Predicting factors for progression to castration resistance prostate cancer after biochemical recurrence in patients with clinically localized prostate cancer who underwent radical prostatectomy

Abstract

Background

To determine prognostic factors associated with progression to castration-resistant prostate cancer following biochemical recurrence which is lethal prostate cancer and establish a risk stratification model of progression to castration-resistant prostate cancer.

Methods

We retrospectively reviewed the data of 550 patients who experienced biochemical recurrence after radical prostatectomy. The endpoint of the present study was progression to castration-resistant prostate cancer. The actuarial probabilities of progression to castration-resistant prostate cancer-free survival were determined using Kaplan–Meier analysis. Univariate and multivariate Cox proportional hazards regression analyses were used to identify independent predictors of biochemical recurrence.

Results

Fifty-two patients experienced progression to castration-resistant prostate cancer during the follow-up period. The progression to castration-resistant prostate cancer-free survival rate after biochemical recurrence at 10 years was 76.8%. In multivariate analysis, pathological Gleason score ≥ 9, lymphovascular invasion, and prostate-specific antigen velocity ≥ 0.4 ng/mL/year were independent predictive factors for progression to castration-resistant prostate cancer. The patients were stratified into three groups using a risk stratification model incorporating these variables. The 10-year progression to castration-resistant prostate cancer-free survival rates were 96.7% in the low-risk group, 84.7% in the intermediate-risk group, and 24.5% in the high-risk group.

Conclusions

The present results suggest that the pathological Gleason score, lymphovascular invasion, and prostate-specific antigen velocity were independent predictive factors for progression to castration-resistant prostate cancer. The risk stratification model established in the present study could be useful for patient counseling and in identifying patients with a poor prognosis.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3

References

  1. 1.

    Dorff TB, Flaig TW et al (2011) Adjuvant androgen deprivation for high-risk prostate cancer after radical prostatectomy: SWOG S9921 study. J Clin Oncol 29:2040–2045

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. 2.

    Freedland SJ, Humphreys EB, Mangold LA et al (2005) Risk of prostate cancer-specific mortality following biochemical recurrence after radical prostatectomy. JAMA 294:433–439

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  3. 3.

    Brockman JA, Alanee S, Vickers AJ et al (2015) Nomogram predicting prostate cancer-specific mortality for men with biochemical recurrence after radical prostatectomy. Eur Urol 67:1160–1167

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. 4.

    Frees S, Akamatsu S, Bidnur S et al (2018) The impact of time to metastasis on overall survival in patients with prostate cancer. World J Urol 36:1039–1046

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. 5.

    Thomsen FB, Brasso K, Berg KD et al (2016) Association between PSA kinetics and cancer-specific mortality in patients with localised prostate cancer: analysis of the placebo arm of the SPCG-6 study. Ann Oncol 27:460–466

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  6. 6.

    Atzpodien J, Royston P, Wandert T et al (2003) Metastatic renal cell carcinoma comprehensive prognostic system. Br J Cancer 88:348–353

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  7. 7.

    Hashimoto T, Yoshioka K, Nagao G et al (2015) Prediction of biochemical recurrence after robot-assisted radical prostatectomy: analysis of 784 Japanese patients. Int J Urol 22:188–193

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. 8.

    Harrell FE, Lee KL, Mark DB (1996) Multivariable prognostic models: issues in developing models, evaluating assumptions and adequacy, and measuring and reducing errors. Stat Med 15:361–387

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. 9.

    Stephenson AJ, Scardino PT, Eastham JA et al (2006) Preoperative nomogrampredicting the 10-year probability of prostate cancer recurrence after radical prostatectomy. J Natl Cancer Inst 98:715–717

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. 10.

    Mima T, Ohori M, Hirasawa Y et al (2019) Salvage radiation therapy for prostate cancer patients after prostatectomy. Jpn J Clin Oncol 49:281–286

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. 11.

    Yang DD, Mahal BA, Muralidhar V et al (2019) Androgen deprivation therapy and overall survival for Gleason 8 versus Gleason 9–10 prostate cancer. Eur Urol 75:35–41

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  12. 12.

    Ørsted DD, Bojesen SE, Kamstrup PR et al (2013) Long-term prostate-specific antigen velocity in improved classification of prostate cancer risk and mortality. Eur Urol 64:384–393

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. 13.

    Halabi S, Vogelzang NJ, Ou SS et al (2009) Small EJ progression-free survival as a predictor of overall survival in men with castrate-resistant prostate cancer. J Clin Oncol 27:2766–2771

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. 14.

    Smith MR, Kabbinavar F, Saad F et al (2005) Natural history of rising serum prostate-specific antigen in men with castrate nonmetastatic prostate cancer. J Clin Oncol 23:2918–2925

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. 15.

    Saeter T, Vlatkovic L, Waaler G et al (2016) Combining lymphovascular invasion with reactive stromal grade predicts prostate cancer mortality. Prostate 76:1088–1094

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. 16.

    Fajkovic H, Mathieu R, Lucca I et al (2016) Validation of lymphovascular invasion is an independent prognostic factor for biochemical recurrence after radical prostatectomy. Urol Oncol 34:233.e1–233.e6

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. 17.

    Shariat SF, Khoddami SM, Saboorian H et al (2004) Lymphovascular invasion is a pathological feature of biologically aggressive disease in patients treated with radical prostatectomy. J Urol 171:1122–1127

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. 18.

    Ito K, Nakashima J, Mukai M et al (2003) Prognostic implication of microvascular invasion in biochemical failure in patients treated with radical prostatectomy. Urol Int 70:297–302

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. 19.

    Kikuchi E, Margulis V, Karakiewicz PI et al (2009) Lymphovascular invasion predicts clinical outcomes in patients with node-negative upper tract urothelial carcinoma. J Clin Oncol 27:612–618

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. 20.

    Bedke J, Heide J, Ribback S et al (2018) Microvascular and lymphovascular tumour invasion are associated with poor prognosis and metastatic spread in renal cell carcinoma: a validation study in clinical practice. BJU Int 121:84–92

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  21. 21.

    Yee DS, Shariat SF, Lowrance WT et al (2011) Prognostic significance of lymphovascular invasion in radical prostatectomy specimens. BJU Int 108:502–507

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Takeshi Hashimoto.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

No author has any conflict of interest.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

About this article

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Hashimoto, T., Nakashima, J., Kashima, T. et al. Predicting factors for progression to castration resistance prostate cancer after biochemical recurrence in patients with clinically localized prostate cancer who underwent radical prostatectomy. Int J Clin Oncol (2020). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10147-020-01716-8

Download citation

Keywords

  • Radical prostatectomy
  • Biochemical recurrence
  • Castration-resistant prostate cancer
  • Risk stratification model