Improving Clinical Risk Stratification at Diagnosis in Primary Prostate Cancer: A Prognostic Modelling Study

Abstract

IntroductionOver 80% of the nearly 1 million men diagnosed with prostate cancer annually worldwide present with localised or locally advanced non-metastatic disease. Risk stratification is the cornerstone for clinical decision making and treatment selection for these men. The most widely applied stratification systems use presenting prostate-specific antigen (PSA) concentration, biopsy Gleason grade, and clinical stage to classify patients as low, intermediate, or high risk. There is, however, significant heterogeneity in outcomes within these standard groupings. The International Society of Urological Pathology (ISUP) has recently adopted a prognosis-based pathological classification that has yet to be included within a risk stratification system. Here we developed and tested a new stratification system based on the number of individual risk factors and incorporating the new ISUP prognostic score.Methods and FindingsDiagnostic clinicopathological data from 10,139 men with non-metastatic prostate cancer were available for this study from the Public Health England National Cancer Registration Service Eastern Office. This cohort was divided into a training set (n = 6,026; 1,557 total deaths, with 462 from prostate cancer) and a testing set (n = 4,113; 1,053 total deaths, with 327 from prostate cancer). The median follow-up was 6.9 y, and the primary outcome measure was prostate-cancer-specific mortality (PCSM). An external validation cohort (n = 1,706) was also used. Patients were first categorised as low, intermediate, or high risk using the current three-stratum stratification system endorsed by the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) guidelines. The variables used to define the groups (PSA concentration, Gleason grading, and clinical stage) were then used to sub-stratify within each risk category by testing the individual and then combined number of risk factors. In addition, we incorporated the new ISUP prognostic score as a discriminator. Using this approach, a new five-stratum risk stratification system was produced, and its prognostic power was compared against the current system, with PCSM as the outcome. The results were analysed using a Cox hazards model, the log-rank test, Kaplan-Meier curves, competing-risks regression, and concordance indices. In the training set, the new risk stratification system identified distinct subgroups with different risks of PCSM in pair-wise comparison (p < 0.0001). Specifically, the new classification identified a very low-risk group (Group 1), a subgroup of intermediate-risk cancers with a low PCSM risk (Group 2, hazard ratio [HR] 1.62 [95% CI 0.96–2.75]), and a subgroup of intermediate-risk cancers with an increased PCSM risk (Group 3, HR 3.35 [95% CI 2.04–5.49]) (p < 0.0001). High-risk cancers were also sub-classified by the new system into subgroups with lower and higher PCSM risk: Group 4 (HR 5.03 [95% CI 3.25–7.80]) and Group 5 (HR 17.28 [95% CI 11.2–26.67]) (p < 0.0001), respectively. These results were recapitulated in the testing set and remain...

Using prognosis to guide inclusion criteria, define standardised endpoints and stratify follow‐up in active surveillance for prostate cancer

“…Our recent work has explored the innate heterogeneity within the traditional intermediate‐risk classification and shown two distinct sub‐groups with very different mortality and metastatic risks . In the present study, we put this sub‐classification to the test by comparing PCM in men managed by either immediate radical therapy or conservative means.…”

Incorporating multiparametric MRI staging and the new histological Grade Group system improves risk-stratified detection of bone metastasis in prostate cancer

“…This model defines five prognostic risk strata for prostate cancer (Table 1; Gnanapragasam et al , 2016). Within this model, no men in Risk Groups 1 or 2 had bone metastasis.…”

“…Patients were subsequently re-categorised according to the new Grade Group system (Epstein et al , 2016) and a novel five stratum Prognostic Risk Grouping system developed in our centre integrating PSA, Grade Group and mpMRI staging (Gnanapragasam et al , 2016; Table 1). …”

An analysis of a multiple biomarker panel to better predict prostate cancer metastasis after radical prostatectomy

“…AZGP1 had improved discriminatory value for metastatic relapse compared to existing prognostic risk models, such as the stratification system devised by Gnanapragasam et al . (AUC 0.788 GSS alone vs 0.814 GSS + AZGP1) and the CAPRA‐S score (AUC 0.819 CAPRA‐S alone vs 0.833 CAPRA‐S + AZGP1)…”