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
27P - The prognostic value of neutrophil to lymphocyte ratio (NLR) and 18F-FDG PET SUV in breast cancer patients underwent neoadjuvant chemotherapy
Presenter: Soong June Bae
Session: Poster display session
Resources:
Abstract
28P - Accuracy of core biopsy in predicting pathologic complete response in the breast in patients with complete/near complete clinical and radiological response (Complete Responders in the Breast – CRBr): A feasibility study
Presenter: Nisha Hariharan
Session: Poster display session
Resources:
Abstract
29P - Tumour response to neoadjuvant chemotherapy in breast cancer: Routine pathologic markers improve the predictive power of a cell-loss metric based on release of thymidine kinase 1 into blood
Presenter: Bernhard Tribukait
Session: Poster display session
Resources:
Abstract
30P - Comparison of metabolic changes between neoadjuvant chemotherapy and neoadjuvant endocrine therapy in premenopausal women with ER positive, HER2 negative breast cancer
Presenter: Ho-hyun Ryu
Session: Poster display session
Resources:
Abstract
31P - Circulating miR-155 as a potential therapeutic monitoring marker in breast cancer
Presenter: Sumadi Lukman Anwar
Session: Poster display session
Resources:
Abstract
32P - Profile of breast cancer epidemiology in Sanglah General Hospital, Denpasar, Bali from 2012 to 2019
Presenter: Citra Aryanti
Session: Poster display session
Resources:
Abstract
33P - Contrast enhanced chest CT in patients with breast cancer: Comprehensive imaging analysis and correlation with biological markers
Presenter: Bo Hwa Choi
Session: Poster display session
Resources:
Abstract
34P - Verification of metabolic regulatory mechanisms in androgen receptor-positive triple negative breast cancer
Presenter: Yuka Asano
Session: Poster display session
Resources:
Abstract
35TiP - Ribociclib plus goserelin with hormonal therapy versus physician choice chemotherapy in pre-/perimenopausal patients with HR+, HER2– inoperable locally advanced breast cancer (ABC): RIGHT choice study
Presenter: Yen-Shen Lu
Session: Poster display session
Resources:
Abstract
36TiP - A prospective study to assess response to neoadjuvant hormonal therapy in postmenopausal women with hormone-receptor positive breast cancer at a regional cancer centre in South India
Presenter: Shina Goyal
Session: Poster display session
Resources:
Abstract