Prognostic significance of the logistic regression model for assessing the risk of recurrence in patients with prostate cancer after radical prostatectomy

Purpose of the study. The study’s objective is to investigate the influence of risk factors for recurrence of prostate cancer (PCa) after radical surgical treatment on the unfavourable course of recurrence of the disease with the formation of a set of the most significant factors of a model that reflects the likelihood of relapse.

Materials and methods. A retrospective analysis of clinical, pathomorphological and perioperative parameters of 803 patients with PCa after radical prostatectomy was carried out. By means of logistic regression, a model for assessing the risk of recurrence for patients with prostate cancer was built, which included 7 indicators, one of which was measured by quantity (time between biopsy and start of treatment) and six categorical ones (ISUP grade group, cT, cN+, positive surgical margin, PSA level after surgery, pN+). The construction of a logistic regression model consisted in obtaining a characteristic of the logistic function Ψ for the standard equation y = exp(ψ) / (1 + exp(ψ)).

Results. Substituting the coefficients obtained for each of the indicators, we obtain Ψ to assess the risk of relapse Ψ = 0.485 × X1+ 1.937 × X2 + 0.789 × X3 + 3.229 × X4 + 0.443 × X5 + 0.880 × X6 + 0.015 × X7–6.65. In the resulting formula, each of the regression coefficients describes the size of the contribution of the corresponding factor. In our case, all regression coefficients were positive, which means that this factor increases the overall risk of relapse. The quality of the resulting model is determined by the chi-square = 284.3; p < 0.001; OR = 28.45. The sensitivity of this model was 86.6 %, specificity 81.5 %, diagnostic accuracy 82.7 %.

Conclusion. This model makes it possible to obtain the probability of recurrence after radical prostatectomy depending on the severity of a specific set of predictive signs (a positive effect is predicted for y > 0.5, a negative one for y ≤ 0.5) and the degree of influence of one or a group of predictive signs on the likelihood of relapse, such as the ISUP grade group, locally advanced disease, clinically detectable lymph node lesion, positive surgical margin, PSA level of more than 0.09 ng/ml 1 month after surgery, the presence of regional metastases and the time between biopsy and the start of treatment.

1. Mottet N, van den Bergh RCN, Briers E, Van den Broeck T, Cumberbatch MG, De Santis M, et al. EAU-EANM-ESTRO-ESUR-SIOG Guidelines on Prostate Cancer-2020 Update. Part 1: Screening, Diagnosis, and Local Treatment with Curative Intent. Eur Urol. 2021 Feb;79(2):243–262. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eururo.2020.09.042

2. D’Amico AV, Whittington R, Malkowicz SB, Schultz D, Blank K, Broderick GA, et al. Biochemical outcome after radical prostatectomy, external beam radiation therapy, or interstitial radiation therapy for clinically localized prostate cancer. JAMA. 1998 Sep 16;280(11):969–974. https://doi.org/10.1001/jama.280.11.969

3. Kaprin AD, Kostin AA, Kulchenko NG, Tolkachev AO. Prostate cancer screening based on multivariate analysis. Bulletin of the medical Institute “REAVIZ”: rehabilitation, doctor and health. 2014;(4(16));38–42. (In Russ.).

4. Morlacco A, Modonutti D, Motterle G, Martino F, Dal Moro F, Novara G. Nomograms in Urologic Oncology: Lights and Shadows. J Clin Med. 2021 Mar 2;10(5):980. https://doi.org/10.3390/jcm10050980

5. Ondracek RP, Kattan MW, Murekeyisoni C, Yu C, Kauffman EC, Marshall JR, et al. Validation of the Kattan Nomogram for Prostate Cancer Recurrence After Radical Prostatectomy. J Natl Compr Canc Netw. 2016 Nov;14(11):1395–1401. https://doi.org/10.6004/jnccn.2016.0149

6. Di Trapani E, Luzzago S, Peveri G, Catellani M, Ferro M, Cordima G, et al. A novel nomogram predicting lymph node invasion among patients with prostate cancer: The importance of extracapsular extension at multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging. Urol Oncol 2021 Jul;39(7):431.e15–431.e22. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.urolonc.2020.11.040

7. Gandaglia G, Fossati N, Zaffuto E, Bandini M, Dell’Oglio P, Bravi CA, et al. Development and Internal Validation of a Novel Model to Identify the Candidates for Extended Pelvic Lymph Node Dissection in Prostate Cancer. Eur Urol. 2017 Oct;72(4):632–640. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eururo.2017.03.049

8. Reva SA, Nosov AK, Korol VD, Arnautov AV, Zyatchin IV, Berkut MV, et al. Results of treatment of patients with high-risk prostate cancer: multicenter analysis. Experimental and Clinical Urology. 2020;(3):36–42. (In Russ.). https://doi.org/10.29188/2222-8543-2020-12-3-36-42

9. Nyushko KM, Alekseev BYa, Krasheninnikov AA, Vorobyev NV, Safronova EYu, Kalpinsky AS, et al. Surgical treatment in patients with localized and locally advanced prostate cancer: results of a monocentric study. P.A. Herzen Journal of Oncology. 2018;7(1):4–13. (In Russ.). https://doi.org/10.17116/onkolog2018714-13

10. Blute ML, Bergstralh EJ, Iocca A, Scherer B, Zincke H. Use of Gleason score, prostate specific antigen, seminal vesicle and margin status to predict biochemical failure after radical prostatectomy. J Urol. 2001 Jan;165(1):119–125. https://doi.org/10.1097/00005392-200101000-00030

11. Cooperberg MR, Vickers AJ, Broering JM, Carroll PR. Comparative risk-adjusted mortality outcomes after primary surgery, radiotherapy, or androgen-deprivation therapy for localized prostate cancer. Cancer. 2010; Nov;116(22):5226–5234. https://doi.org/10.1002/cncr.25456

12. Kostin AA, Kulchenko NG, Tolkachev AO. Prostate cancer. Principles of early diagnosis. Bulletin of the Peoples’ Friendship University of Russia. Series: Medicine. 2016;(4):68–76. (In Russ.).

13. Aboyan IA, Badyan KI, Grachev SV, Galstyan AM, Lemeshko SI, Pavlov DS. Prostate cancer: current issues staging and prognostication. Journal of Fundamental Medicine and Biology. 2016;(3):51–55. (In Russ.).

14. Partin AW, Kattan MW, Subong EN, Walsh PC, Wojno KJ, Oesterling JE, et al. Combination of prostate-specific antigen, clinical stage, and Gleason score to predict pathologic stage of localized prostate cancer: a multi-institutional update. JAMA. 1997 May;277(18):1445–1451.

15. D’Amico AV, Whittington R, Malkowicz SB, Wu YH, Chen M, Art M, et al. Combination of the preoperative PSA level, biopsy gleason score, percentage of positive biopsies, and MRI T-stage to predict early PSA failure in men with clinically localized prostate cancer. Urology. 2000 Apr;55(4):572–577. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0090-4295(99)00479-3

16. Gancarczyk KJ1, Wu H, McLeod DG, Kane C, Kusuda L, Lance R, et al. Using the percentage of biopsy cores positive for cancer, pretreatment PSA, and highest biopsy Gleason sum to predict pathologic stage after radical prostatectomy: the Center for Prostate Disease Research nomograms. Urology. 22003 Mar;61(3):589–595. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0090-4295(02)02287-2

17. Kattan MW, Vickers AJ, Yu C, Bianco FG, Cronin AM, Eastham JA, et al. Preoperative and postoperative nomograms incorporating surgeon experience for clinically localized prostate cancer. Cancer. 2009 Mar;115(5):1005–1010. https://doi.org/10.1002/cncr.24083

18. Cooperberg MR, Hilton JF, Carroll PR. The CAPRA-S score: a straightforward tool for improved prediction of outcomes after radical prostatectomy. Cancer. Nov;117(22):5039–5046. https://doi.org/10.1002/cncr.26169

19. Schroeck FR, Sun L, Freedland SJ, Jayachandran J, Robertson CN, Moul JW. Race and prostate weight as independent predictors for biochemical recurrence after radical prostatectomy. Prostate Cancer Prostatic Dis. 2008;11(4):371–376. https://doi.org/10.1038/pcan.2008.18

20. Chun FK, Graefen M, Briganti A, Gallina A, Hopp J, et al. Initial biopsy outcome prediction – head-to-head comparison of a logistic regression-based nomogram versus artificial neural network. Eur Urol. 2007 May;51(5):1236–1240; discussion 1241–1243. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eururo.2006.07.021

21. Nyushko KM, Perepukhov VM, Gavrilova VD, Alekseev BYa. Nomograms for predicting the risk of biochemical recurrence in patients with prostate cancer after surgery. Cancer Urology. 2021;17(4):100–110. (In Russ.). https://doi.org/10.17650/1726-9776-2021-17-4-100-110