO-Piemonte, Turin, Italy; 6Division of Pathology, A.O. Città della Salute e della Scienza Hospital, Turin, Italy; 7Department of Molecular Medicine and Surgery, Karolinska Institutet, Stockholm, Sweden; 8Department of Urology, Karolinska University Hospital, Stockholm, Sweden; 9Pathology Service, Maggiore Hospital, University of Bologna, Bologna, Italy†Dr Gianluigi Zanetti passed away on September 7, 2019Correspondence: Renata ZelicClinical Epidemiology Division, Department of Medicine Solna, Karolinska Institutet, K2 Medicin, Solna, K2 Klinisk epidemiologi K Ekström Smedby, Stockholm, 171 77, SwedenTel +46703136037Fax +46851779304Email renata.zelic@ki.seBackground: The International Society of Urological Pathology (ISUP) revised the Gleason system in 2005 and 2014. The impact of these changes on prostate cancer (PCa) prognostication remains unclear.Objective: To evaluate if the ISUP 2014 Gleason score (GS) predicts PCa death better than the pre-2005 GS, and if additional histopathological information can further improve PCa death prediction.Patients and Methods: We conducted a case–control study nested among men

Background: The International Society of Urological Pathology (ISUP) revised the Gleason system in 2005 and 2014. The impact of these changes on prostate cancer (PCa) prognostication remains unclear. Objective: To evaluate if the ISUP 2014 Gleason score (GS) predicts PCa death better than the pre-2005 GS, and if additional histopathological information can further improve PCa death prediction. Patients and Methods: We conducted a case-control study nested among men in the National Prostate Cancer Register of Sweden diagnosed with non-metastatic PCa 1998-2015. We included 369 men who died from PCa (cases) and 369 men who did not (controls). Two uro-pathologists centrally re-reviewed biopsy ISUP 2014 Gleason grading, poorly formed glands, cribriform pattern, comedonecrosis, perineural invasion, intraductal, ductal and mucinous carcinoma, percentage Gleason 4, inflammation, high-grade prostatic intraepithelial neoplasia (HGPIN) and post-atrophic hyperplasia. Pre-2005 GS was back-transformed using i) information on cribriform pattern and/or poorly formed glands and ii) the diagnostic GS from the registry. Models were developed using Firth logistic regression and compared in terms of discrimination (AUC). Results: The ISUP 2014 GS (AUC = 0.808) performed better than the pre-2005 GS when back-transformed using only cribriform pattern (AUC = 0.785) or both cribriform and poorly formed glands (AUC = 0.792), but not when back-transformed using only poorly formed glands (AUC = 0.800). Similarly, the ISUP 2014 GS performed better than the diagnostic GS (AUC = 0.808 vs 0.781). Comedonecrosis (AUC = 0.811), HGPIN (AUC = 0.810) and number of cores with ≥50% cancer (AUC = 0.810) predicted PCa death independently of the ISUP 2014 GS. Conclusion: The Gleason Grading revisions have improved PCa death prediction, likely due to classifying cribriform patterns, rather than poorly formed glands, as Gleason 4. Comedonecrosis, HGPIN and number of cores with ≥50% cancer further improve PCa, Funding agencies:Strategic Research Programme in Epidemiology at Karolinska InstitutetStrategic Research Programme in Cancer at Karolinska InstitutetSardinian Regional Authority (the DIFRA Project)

Purpose To evaluate urinary continence (UC) recovery and oncological outcomes in different risk-groups after robot-assisted radical prostatectomy (RALP) and open retropubic radical prostatectomy (RRP). Patients and methods We analysed 2650 men with prostate cancer from seven open (n = 805) and seven robotic (n = 1845) Swedish centres between 2008 and 2011 in a prospective non-randomised trial, LAPPRO. UC recovery was defined as change of pads less than once in 24 h. Information was collected through validated questionnaires. Rate of positive surgical margins (PSM) and biochemical recurrence (BCR), defined as prostate-specific antigen (PSA) > 0.25 mg/ml, were recorded. We stratified patients into two risk groups (low-intermediate and high risk) based on the D'Amico risk classification system. Result Among men with high-risk prostate cancer, we found significantly higher rates of UC recovery up to 24 months after RRP compared to RALP (66.1% vs 60.5%) RR 0.85 (CI 95% 0.73-0.99) while PSM was more frequent after RRP compared to RALP (46.8% vs 23.5%) RR 1.56 (CI 95% 1.10-2.21). In the same group no significant difference was seen in BCR. Overall, however, BCR was significantly more common after RRP compared to RALP at 24 months (9.8% vs 6.6%) RR 1.43 (Cl 95% 1.08-1.89). The limitations of this study are its non-randomized design and the relatively short time of follow-up. Conclusions Our study indicates that men with high-risk tumour operated with open surgery had better urinary continence recovery but with a higher risk of PSM than after robotic-assisted laparoscopic surgery. No significant difference was seen in biochemical recurrence.

Purpose: We investigated whether men with biopsy verified, low grade cancer and a family history of lethal or advanced prostate cancer are at particularly high risk for harboring undetected high grade disease. Materials and Methods: Upgrading and up staging of prostate cancer are common after prostatectomy. In a nationwide population based cohort we identified 6,854 men with low risk prostate cancer who underwent radical prostatectomy. Among these men 1,739 (25%) had a history of prostate cancer in a first-degree relative and 289 (4%) had a first-degree relative with lethal or advanced prostate cancer. Results: Compared to men with no familial occurrence of prostate cancer, the odds ratio for the risk of up staging among men with a familial occurrence of high risk or lethal prostate cancer was 1.06 (95% CI 0.76-1.47). The corresponding odds ratio for upgrading was 1.17 (0.91-1.50). Conclusions: We found no association between family history of prostate cancer and up staging or upgrading after radical prostatectomy.

Background: Numerous pretreatment risk classification tools are available for prostate cancer. Which tool is best in predicting prostate cancer death is unclear. Objective: To systematically compare the prognostic performance of the most commonly used pretreatment risk stratification tools for prostate cancer. Design, setting, and participants: A nationwide cohort study was conducted, including 154 811 men in Prostate Cancer data Base Sweden (PCBaSe) 4.0 diagnosed with nonmetastatic prostate cancer during 1998-2016 and followed through 2016. Outcome measurements and statistical analysis: We compared the D'Amico, National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE), European Association of Urology (EAU), Genito-Urinary Radiation Oncologists of Canada (GUROC), American Urological Association (AUA), National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN), and Cambridge Prognostic Groups (CPG) risk group systems; the Cancer of the Prostate Risk Assessment (CAPRA) score; and the Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center (MSKCC) nomogram in predicting prostate cancer death by estimating the concordance index (C-index) and the observed versus predicted cumulative incidences at different follow-up times. Results and limitations: A total of 139 515 men were included in the main analysis, of whom 15 961 died from prostate cancer during follow-up. The C-index at 10 yr of follow-up ranged from 0.73 (95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.72-0.73) to 0.81 (95% CI: 0.80-0.81) across the compared tools. The MSKCC nomogram (C-index: 0.81, 95% CI: 0.80-0.81), CAPRA score (C-index: 0.80, 95% CI: 0.79-0.81), and CPG system (C-index: 0.78, 95% CI: 0.78-0.79) performed the best. The order of performance between the tools remained in analyses stratified by primary treatment and year of diagnosis. The predicted cumulative incidences were close to the observed ones, with some underestimation at 5 yr. It is a limitation that the study was conducted solely in a Swedish setting (ie, case mix). Conclusions: Th, Correction in: EUROPEAN UROLOGY, Volume: 78, Issue: 1, Pages: E45-E47, DOI: 10.1016/j.eururo.2020.03.016

It is well known that women with urinary bladder cancer have poorer prognosis than men. We had complete clinical and sociodemographic data on close to 40,000 bladder cancer patients. The female survival disadvantage was limited to locally advanced tumors and was not explained by tumor nor patient characteristics. This indicates different management of locally advanced bladder cancer in men and women. Background: While urinary bladder cancer is consistently more common in men worldwide, women have poorer prognosis. The aim of this study was to outline sex differences in prognostic factors and clinical management and to explore whether these can explain the poorer urinary bladder cancer outcome in women. Patients and Methods: We performed a population-based cohort study including all patients diagnosed with urothelial bladder cancer between 1997 and 2014 at age 18 to 89 who had data recorded in the Swedish Urinary Bladder Cancer Register (n = 36,344). Female-to-male odds ratios for clinical management parameters were estimated by logistic regression. To quantify sex differences in bladder cancer-specific survival, we estimated empirical survival proportions and mortality rates as well as applied flexible parametric models to estimate female-to-male hazard ratios and survival proportions over follow-up. Adjusted models included age, year, World Health Organization grade, stage, marital status, education, health care region, birth country, and comorbidity. Results: Except for an adverse stage distribution in women, we found no evidence of unequal clinical management. Among those diagnosed with bladder cancer, women had a higher bladder cancer mortality (adjusted hazard ratio, 1.15; 95% confidence interval, 1.08-1.23) driven by muscle-invasive tumors (adjusted hazard ratio, 1.24; 95% confidence interval, 1.14-1.34). The female survival disadvantage was confined to the first 2 years after diagnosis. Conclusion: The excess bladder cancer mortality in women is limited to th

In this paper, we describe the Prognostic Factors for Mortality in Prostate Cancer (ProMort) study and use it to demonstrate how the weighted likelihood method can be used in nested case-control studies to estimate both relative and absolute risks in the competing-risks setting. ProMort is a case-control study nested within the National Prostate Cancer Register (NPCR) of Sweden, comprising 1,710 men diagnosed with low- or intermediate-risk prostate cancer between 1998 and 2011 who died from prostate cancer (cases) and 1,710 matched controls. Cause-specific hazard ratios and cumulative incidence functions (CIFs) for prostate cancer death were estimated in ProMort using weighted flexible parametric models and compared with the corresponding estimates from the NPCR cohort. We further drew 1,500 random nested case-control subsamples of the NPCR cohort and quantified the bias in the hazard ratio and CIF estimates. Finally, we compared the ProMort estimates with those obtained by augmenting competing-risks cases and by augmenting both competing-risks cases and controls. The hazard ratios for prostate cancer death estimated in ProMort were comparable to those in the NPCR. The hazard ratios for dying from other causes were biased, which introduced bias in the CIFs estimated in the competing-risks setting. When augmenting both competing-risks cases and controls, the bias was reduced.