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
9P - XRCC1 Arg194Trp, Palb2 T1100T (3300T>G), HMMR V353A, TNF aG308A polymorphisms as diagnostic and prognostic markers of breast cancer in the Kyrgyz ethnic group
Presenter: Aigul Semetei kyzy
Session: Poster display session
Resources:
Abstract
232P - Early Results from the Phase I Study of SY-1365, a Potent and Selective CDK7 inhibitor, in Patients with Ovarian Cancer and Advanced Solid Tumors
Presenter: Debra Richardson
Session: Poster display session
Resources:
Abstract
382P - Drug metabolizing enzymes pharmacogenomic: Biomarkers for improved chemotherapy in head and neck cancer squamous cell carcinoma
Presenter: Sunishtha Bhatia
Session: Poster display session
Resources:
Abstract
401P - Women in oncology: Alarming figures from India
Presenter: Sharada Mailankody
Session: Poster display session
Resources:
Abstract
416P - Multidisciplinary management of sarcomas of the head and neck: An institutional experience
Presenter: Kavitha Jain
Session: Poster display session
Resources:
Abstract
523P - Co-morbilities and survival of patients initially diagnosed with extensive-stage small cell lung cancer: Impact of hypertension, diabetes and chronic hepatitis B viral infection
Presenter: Weigang Xiu
Session: Poster display session
Resources:
Abstract
529P - Osimertinib for patients with EGFR-mutant advanced NSCLC and asymptomatic brain metastases: An open-label, two-arm, phase II study
Presenter: Roni Gillis
Session: Poster display session
Resources:
Abstract