Is the Post-Radical Prostatectomy Gleason Score a Valid Predictor of Mortality after Neoadjuvant Hormonal Treatment?

Purpose: To evaluate the validity of the Gleason score after neoadjuvant hormonal treatment as predictor of diseasespecific mortality after radical prostatectomy. Patients and Methods: A total of 2,880 patients with a complete data set and a mean follow-up of 10.3 years were studied; 425 of them (15%) had a history of hormonal treatment prior to surgery. The cumulative incidence of deaths from prostate cancer was determined by univariate and multivariate competing risk analysis. Cox proportional hazard models for competing risks were used to study combined effects of the variables on prostate cancer-specific mortality. Results: A higher portion of specimens with a history of neoadjuvant hormonal treatment were assigned Gleason scores of 8–10 (28 vs. 17%, p < 0.0001). The mortality curves in the Gleason score strata <8 vs. 8–10 were at large congruent in patients with and without neoadjuvant hormonal treatment. In patients with neoadjuvant hormonal treatment, a Gleason score of 8–10 was an independent predictor of prostate cancer-specific mortality; the hazard ratio was, however, somewhat lower than in patients without neoadjuvant hormonal treatment. Conclusion: This study suggests that the prognostic value of the post-radical prostatectomy Gleason score is not meaningfully jeopardized by heterogeneous neoadjuvant hormonal treatment in a routine clinical setting

Level of education and mortality after radical prostatectomy

Estimating the risk of competing mortality is of importance in men with early prostate cancer to choose the most appropriate way of management and to avoid over- or under-treatment. In this study, we investigated the impact of the level of education in this context. The study sample consisted of 2630 patients with complete data on level of education (college, university degree, master craftsmen, comparable profession, or others), histopathological tumor stage (organ confined or extracapsular), lymph node status (negative or positive), and prostatectomy specimen Gleason score (<7, 7, or 8-10) who underwent radical prostatectomy between 1992 and 2007. Overall, prostate cancer-specific, competing, and second cancer-related mortalities were study endpoints. Cox proportional hazard models for competing risks were used to study combined effects of the variables on these endpoints. A higher level of education was independently associated with decreased overall mortality after radical prostatectomy (hazard ratio [HR]: 0.75, 95% confidence interval [95% CI]: 0.62-0.91, P = 0.0037). The mortality difference was attributable to decreased second cancer mortality (HR: 0.59, 95% CI: 0.40-0.85, P = 0.0052) and noncancer mortality (HR: 0.73, 95% CI: 0.55-0.98, P = 0.0345) but not to differences in prostate cancer-specific mortality (HR: 1.16, 95% CI: 0.79-1.69, P = 0.4536 in the full model). In conclusion, the level of education might serve as an independent prognostic parameter supplementary to age, comorbidity, and smoking status to estimate the risk of competing mortality and to choose optimal treatment for men with early prostate cancer who are candidates for radical prostatectomy