Alexandre Ingels

Radical Prostatectomy as Primary Treatment of High-risk Prostate Cancer

High-risk prostate cancer (PCa), established according to the d’Amico criteria or other prognostic tools, remains very heterogeneous, including a third of patients with excellent prognosis in whom surgical treatment can result in long-term progression-free survival. In contrast, a substantial proportion of high risk will not be cured by local treatment alone and might benefit from a more aggressive multimodal adjuvant treatment strategy. However, to date, except in one adjuvant radiotherapy series, no neoadjuvant or adjuvant therapy has shown a survival improvement after radical prostatectomy for high-risk PCa. Recent observational studies tend to prove that radical prostatectomy may offer benefits over radiotherapy in disease-free and overall survival. However, good Level 1 evidence is lacking and further prospective studies are warranted to directly compare the outcomes of radical prostatectomy to combined radiation and hormonal therapy in high-risk patients.

Grade Group underestimation in prostate biopsy: predictive factors and outcomes in candidates for active surveillance

Micro‐Abstract Results from prostate biopsy may differ from the final pathology after radical prostatectomy in one‐half of the cases. Underestimation of the Gleason score on the biopsy seems to have consequences on the outcomes. We developed a nomogram to improve risk classification, in order to better counsel patients when several therapeutic options are available. Objective: We intended to analyze the outcomes and predictive factors for underestimating the prostate cancer (PCa) grade group (GG) from prostate biopsies in a large monocentric cohort of patients treated by minimally invasive radical prostatectomy (RP). Materials and Methods: Using a monocentric prospectively maintained database, we included 3062 patients who underwent minimally invasive RP between 2006 and 2013. We explored clinicopathologic features and outcomes associated with a GG upgrade from biopsy to RP. Multivariate logistic regression was used to develop and validate a nomogram to predict upgrading for GG1. Results: Biopsy GG was upgraded after RP in 51.5% of cases. Patients upgraded from GG1 to GG2 or GG3 after RP had a longer time to biochemical recurrence than those with GG2 or GG3 respectively, on both biopsy and RP, but a shorter time to biochemical recurrence than those who remained GG1 after RP (P < .0001). In multivariate analyses, variables predicting upgrading for GG1 PCa were age (P = .0014), abnormal digital rectal examination (P < .0001), prostate‐specific antigen density (P < .0001), percentage of positive cores (P < .0001), and body mass index (P = .037). A nomogram was generated and validated internally. Conclusions: Biopsy grading system is misleading in approximately 50% of cases. Upgrading GG from biopsy to RP may have consequences on clinical outcomes. A nomogram using clinicopathologic features could aid the probability of needing to upgrade GG1 patients at their initial evaluation.

Concomitant High-Grade Prostatic Intraepithelial Neoplasia Is Associated with Good Prognosis Factors and Oncologic Outcome after Radical Prostatectomy

Objectives: To assess correlations between concomitant high-grade prostatic intraepithelial neoplasia (HGPIN), pathological features and oncologic outcomes after radical prostatectomy (RP). Material and Methods: We prospectively collected a single-institution database of 2,351 patients who underwent RP between 1998 and 2011. Results: 1,272 (54.1%) patients had HGPIN on specimens. The mean follow-up was 28 months. Presence of HGPIN was significantly associated with a favorable preoperative risk status and with pathological factors of poor prognosis in RP specimens. Patients without HGPIN had a worse biochemical recurrence-free survival compared with those with HGPIN in RP specimen (log-rank test: p = 0.015). The 3-year RFS rate was 73.9% for the HGPIN group versus 67.2%. The absence of HGPIN was also significantly correlated with the use of androgen deprivation treatment during the follow-up (p < 0.001). In Cox multivariate analysis, taking into account the other prognostic pathological factors, HGPIN was not an independent predictive factor for PSA failure (p = 0.868). Conclusion: HGPIN is associated with factors of good prognosis but fails to show independent significance when classical pathological prognostic factors are taken into account.