Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

High-risk prostate cancer in the United States, 1990–2007

  • Topic Paper
  • Published:
World Journal of Urology Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Objectives

This study aimed to describe national trends in presentation, management, and outcomes for men with high risk prostate cancer.

Methods

Data were abstracted from CaPSURE; 10,808 men were diagnosed between 1990 and 2007 and had complete clinical data. High-risk was defined according to the D’Amico criteria; a more restrictive definition assigned clinical stage T2c to intermediate rather than high risk. Temporal trends were assessed for patient distribution among risk groups, and within the high-risk group for individual risk factors, Kattan nomogram score, Cancer of the Prostate Risk Assessment (CAPRA) score, and primary treatment. Survival analysis stratified by CAPRA score was performed.

Results

Under the standard definition, 31.2% of the men were diagnosed with high-risk disease, and 16.9% were high-risk under the restrictive definition. This proportion has fallen over time but has been stable since 2000. Patients who would be stratified to high risk under the standard definition and to intermediate risk under the restrictive definition have better outcomes than those stratified to either intermediate or high risk under both definitions. There has been no consistent risk migration within the high-risk group over time. Treatment varies substantially with CAPRA score within the high-risk group, with higher risk men less likely to receive local therapy. Use of androgen deprivation therapy has increased over time, both as primary therapy and in conjunction with both external beam radiation and brachytherapy. Biochemical outcomes vary according to CAPRA score within the high-risk group.

Conclusions

Clinical stage T2c should not define high risk, and the high-risk group should be substratified using a multivariable instrument. There is no evidence for meaningful downward risk migration among high-risk patients over the past 15 years. At least some men in the high-risk group may be undertreated.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3 
Fig. 4
Fig. 5

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Jemal A, Siegel R, Ward E, Murray T, Xu J, Thun MJ (2007) Cancer statistics, 2007. CA Cancer J Clin 57:43–66

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Thompson IM (2006) Defining high risk prostate cancer–where do we set the bar? A translational science approach to risk stratification. J Urol 176:S21–4; discussion S5–6

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Cooperberg MR, Freedland SJ, Pasta DJ et al (2006) Multiinstitutional validation of the UCSF cancer of the prostate risk assessment for prediction of recurrence after radical prostatectomy. Cancer 107:2384–91

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Yossepowitch O, Eggener SE, Serio AM et al (2007) Secondary Therapy, Metastatic Progression, and Cancer-Specific Mortality in Men with Clinically High-Risk Prostate Cancer Treated with Radical Prostatectomy. Eur Urol in press, doi:10.1016/j.eururo.2007.10.008

  5. D’Amico AV, Whittington R, Malkowicz SB et al (1998) Biochemical outcome after radical prostatectomy, external beam radiation therapy, or interstitial radiation therapy for clinically localized prostate cancer. JAMA 280:969–74

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  6. American Urological Association Prostate Cancer Clinical Guidelines Panel. Guideline for the management of clinically localized prostate cancer: 2007 update: American Urological Association Education and Research, Inc. 2007

  7. Mitchell JA, Cooperberg MR, Elkin EP et al (2005) Ability of two pretreatment risk assessment methods to predict prostate cancer recurrence after radical prostatectomy: data from CaPSURE. J Urol 173:1126–31

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Cooperberg MR, Pasta DJ, Elkin EP et al (2005) The University of California, San Francisco Cancer of the Prostate Risk Assessment score: a straightforward and reliable preoperative predictor of disease recurrence after radical prostatectomy. J Urol 173:1938–42

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Cooperberg MR, Broering JM, Litwin MS et al (2004) The contemporary management of prostate cancer in the United States: lessons from the cancer of the prostate strategic urologic research endeavor (CaPSURE), a national disease registry. J Urol 171:1393–401

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Kattan MW, Eastham JA, Stapleton AM, Wheeler TM, Scardino PT (1998) A preoperative nomogram for disease recurrence following radical prostatectomy for prostate cancer. J Natl Cancer Inst 90:766–71

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  11. Greene KL, Meng MV, Elkin EP et al (2004) Validation of the Kattan preoperative nomogram for prostate cancer recurrence using a community based cohort: results from Cancer of the Prostate Strategic Urological Research Endeavor (CaPSURE). J Urol 171:2255–9

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. May M, Knoll N, Siegsmund M et al (2007) Validity of the CAPRA score to predict biochemical recurrence-free survival after radical prostatectomy. Results from a European multicenter survey of 1,296 patients. J Urol 178:1957–62

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Stephenson AJ, Scardino PT, Eastham JA et al (2006) Preoperative nomogram predicting the 10-year probability of prostate cancer recurrence after radical prostatectomy. J Natl Cancer Inst 98:715–7

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Cooperberg MR, Broering JM, Kantoff PW, Carroll PR (2007) Contemporary trends in low risk prostate cancer: risk assessment and treatment. J Urol 178:S14–9

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Dong F, Reuther AM, Magi-Galluzzi C, Zhou M, Kupelian PA, Klein EA (2007) Pathologic stage migration has slowed in the late PSA era. Urology 70:839–42

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Smith EB, Frierson HF Jr, Mills SE, Boyd JC, Theodorescu D (2002) Gleason scores of prostate biopsy and radical prostatectomy specimens over the past 10 years: is there evidence for systematic upgrading? Cancer 94:2282–7

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Hanks GE, Pajak TF, Porter A et al (2003) Phase III trial of long-term adjuvant androgen deprivation after neoadjuvant hormonal cytoreduction and radiotherapy in locally advanced carcinoma of the prostate: the Radiation Therapy Oncology Group Protocol 92–02. J Clin Oncol 21:3972–8

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  18. D’Amico AV, Manola J, Loffredo M, Renshaw AA, DellaCroce A, Kantoff PW (2004) 6-month androgen suppression plus radiation therapy vs radiation therapy alone for patients with clinically localized prostate cancer: a randomized controlled trial. JAMA 292:821–7

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  19. Soloway MS, Pareek K, Sharifi R et al (2002) Neoadjuvant androgen ablation before radical prostatectomy in cT2bNxM0 prostate cancer: 5-year results. J Urol 167:112–6

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Potters L, Torre T, Ashley R, Leibel S (2000) Examining the role of neoadjuvant androgen deprivation in patients undergoing prostate brachytherapy. J Clin Oncol 18:1187–92

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  21. Potters L, Torre T, Fearn PA, Leibel SA, Kattan MW (2001) Potency after permanent prostate brachytherapy for localized prostate cancer. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 50:1235–42

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  22. Visakorpi T, Hyytinen E, Koivisto P et al (1995) In vivo amplification of the androgen receptor gene and progression of human prostate cancer. Nat Genet 9:401–6

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Urology, Program in Urologic Oncology, Urologic Outcomes Research Group, UCSF Comprehensive Cancer Center, University of California, San Francisco, CA, USA

    Matthew R. Cooperberg, Janet Cowan, Jeannette M. Broering & Peter R. Carroll

  2. UCSF/Mt, Zion Cancer Center, 1600 Divisadero St, 3d Floor, San Francisco, CA, 94115-1711, USA

    Matthew R. Cooperberg

Authors
  1. Matthew R. Cooperberg
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Janet Cowan
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Jeannette M. Broering
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Peter R. Carroll
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Matthew R. Cooperberg.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Cooperberg, M.R., Cowan, J., Broering, J.M. et al. High-risk prostate cancer in the United States, 1990–2007. World J Urol 26, 211–218 (2008). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00345-008-0250-7

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00345-008-0250-7

Keywords

Search

Navigation