Abstract 206P
Background
To compare discriminant ability of risk stratifications for prostate cancer in three authoritative guidelines: National Comprehensive Cancer Network clinical practice guideline (NCCN-g), American Urological Association / American Society for Therapeutic Radiology and Oncology/ Society of Urologic Oncology Guideline(AUA-g) and European Association of Urology- European association of nuclear medicine- European Society for Radiotherapy and Oncology- European Society of Urogenital Radiology- International Society of Geriatric Oncology guideline(EAU-g).
Methods
511916 patients with one primary prostate cancer diagnosed between 2004 and 2016 were identified using the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER, submitted in) database of the National Cancer Institute. Patients were excluded from analysis if < 18 years of age, not adenocarcinoma, diagnosed at autopsy or death certificate only, with an unknown follow-up, incomplete clinical and demographic information, leaving 287333 patients in this cohort. Patients were categorized as different risk stratifications by three latest guidelines (NCCN-g, AUA-g and EAU-g) respectively. Follow-up endpoint was prostate cancer specific mortality (PCSM), cutoff date was December 31, 2016. Kaplan–Meier analysis, multivariable Cox regression and area under the receiver operating characteristics (ROC) curve (AUC) analyses were performed.
Results
The 287333 patients are all from 2004 to 2015. Median follow-up was 69 months (IQR: 39-104). For the three risk stratification modalities, all 6 risk groups in NCCN-g, 5 risk groups in AUA-g and 5 risk groups in EAU-g independently predicted PCSM. NCCN-g yielded 3.1-fold HR differences between low risk group and intermediate risk group, 14.8-fold HR differences between low risk group and high risk group, 33.0-fold HR differences between low risk group and very high risk group, 56.2-fold HR differences between low risk group and regional group, and 148.9-fold HR differences between low risk group and metastatic group. AUC is 0.8332, 0.8309 and 0.7868 in NCCN-g, AUA-g and EAU-g.
Conclusions
This large population-based analysis confirms the better discriminant properties of the risk stratification method in NCCN guideline.
Clinical trial identification
Editorial acknowledgement
Legal entity responsible for the study
Peking University First Hospital radiation oncology department.
Funding
Has not received any funding.
Disclosure
The author has declared no conflicts of interest.
Resources from the same session
221P - Comparative analysis of first-line immune checkpoint inhibitor versus carboplatin-based chemotherapy for cisplatin-ineligible metastatic urothelial carcinoma: A multicenter, retrospective real-world evidence
Presenter: Hsiang‐Lan Lai
Session: Poster display session
Resources:
Abstract
222P - Does tumor grade really improve the prognostic ability of the staging system for men with penile cancer: A SEER database analysis
Presenter: Ravi Kanodia
Session: Poster display session
Resources:
Abstract
223TiP - EV-301: A phase III trial in progress evaluating enfortumab vedotin versus chemotherapy in patients with locally advanced or metastatic urothelial carcinoma
Presenter: Daniel Petrylak
Session: Poster display session
Resources:
Abstract
230P - Olaparib maintenance therapy in patients (pts) with a BRCA1 and/or BRCA2 mutation (BRCAm) and newly diagnosed advanced ovarian cancer (OC): SOLO1 China cohort
Presenter: Lingying Wu
Session: Poster display session
Resources:
Abstract
231P - Cost-effectiveness of olaparib vs routine surveillance in the maintenance setting for patients with BRCA-mutated advanced ovarian cancer after response to first-line platinum-based chemotherapy in Singapore
Presenter: David SP Tan
Session: Poster display session
Resources:
Abstract
233P - Incorporation of correlative studies in ovarian cancers in the era of precision medicine: Assessment of accountability and utility
Presenter: Nadia Hitchen
Session: Poster display session
Resources:
Abstract
234P - Implementation of mainstream BRCA testing in epithelial ovarian cancer in a tertiary centre
Presenter: Edbert Wong
Session: Poster display session
Resources:
Abstract
235P - The efficacy of radiation therapy in ovarian carcinoma: A propensity score analysis of a population-based study
Presenter: Jian-Guo Zhou
Session: Poster display session
Resources:
Abstract
236P - Front-line maintenance therapy for platinum-sensitive ovarian cancer: What’s next PARP inhibitors?
Presenter: Han Gong
Session: Poster display session
Resources:
Abstract
237P - PARP inhibitor in platinum resistant ovarian cancer: Single center real world experience
Presenter: Saphalta Baghmar
Session: Poster display session
Resources:
Abstract