Use of Gleason score, prostate specific antigen, seminal vesicle and margin status to predict biochemical failure after radical prostatectomy.

PURPOSE We determine the importance of clinical and pathological variables for predicting biochemical progression in patients after surgery for specimen confined prostate cancer. We developed a simple scoring algorithm for biochemical progression in node negative cases and tested the algorithm performance on an independent group. MATERIALS AND METHODS Our study included 2,518 patients with pT2N0 or pT3N0 disease treated between 1990 and 1993. Gleason score, preoperative prostate specific antigen (PSA), margin status, extraprostatic extension, seminal vesicle involvement, DNA ploidy and adjuvant treatment were primary variables analyzed univariately. The Cox proportional hazards model was used on 2,000 randomly selected patients to develop a multivariate scoring algorithm for the aforementioned factors to predict biochemical progression-free survival. The final model included Gleason score, preoperative PSA, margin status, seminal vesicle involvement and adjuvant treatment. The prognostic score derived from this model was validated by applying it to the remaining 518 patients. Harrell's measure of concordance (C) was used to compare competing models. RESULTS For patients who did not receive adjuvant therapy the derived score based on the Cox model coefficient was Gleason +1 (PSA 4 to 10), +2 (PSA 10.1 to 20), +3 (PSA greater than 20), +2 (positive seminal vesicle) and +2 (positive margin). The score was reduced by 4 if adjuvant hormonal therapy was given and by 2 for only adjuvant radiotherapy. The 5-year progression-free survival was 94% for scores less than 5, 60% for 10 and 32% for greater than 12 (C = 0. 718). Applying the score to the independent validation data set (518) resulted in 5-year progression-free survival of 96% for scores less than 5, 53% for 10 and 30% for greater than 12 (C = 0.759). CONCLUSIONS Progression-free survival determined by the model score group identified a wide range of risk levels for patients with specimen confined prostate cancer. This simple predictive model allows identification of patients at high risk for cancer progression with specimen confined disease who may be targeted for closer surveillance and adjuvant therapy, while those at lower risk may be simply observed.

[1]  L. Kavoussi,et al.  The role of computerized tomography in the evaluation of complications after laparoscopic urological surgery. , 1997, The Journal of urology.

[2]  J. Moul,et al.  Biostatistical modeling using traditional variables and genetic biomarkers for predicting the risk of prostate carcinoma recurrence after radical prostatectomy , 1997, Cancer.

[3]  F. Marshall,et al.  Selection of men at high risk for disease recurrence for experimental adjuvant therapy following radical prostatectomy. , 1995, Urology.

[4]  D. Bostwick,et al.  Analysis of risk factors for progression in patients with pathologically confined prostate cancers after radical retropubic prostatectomy. , 1996, The Journal of urology.

[5]  J. Cadeddu,et al.  Long-term results of radiation therapy for prostate cancer recurrence following radical prostatectomy. , 1998, The Journal of urology.

[6]  W. Catalona,et al.  Measurement of prostate-specific antigen in serum as a screening test for prostate cancer. , 1991, The New England journal of medicine.

[7]  M. Kattan,et al.  Prognostic significance of positive surgical margins in radical prostatectomy specimens. , 1995, The Journal of urology.

[8]  W. Cooner,et al.  Prostate cancer detection in a clinical urological practice by ultrasonography, digital rectal examination and prostate specific antigen. , 1990, The Journal of urology.

[9]  J. Oesterling,et al.  Long-term (15 years) results after radical prostatectomy for clinically localized (stage T2c or lower) prostate cancer. , 1994, The Journal of urology.

[10]  A. Partin,et al.  Evaluation of serum prostate-specific antigen velocity after radical prostatectomy to distinguish local recurrence from distant metastases. , 1994, Urology.

[11]  A W Partin,et al.  Combination of prostate-specific antigen, clinical stage, and Gleason score to predict pathological stage of localized prostate cancer. A multi-institutional update. , 1997, JAMA.

[12]  A W Partin,et al.  Validation of Partin tables for predicting pathological stage of clinically localized prostate cancer. , 2000, The Journal of urology.

[13]  B. Lowe,et al.  Disease recurrence and progression in untreated pathologic stage T3 prostate cancer: selecting the patient for adjuvant therapy. , 1997, The Journal of urology.

[14]  M. Kattan,et al.  Postoperative nomogram for disease recurrence after radical prostatectomy for prostate cancer. , 1999, Journal of clinical oncology : official journal of the American Society of Clinical Oncology.

[15]  Stage D1 prostatic adenocarcinoma: significance of nuclear DNA ploidy patterns studied by flow cytometry. , 1988 .

[16]  A W Partin,et al.  Disease progression following radical prostatectomy in men with Gleason score 7 tumor. , 1998, The Journal of urology.

[17]  D. Bostwick,et al.  Anatomic site-specific positive margins in organ-confined prostate cancer and its impact on outcome after radical prostatectomy. , 1997, Urology.

[18]  A W Partin,et al.  Natural history of progression after PSA elevation following radical prostatectomy. , 1999, JAMA.

[19]  M. Banerjee,et al.  Prognostic implications of a positive apical margin in radical prostatectomy specimens. , 1998, The Journal of urology.

[20]  Thomas M. Wheeler,et al.  A Preoperative Nomogram for Disease Recurrence Following Radical Prostatectomy for Prostate Cancer , 1998 .

[21]  M. Kattan,et al.  Hazard rates for progression after radical prostatectomy for clinically localized prostate cancer. , 1997, Urology.

[22]  A. D'Amico,et al.  Outcome based staging for clinically localized adenocarcinoma of the prostate. , 1997, The Journal of urology.