OBJECTIVE: To assess the association between Genomic Classifier (GC)-risk group and post-radical prostatectomy treatment in clinical practice. METHODS: Two prospective observational cohorts of men with prostate cancer (PCa) who underwent RP in two referral centers and had GC testing post-prostatectomy between 2013 and 2018 were included. The primary endpoint of the study was to assess the association between GC-risk group and time to secondary therapy. Univariable (UVA) and multivariable (MVA) Cox proportional hazards models were constructed to assess the association between GC-risk group and time to receipt of secondary therapy after RP, where secondary therapy is defined as receiving either RT or ADT after RP. RESULTS: A total of 398 patients are included in the analysis. Patients with high-GC risk were more likely to receive any secondary therapy (OR: 6.84) compared to patients with low/intermediate-GC risk. The proportion of high-GC risk patients receiving RT at 2 years post-RP was 31.5%, compared to only 6.3% among the low/intermediate-GC risk patients. CONCLUSION: This study demonstrates that physicians in routine practice used GC to identify high risk patients who might benefit the most from secondary treatment. As such, GC score was independent predictor of receipt of secondary treatment.

Background

We aimed to validate Decipher to predict adverse pathology (AP) at radical prostatectomy (RP) in men with National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN) favorable-intermediate risk (F-IR) prostate cancer (PCa), and to better select F-IR candidates for active surveillance (AS).

Methods

In all, 647 patients diagnosed with NCCN very low/low risk (VL/LR) or F-IR prostate cancer were identified from a multi-institutional PCa biopsy database; all underwent RP with complete postoperative clinicopathological information and Decipher genomic risk scores. The performance of all risk assessment tools was evaluated using logistic regression model for the endpoint of AP, defined as grade group 3-5, pT3b or higher, or lymph node invasion.

Results

The median age was 61 years (interquartile range 56-66) for 220 patients with NCCN F-IR disease, 53% classified as low-risk by Cancer of the Prostate Risk Assessment (CAPRA 0-2) and 47% as intermediate-risk (CAPRA 3-5). Decipher classified 79%, 13% and 8% of men as low-, intermediate- and high-risk with 13%, 10%, and 41% rate of AP, respectively. Decipher was an independent predictor of AP with an odds ratio of 1.34 per 0.1 unit increased (p value = 0.002) and remained significant when adjusting by CAPRA. Notably, F-IR with Decipher low or intermediate score did not associate with significantly higher odds of AP compared to VL/LR.

Conclusions

NCCN risk groups, including F-IR, are highly heterogeneous and should be replaced with multivariable risk-stratification. In particular, incorporating Decipher may be useful for safely expanding the use of AS in this patient population.

BACKGROUND: Androgen deprivation therapy (ADT) with radiotherapy can benefit patients with localized prostate cancer. However, ADT can negatively impact quality of life, and there remain no validated predictive models to guide its use. METHODS: We used digital pathology images from pretreatment prostate tissue and clinical data from 5727 patients enrolled in five phase 3 randomized trials, in which treatment was radiotherapy with or without ADT, as our data source to develop and validate an artificial intelligence (AI)–derived predictive patient-specific model that would determine which patients would develop the primary end point of distant metastasis. The model used baseline data to provide a binary output that a given patient will likely benefit from ADT or not. After the model was locked, validation was performed using data from NRG Oncology/Radiation Therapy Oncology Group (RTOG) 9408 (n=1594), a trial that randomly assigned men to radiotherapy plus or minus 4 months of ADT. Fine–Gray regression and restricted mean survival times were used to assess the interaction between treatment and the predictive model and within predictive model–positive, i.e., benefited from ADT, and –negative subgroup treatment effects. RESULTS: Overall, in the NRG/RTOG 9408 validation cohort (14.9 years of median follow-up), ADT significantly improved time to distant metastasis. Of these enrolled patients, 543 (34%) were model positive, and ADT significantly reduced the risk of distant metastasis compared with radiotherapy alone. Of 1051 patients who were model negative, ADT did not provide benefit. CONCLUSIONS: Our AI-based predictive model was able to identify patients with a predominantly intermediate risk for prostate cancer likely to benefit from short-term ADT. (Supported by a grant [U10CA180822] from NRG Oncology Statistical and Data Management Center, a grant [UG1CA189867] from NCI Community Oncology Research Program, a grant [U10CA180868] from NRG Oncology Operations, and a grant [U24CA196067] from NRG Specimen Bank from the National Cancer Institute and by Artera, Inc. ClinicalTrials.gov numbers NCT00767286, NCT00002597, NCT00769548, NCT00005044, and NCT00033631.)

PURPOSE: Current clinical risk stratification methods for localized prostate cancer are suboptimal, leading to over- and undertreatment. Recently, machine learning approaches using digital histopathology have shown superior prognostic ability in phase III trials. This study aims to develop a clinically usable risk grouping system using multimodal artificial intelligence (MMAI) models that outperform current National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN) risk groups. MATERIALS AND METHODS: The cohort comprised 9,787 patients with localized prostate cancer from eight NRG Oncology randomized phase III trials, treated with radiation therapy, androgen deprivation therapy, and/or chemotherapy. Locked MMAI models, which used digital histopathology images and clinical data, were applied to each patient. Expert consensus on cut points defined low-, intermediate-, and high-risk groups on the basis of 10-year distant metastasis rates of 3% and 10%, respectively. The MMAIs reclassification and prognostic performance were compared with the three-tier NCCN risk groups. RESULTS: The median follow-up for censored patients was 7.9 years. According to NCCN risk categories, 30.4% of patients were low-risk, 25.5% intermediate-risk, and 44.1% high-risk. The MMAI risk classification identified 43.5% of patients as low-risk, 34.6% as intermediate-risk, and 21.8% as high-risk. MMAI reclassified 1,039 (42.0%) patients initially categorized by NCCN. Despite the MMAI low-risk group being larger than the NCCN low-risk group, the 10-year metastasis risks were comparable: 1.7% (95% CI, 0.2 to 3.2) for NCCN and 3.2% (95% CI, 1.7 to 4.7) for MMAI. The overall 10-year metastasis risk for NCCN high-risk patients was 16.6%, with MMAI further stratifying this group into low-, intermediate-, and high-risk, showing metastasis rates of 3.4%, 8.2%, and 26.3%, respectively. CONCLUSION: The MMAI risk grouping system expands the population of men identified as having low metastatic risk and accurately pinpoints a high-risk subset with elevated metastasis rates. This approach aims to prevent both overtreatment and undertreatment in localized prostate cancer, facilitating shared decision making.