Sutera, Philip;
Van Der Eecken, Kim;
Kishan, Amar U;
Hamid, Anis;
Grist, Emily;
Attard, Gerhardt;
Lotan, Tamara;
... Deek, Matthew P; + view all
(2022)
Definitions of disease burden across the spectrum of metastatic castration-sensitive prostate cancer: comparison by disease outcomes and genomics.
Prostate Cancer and Prostatic Diseases
, 25
(4)
pp. 713-719.
10.1038/s41391-021-00484-4.
Preview |
Text
nihms-1820744.pdf - Accepted Version Download (1MB) | Preview |
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Several definitions have attempted to stratify metastatic castrate-sensitive prostate cancer (mCSPC) into low and high-volume states. However, at this time, comparison of these definitions is limited. Here we aim to compare definitions of metastatic volume in mCSPC with respect to clinical outcomes and mutational profiles. METHODS: We performed a retrospective review of patients with biochemically recurrent or mCSPC whose tumors underwent somatic targeted sequencing. 294 patients were included with median follow-up of 58.3 months. Patients were classified into low and high-volume disease per CHAARTED, STAMPEDE, and two numeric (≤3 and ≤5) definitions. Endpoints including radiographic progression-free survival (rPFS), time to development of castration resistance (tdCRPC), and overall survival (OS) were evaluated with Kaplan-Meier survival curves and log-rank test. The incidence of driver mutations between definitions were compared. RESULTS: Median OS and tdCRPC were shorter for high-volume than low-volume disease for all four definitions. In the majority of patients (84.7%) metastatic volume classification did not change across all four definitions. High volume disease was significantly associated with worse OS for all four definitions (CHAARTED: HR 2.89; p < 0.01, STAMPEDE: HR 3.82; p < 0.01, numeric ≤3: HR 4.67; p < 0.01, numeric ≤5: HR 3.76; p < 0.01) however, were similar for high (p = 0.95) and low volume (p = 0.79) disease across all four definitions. Those with discordant classification tended to have more aggressive clinical behavior and mutational profiles. Patients with low-volume disease and TP53 mutation experienced a more aggressive course with rPFS more closely mirroring high-volume disease. CONCLUSIONS: The spectrum of mCSPC was confirmed across four different metastatic definitions for clinical endpoints and genetics. All definitions were generally similar in classification of patients, outcomes, and genetic makeup. Given these findings, the simplicity of numerical definitions might be preferred, especially when integrating metastasis directed therapy. Incorporation of tumor genetics may allow further refinement of current metastatic definitions.
Archive Staff Only
 |
View Item |
