Comparison of Multimodal Therapies and Outcomes among Patients with High-Risk Prostate Cancer with Adverse Clinicopathologic Features

Amar U. Kishan, R. Jeffrey Karnes, Tahmineh Romero, Jessica K. Wong, Giovanni Motterle, Jeffrey J. Tosoian, Bruce J. Trock, Eric A. Klein, Bradley J. Stish, Robert T. Dess, Daniel E. Spratt, Avinash Pilar, Chandana Reddy, Rebecca Levin-Epstein, Trude B. Wedde, Wolfgang A. Lilleby, Ryan Fiano, Gregory S. Merrick, Richard G. Stock, D. Jeffrey DemanesBrian J. Moran, Michelle Braccioforte, Hartwig Huland, Phuoc T. Tran, Santiago Martin, Rafael Martínez-Monge, Daniel J. Krauss, Eyad I. Abu-Isa, Ridwan Alam, Zeyad Schwen, Albert J. Chang, Thomas M. Pisansky, Richard Choo, Daniel Y. Song, Stephen Greco, Curtiland Deville, Todd McNutt, Theodore L. Deweese, Ashley E. Ross, Jay P. Ciezki, Paul C. Boutros, Nicholas G. Nickols, Prashant Bhat, David Shabsovich, Jesus E. Juarez, Natalie Chong, Patrick A. Kupelian, Anthony V. D'Amico, Matthew B. Rettig, Alejandro Berlin, Jonathan D. Tward, Brian J. Davis, Robert E. Reiter, Michael L. Steinberg, David Elashoff, Eric M. Horwitz, Rahul D. Tendulkar, Derya Tilki

Research output: Contribution to journalArticlepeer-review


Importance: The optimal management strategy for high-risk prostate cancer and additional adverse clinicopathologic features remains unknown. Objective: To compare clinical outcomes among patients with high-risk prostate cancer after definitive treatment. Design, Setting, and Participants: This retrospective cohort study included patients with high-risk prostate cancer (as defined by the National Comprehensive Cancer Network [NCCN]) and at least 1 adverse clinicopathologic feature (defined as any primary Gleason pattern 5 on biopsy, clinical T3b-4 disease, ≥50% cores with biopsy results positive for prostate cancer, or NCCN ≥2 high-risk features) treated between 2000 and 2014 at 16 tertiary centers. Data were analyzed in November 2020. Exposures: Radical prostatectomy (RP), external beam radiotherapy (EBRT) with androgen deprivation therapy (ADT), or EBRT plus brachytherapy boost (BT) with ADT. Guideline-concordant multimodal treatment was defined as RP with appropriate use of multimodal therapy (optimal RP), EBRT with at least 2 years of ADT (optimal EBRT), or EBRT with BT with at least 1 year ADT (optimal EBRT with BT). Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary outcome was prostate cancer-specific mortality; distant metastasis was a secondary outcome. Differences were evaluated using inverse probability of treatment weight-adjusted Fine-Gray competing risk regression models. Results: A total of 6004 men (median [interquartile range] age, 66.4 [60.9-71.8] years) with high-risk prostate cancer were analyzed, including 3175 patients (52.9%) who underwent RP, 1830 patients (30.5%) who underwent EBRT alone, and 999 patients (16.6%) who underwent EBRT with BT. Compared with RP, treatment with EBRT with BT (subdistribution hazard ratio [sHR] 0.78, [95% CI, 0.63-0.97]; P =.03) or with EBRT alone (sHR, 0.70 [95% CI, 0.53-0.92]; P =.01) was associated with significantly improved prostate cancer-specific mortality; there was no difference in prostate cancer-specific mortality between EBRT with BT and EBRT alone (sHR, 0.89 [95% CI, 0.67-1.18]; P =.43). No significant differences in prostate cancer-specific mortality were found across treatment cohorts among 2940 patients who received guideline-concordant multimodality treatment (eg, optimal EBRT alone vs optimal RP: sHR, 0.76 [95% CI, 0.52-1.09]; P =.14). However, treatment with EBRT alone or EBRT with BT was consistently associated with lower rates of distant metastasis compared with treatment with RP (eg, EBRT vs RP: sHR, 0.50 [95% CI, 0.44-0.58]; P <.001). Conclusions and Relevance: These findings suggest that among patients with high-risk prostate cancer and additional unfavorable clinicopathologic features receiving guideline-concordant multimodal therapy, prostate cancer-specific mortality outcomes were equivalent among those treated with RP, EBRT, and EBRT with BT, although distant metastasis outcomes were more favorable among patients treated with EBRT and EBRT with BT. Optimal multimodality treatment is critical for improving outcomes in patients with high-risk prostate cancer.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Article numbere2115312
JournalJAMA Network Open
Issue number7
StatePublished - Jul 1 2021

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • General Medicine


Dive into the research topics of 'Comparison of Multimodal Therapies and Outcomes among Patients with High-Risk Prostate Cancer with Adverse Clinicopathologic Features'. Together they form a unique fingerprint.

Cite this