Background: Prostate cancer clinical stage T2 (cT2) subclassifications, as determined by digital rectal examination (DRE), are a historic method of staging prostate cancer. However, given the potential discomfort associated with prostate examination and the wide availability of other prognostic tests, the necessity of DRE is uncertain. This study sought to determine the prognostic value of the prostate cancer cT2 subclassifications in a contemporary cohort of patients. Methods: The National Cancer Database was used to identify a cohort of men with high-risk clinical T2N0M0 prostate cancer treated with external-beam radiotherapy and androgen deprivation therapies ± surgery from 2004 to 2010. We assessed overall survival from a landmark time of 10 months using Kaplan-Meier and log-rank test analysis. A multivariate proportional hazards model was used to estimate the simultaneous effects of multiple factors, including cT2 subclassification and other well-established prognostic indicators of overall survival in prostate cancer. Results: A total of 5,291 men were included in the final analysis, with a median follow-up of 5.4 years. The cT2a, cT2b, and cT2c subclassifications demonstrated increasing hazard ratios of 1.00 (reference), 1.25 (95% CI, 1.07–1.45; P=.0046), and 1.43 (95% CI, 1.25–1.63; P<.0001), respectively, reflecting a higher probability of death with each incremental increase in cT2 subclassification. This finding was independent of other known prognostic variables on multivariate analysis. Conclusions: Results show that cT2 subclassifications had independent prognostic value in a large and contemporary cohort of men. cT2 classification remains an important, low-cost prognostic tool for men with prostatic adenocarcinoma. The clinical relevance of this test should be appreciated and accounted for by providers treating prostate adenocarcinoma.
Submitted January 29, 2018; accepted for publication January 28, 2019.
Author contributions:Study concept and design: Borkenhagen, Lawton, Hall. Data acquisition: Hall. Data analysis and interpretation: Eastwood. Writing–original draft: Borkenhagen. Writing–review and editing: All authors. Critical revisions: Borkenhagen, Hall. Supervision: Bokenhagen, Kilari, See, Lawton, Hall.
Disclosures: The authors have disclosed that they have not received any financial considerations from any person or organization to support the preparation, analysis, results, or discussion of this article.
Funding: This publication was supported by the National Center for Research Resources and the National Center for Advancing Translational Sciences, NIH (grant UL1TR001436).
Correspondence: William A. Hall, MD, Department of Radiation Oncology, Medical College of Wisconsin, 8701 Watertown Plank Road, Milwaukee, WI 53226. Email: firstname.lastname@example.org
MohlerJL, AntonarakisES, ArmstrongAJ,
. NCCN Clinical Practice Guidelines in Oncology: Prostate Cancer. Version 4.2018. Accessed January 22, 2019. To view the most recent version, visit NCCN.org.
MontieJE.1992 staging system for prostate cancer. Semin Urol1993;11:10–13.
LeytenGH, HesselsD, JanninkSA,
. Prospective multicentre evaluation of PCA3 and TMPRSS2-ERG gene fusions as diagnostic and prognostic urinary biomarkers for prostate cancer. Eur Urol2014;65:534–542.
PunnenS, PavanN, ParekhDJ. Finding the wolf in sheep’s clothing: the 4Kscore is a novel blood test that can accurately identify the risk of aggressive prostate cancer. Rev Urol 2015;17:3–13.26028995)| false
MulleradM, HricakH, KuroiwaK,
. Comparison of endorectal magnetic resonance imaging, guided prostate biopsy and digital rectal examination in the preoperative anatomical localization of prostate cancer. J Urol2005;174:2158–2163.
MulleradM, HricakH, KuroiwaK, . Comparison of endorectal magnetic resonance imaging, guided prostate biopsy and digital rectal examination in the preoperative anatomical localization of prostate cancer. J Urol 2005;174:2158–2163.1628075510.1097/01.ju.0000181224.95276.82)| false
LebacleC, Roudot-ThoravalF, MoktefiA, . Integration of MRI to clinical nomogram for predicting pathological stage before radical prostatectomy. World J Urol 2017;35:1409–1415.10.1007/s00345-016-1981-527995303)| false
NyitrayAG, ChiaoEY. Re: Cui T, Kovell RC, Terlecki RP. Is it time to abandon the digital rectal examination? Lessons from the PLCO cancer screening trial and peer-reviewed literature. Curr Med Res Opin 2016;32:1–7. Curr Med Res Opin2017;33:315–316.
NyitrayAG, ChiaoEY. Re: Cui T, Kovell RC, Terlecki RP. Is it time to abandon the digital rectal examination? Lessons from the PLCO cancer screening trial and peer-reviewed literature. Curr Med Res Opin 2016;32:1–7. Curr Med Res Opin 2017;33:315–316.10.1080/03007995.2016.1254608)| false
LeeJY, KangHW, RhaKH,
. Age-adjusted Charlson comorbidity index is a significant prognostic factor for long-term survival of patients with high-risk prostate cancer after radical prostatectomy: a Bayesian model averaging approach. J Cancer Res Clin Oncol2016;142:849–858.
LeeJY, KangHW, RhaKH, . Age-adjusted Charlson comorbidity index is a significant prognostic factor for long-term survival of patients with high-risk prostate cancer after radical prostatectomy: a Bayesian model averaging approach. J Cancer Res Clin Oncol 2016;142:849–858.2666049510.1007/s00432-015-2093-0)| false