Comparing NCCN-based risk groups to the PROTEUS definition of high-risk localized prostate cancer to inform peri-operative care.

C Christopher J.D. Wallis (Division of Urology and Surgical Oncology, Department of Surgery, Princess Margaret Cancer Centre, University Health Network, University of Toronto, Toronto, ON, Canada) D David-Dan Nguyen (Division of Urology, University of Toronto, Toronto, ON, Canada) B Bobby Shayegan A Aly-Khan A. Lalani (Juravinski Cancer Centre, McMaster University, Hamilton, ON, Canada) G Geoffrey Gotto (University of Calgary, Calgary, AB, Canada) A Amanda Elizabeth Hird (Division of Urology, Sunnybrook Health Sciences Center, University of Toronto, Toronto, ON, Canada) A Andrea Kokorovic (Department of Urology, Dalhousie University, Halifax, NS, Canada) M Melissa Jessica Huynh (Division of Urology, Department of Surgery, Western University, London, ON, Canada) A Andrew Feifer (Trillium Health Partners, Mississauga, ON, Canada) R Ricardo Rendon (Department of Urology, Dalhousie University, Halifax, NS, Canada) R Rodney H. Breau (University of Ottawa, Ottawa) A Antonio Finelli (University of Toronto, Toronto, ON, Canada) N Neil Eric Fleshner (Division of Urologic Oncology, Princess Margaret Cancer Centre, University Health Network, Toronto, ON, Canada) G Girish S. Kulkarni (Cancer Clinical Research Unit (CCU), Princess Margaret Cancer Center, University Health Network, Toronto, ON, Canada) A Alexandre R. Zlotta (Sinai Health System, Toronto, ON, Canada)

Abstract

344 Background: There are varying definitions of high-risk prostate cancer. The most commonly used is the NCCN definition which defines patients as having high- or very-high-risk disease if they have any of clinical T3 or greater disease, Gleason Grade Group 4 or 5, or PSA > 20ng/mL. Recent studies of androgen receptor signaling inhibitors have employed alternative definitions of baseline risk. Herein, we compared patient distributions and oncologic outcomes for patients undergoing radical prostatectomy according to two definitions of high-risk disease. Methods: Using an institutional database of patients undergoing radical prostatectomy, we characterized patients as having high-risk disease either by using NCCN risk groups (any of Gleason grade group [GGG] 4 or 5; or Clinical T3 or T4; or PSA >20 ng/mL) or using the definition employed in the PROTEUS trial (overall GGG ≥3 and at least one of the following: GGG5 in at least one core; or GGG4 in at least 2 cores, each with >80% involvement; or GGG3+ in ≥6 systematic cores; or GGG3+ in ≥3 systematic cores and PSA ≥20 ng/mL). Descriptive statistics were used to compare patient distributions. Area under the receiver operating curve (AUC) were compared between NCCN- and PROTEUS-based definitions of high-risk disease for oncologic outcomes including extra-prostatic extension, positive surgical margins, and PSA >0.1 or >0.2 at 12 months post-operatively. Results: Among 424 patients undergoing radical prostatectomy in the dataset, 358 had complete pathological biopsy data allowing for nuanced pre-operative risk stratification. Of these, 62 (17%) were classified as high-risk per NCCN criteria while 44 (12%) were classified as high-risk per PROTEUS criteria. Among 62 patients classified as high-risk per NCCN criteria, 38 met the PROTEUS criteria and 24 did not. Conversely, among 44 patients classified as high-risk per PROTEUS criteria, 38 met the NCCN high-risk criteria and 6 did not. Using AUC, the two definitions were comparably predictive of extra-prostatic extension (NCCN 0.56, 95% CI 0.52-0.60; PROTEUS 0.56, 95% CI 0.53-0.60; p=0.96), positive surgical margins (NCCN 0.54, 95% CI 0.49-0.58; PROTEUS 0.52, 95% CI 0.49-0.56; p=0.44), PSA >0.1 at 12 months post-operatively (NCCN 0.54, 95% CI 0.46-0.62; PROTEUS 0.59, 95% CI 0.51-0.67; p=0.22), and PSA >0.2 at 12 months post-operatively (NCCN 0.59, 95% CI 0.49-0.69; PROTEUS 0.64, 95% CI 0.54-0.75; P=0.32). Conclusions: This comparative analysis based on highly granular data shows that prostate cancer patients defined as high-risk based on NCCN risk groups, or high-risk criteria employed in the PROTEUS clinical trial, have comparable outcomes. Therefore, identifying patients suitable for treatment intensification with peri-operative systemic therapy is critical in this evolving clinical landscape.

Article Details

Volume / Issue Vol. 44, Issue 7_suppl
Published March 01, 2026
Pages 344-344
ISSN 0732-183X
Publisher Lippincott Williams & Wilkins

Journal Info

Journal of Clinical Oncology

Lippincott Williams & Wilkins

ISSN: 0732-183X Health Sciences

Authors (15)

C

Christopher J.D. Wallis

Division of Urology and Surgical Oncology, Department of Surgery, Princess Margaret Cancer Centre, University Health Network, University of Toronto, Toronto, ON, Canada

D

David-Dan Nguyen

Division of Urology, University of Toronto, Toronto, ON, Canada

B

Bobby Shayegan

A

Aly-Khan A. Lalani

Juravinski Cancer Centre, McMaster University, Hamilton, ON, Canada

G

Geoffrey Gotto

University of Calgary, Calgary, AB, Canada

A

Amanda Elizabeth Hird

Division of Urology, Sunnybrook Health Sciences Center, University of Toronto, Toronto, ON, Canada

A

Andrea Kokorovic

Department of Urology, Dalhousie University, Halifax, NS, Canada

M

Melissa Jessica Huynh

Division of Urology, Department of Surgery, Western University, London, ON, Canada

A

Andrew Feifer

Trillium Health Partners, Mississauga, ON, Canada

R

Ricardo Rendon

Department of Urology, Dalhousie University, Halifax, NS, Canada

R

Rodney H. Breau

University of Ottawa, Ottawa

A

Antonio Finelli

University of Toronto, Toronto, ON, Canada

N

Neil Eric Fleshner

Division of Urologic Oncology, Princess Margaret Cancer Centre, University Health Network, Toronto, ON, Canada

G

Girish S. Kulkarni

Cancer Clinical Research Unit (CCU), Princess Margaret Cancer Center, University Health Network, Toronto, ON, Canada

A

Alexandre R. Zlotta

Sinai Health System, Toronto, ON, Canada