Abstract
Background: Intraductal carcinoma and cribriform (IDC/C) tumor features are well-established
prognosticators of biochemical recurrence (BCR), metastasis, and prostate cancer (PCa)-specific
mortality. However, approximately 70% of PCa patients undergoing a radical prostatectomy
are IDC/C negative, yet up-to 20% of these patients progress and experience BCR. Thus,
tumor histopathologic characteristics such as IDC/C alone are limited in their ability
to predict disease progression. Conversely, several nomograms such as Cancer of the
Prostate Risk Assessment-Surgery (CAPRA-S) have been developed to aid in the prognostication
of BCR, but not yet widely applied in clinical settings. Materials and methods: In this study, we assessed the combined prognostic utility of IDC/C, and CAPRA-S
for BCR in 3 PCa patient cohorts. Results: CAPRA-S+IDC/C improved the predictive accuracy of BCR in all 3 cohorts (P < .001). Specifically, among IDC/C negative cases, CAPRA-S improved the prognostication
of BCR in low-risk (Cohort 1; P < .001, Cohort 2; P < .001, Cohort 3; P = .003), intermediate (Cohort 1; P < .001, Cohort 2; P = .006, Cohort 3; P = .03) and high-risk (Cohort 1-3; P < .001) patients. Conversely, IDC/C improved the prognostication of BCR among CAPRA-S
low-risk (Cohorts 1; P < .001 and Cohort 3; P = .003) patients. Conclusion: Our results suggest the investigation of histopathological IDC/C features in CAPRA-S
low-risk patients and conversely, nomogram CAPRA-S among IDC/C negative patients improves
the identification of patients likely to experience BCR, which would otherwise be
missed through current assessment regimens. These patients can be offered more intensive
monitoring and adjuvant therapies upfront to circumvent the development of recurrent
cancer or overtreatment at the time of surgery.
Keywords
Abbreviations:
IDC/C (PCa), CAPRA-S (BCR), GS (GP), GG (PSA)To read this article in full you will need to make a payment
Purchase one-time access:
Academic & Personal: 24 hour online accessCorporate R&D Professionals: 24 hour online accessOne-time access price info
- For academic or personal research use, select 'Academic and Personal'
- For corporate R&D use, select 'Corporate R&D Professionals'
Subscribe:
Subscribe to Clinical Genitourinary CancerAlready a print subscriber? Claim online access
Already an online subscriber? Sign in
Register: Create an account
Institutional Access: Sign in to ScienceDirect
References
- Clinical variability and molecular heterogeneity in prostate cancer.Asian J Androl. 2016; 18: 543-548
- The diagnosis and treatment of prostate cancer: a review.JAMA. 2017; 317: 2532-2542
- Spatial genomic heterogeneity within localized, multifocal prostate cancer.Nat Genet. 2015; 47: 736-745
- The 2014 international society of urological pathology (ISUP) consensus conference on gleason grading of prostatic carcinoma: definition of grading patterns and proposal for a new grading system.Am J Surg Pathol. 2016; 40: 244-252
- A prostate cancer "nimbosus": genomic instability and SChLAP1 dysregulation underpin aggression of intraductal and cribriform subpathologies.Eur Urol. 2017; 72: 665-674
- Cribriform and intraductal prostate cancer are associated with increased genomic instability and distinct genomic alterations.BMC Cancer. 2018; 18: 3976
- Prognostic impact of intraductal carcinoma and large cribriform carcinoma architecture after prostatectomy in a contemporary cohort.Eur J Cancer. 2014; 50: 1610-1616
- Disease-specific survival of patients with invasive cribriform and intraductal prostate cancer at diagnostic biopsy.Mod Pathol. 2016; 29: 630-636
- Intraductal carcinoma of prostate (IDC-P): From obscure to significant.Chin J Cancer Res. 2016; 28: 99-106
- Cancer incidence and mortality worldwide: sources, methods and major patterns in GLOBOCAN 2012.International Journal of Cancer. 2015; 136: E359-E386
- A contemporary prostate cancer grading system: a validated alternative to the gleason score.Eur Urol. 2016; 69: 428-435
- An updated catalog of prostate cancer predictive tools.Cancer. 2008; 113: 3075-3099
- The CAPRA-S score: A straightforward tool for improved prediction of outcomes after radical prostatectomy.Cancer. 2011; 117: 5039-5046
- Combined value of validated clinical and genomic risk stratification tools for predicting prostate cancer mortality in a high-risk prostatectomy cohort.Eur Urol. 2015; 67: 326-333
- miRBase: integrating microRNA annotation and deep-sequencing data.Nucleic Acids Res. 2011; 39: D152-D157
- Clinical models for testing chemopreventative agents in prostate cancer and overview of SELECT: the selenium and vitamin E cancer prevention trial.Recent Results Cancer Res. 2003; 163: 212-225
- DNA methylation signatures for prediction of biochemical recurrence after radical prostatectomy of clinically localized prostate cancer.J Clin Oncol. 2013; 31: 3250-3258
- Risk stratification of prostate cancer through quantitative assessment of PTEN loss (qPTEN).J Natl Cancer Inst. 2020;
- A post-radical-prostatectomy nomogram incorporating new pathological variables and interaction terms for improved prognosis.BJU Int. 2011; 107: 389-395
- Translation of proteomic biomarkers into FDA approved cancer diagnostics: issues and challenges.Clin Proteomics. 2013; 10 (13-0275-10-13)
- Defining the ideal cutpoint for determining PSA recurrence after radical prostatectomy. prostate-specific antigen.Urology. 2003; 61: 365-369
- Natural history of progression after PSA elevation following radical prostatectomy.JAMA. 1999; 281: 1591-1597
- Variation in the definition of biochemical recurrence in patients treated for localized prostate cancer: The american urological association prostate guidelines for localized prostate cancer update panel report and recommendations for a standard in the reporting of surgical outcomes.J Urol. 2007; 177: 540-545
- Neoplastic cell percentage estimation in tissue samples for molecular oncology: recommendations from a modified delphi study.Histopathology. 2019; 75: 312-319
- Contemporary gleason grading of prostatic carcinoma: an update with discussion on practical issues to implement the 2014 international society of urological pathology (ISUP) consensus conference on gleason grading of prostatic carcinoma.Am J Surg Pathol. 2017; 41: e1-e7
- Glucose-regulated protein GRP78 is up-regulated in prostate cancer and correlates with recurrence and survival.Hum Pathol. 2007; 38: 1547-1552
- DNA methylation of the PITX2 gene promoter region is a strong independent prognostic marker of biochemical recurrence in patients with prostate cancer after radical prostatectomy.J Urol. 2009; 181: 1678-1685
- Genomic tests to guide prostate cancer management following diagnosis.Expert Rev Mol Diagn. 2017; 17: 367-377
- Integrating biomarkers across omic platforms: an approach to improve stratification of patients with indolent and aggressive prostate cancer.Mol Oncol. 2018; 12: 1513-1525
- Risk stratification of prostate cancer: Integrating multiparametric MRI, nomograms and biomarkers.Future Oncol. 2016; 12: 2417-2430
- Contemporary radical prostatectomy.Prostate Cancer. 2011; 2011645030
- Atypical cribriform lesions of the prostate: clinical significance, differential diagnosis and current concept of intraductal carcinoma of the prostate.Adv Anat Pathol. 2012; 19: 270-278
- A genomic classifier improves prediction of metastatic disease within 5 years after surgery in node-negative high-risk prostate cancer patients managed by radical prostatectomy without adjuvant therapy.Eur Urol. 2015; 67: 778-786
- Long noncoding RNA SChLAP1 accelerates the proliferation and metastasis of prostate cancer via targeting miR-198 and promoting the MAPK1 pathway.Oncol Res. 2018; 26: 131-143
- Grading of prostatic adenocarcinoma: current state and prognostic implications.Diagn Pathol. 2016; 11 (25-016-0478-2)
- Intraductal carcinoma of the prostate on needle biopsy: histologic features and clinical significance.Mod Pathol. 2006; 19: 1528-1535
- Cancer biomarker discovery and translation: proteomics and beyond.Expert Rev Proteomics. 2019; 16: 93-103
- The interface between biomarker discovery and clinical validation: the tar pit of the protein biomarker pipeline.Proteomics Clin Appl. 2008; 2: 1386-1402
Article info
Publication history
Published online: January 14, 2022
Accepted:
January 4,
2022
Received in revised form:
January 3,
2022
Received:
August 16,
2021
Identification
Copyright
© 2022 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.
