Abstract:Background: Intraductal carcinoma of the prostate (IDC-P) is an adverse prognosticator of prostate cancer (PCa). However, the role of IDC-P proportion and architectural patterns in patient outcome remain unclear. Methods: Data of 644 de novo metastatic PCa (mPCa) patients between 2010-2017 were retrospectively analyzed. IDC-P was identified from 12-core prostate biopsy. IDC-P proportion were calculated. IDC-P were classified into two architectural patterns according to the 2016 WHO classification: pattern-1 (loose cribriform or micropapillary) and pattern-2 (solid or dense cribriform). Propensity-score matching (PSM) was conducted to balance the baseline characteristics between patients with and without IDC-P. Kaplan-Meier curves and COX regression were utilized in survival analysis. The endpoints were castration-resistant PCa free survival (CFS) and overall survival (OS). Results: Totally, 180/644 (28.0%) patients harboured IDC-P. IDC-P ≥10% (CFS: HR: 2.27, p < 0.001; OS: HR: 2.63, p < 0.001) and IDC-P pattern-2 (CFS: HR: 1.98, p < 0.001; OS: HR: 2.11, p = 0.003) were independently associated with worse prognosis in the post-PSM cohort. Based on these two risk factors, all men could be classified into five groups with significant differences in survival (Table 1). Patients in Group 0 (Without IDC-P) and IDC-P-Group 1 (IDC-P < 10% AND IDC-P pattern-1) had favorable mCFS (18.0- vs. 17.8-Mo, p = 0.663) and mOS (68.8-Mo vs. Not reached, p = 0.655), while men of IDC-P-Group 4 (IDC-P ≥ 10% AND IDC-P pattern-2) harboured the worst outcomes (mCFS: 8.4-Mo; mOS: 29.9-Mo). IDC-P-Group 2 (IDC-P < 10% AND IDC-P pattern-2; mCFS: 14.2-Mo; mOS: 45.9-Mo) and IDC-P-Group 3 (IDC-P ≥ 10% AND IDC-P pattern-1; mCFS: 11.9-Mo; mOS: 39.7-Mo) had intermediate prognosis. Conclusions: IDC-P proportion ≥10% and pattern-2 were two unfavorable prognosticators for mPCa. Pathological reporting criterion based on IDC-P could further improve the prediction of patient outcome and optimize treatment decision.Table: 800PThe CFS for patients of different IDC-P groups and patients without IDC-P after propensity-score matchingA. The survival outcomes for de novo mPCa patients of different IDC-P groupsIDC-P groupCASEMedian CFS (95%CI)Log-rank testGroup 0Group 1Group 2Group 3Group 4Group 0180 (50.0%)17.8 (15.3-20.3)-0.6630.0190.1040.000IDC-P-Group 141 (11.4%)18.0 (12.7-23.2)0.663-0.1940.2640.001IDC-P-Group 258 (16.1%)14.2 (10.1-18.3)0.0190.194-0.7850.014IDC-P-Group 322 (6.1%)11.9 (6.0-17.8)0.1040.2640.785-0.080IDC-P-Group 459 (16.4%)8.4 (6.7-10.1)0.0000.0010.0140.080-IDC-P groupCASEMedian OS (95%CI)Log-rank testGroup 0Group 1Group 2Group 3Group 4Group 0180 (50.0%)68.8 (58.9-78.7)-0.6550.0980.0280.000IDC-P-Group 141 (11.4%)Not reached0.655-0.5690.2010.049IDC-P-Group 258 (16.1%)45.9 (29.7-62.1)0.0980.569-0.5300.061IDC-P-Group 322 (6.1%)39.7 (25.1-54.3)0.0280.2010.530-0.441IDC-P-Group 459 (16.4%)29.9 (20.7-39.2)0.0000.0490.0610.441-B. The survival outcomes for de novo mPCa patients of different risk groupRisk groupCASEMedian CFS (95%CI)Log-rank testGroup 1 or 0Group 2 or 3Group 4Favorable-risk: Group 1 or 0221 (61.4%)17.8 (15.5-20.1)-0.0090.000Intermediate-risk: Group 2 or 380 (22.2%)14.1 (10.3-17.9)0.009-0.007Poor-risk: Group 459 (16.4%)8.4 (6.7-10.1)0.0000.007-Risk groupCASEMedian OS (95%CI)Log-rank testGroup 1 or 0Group 2 or 3Group 4Favorable-risk: Group 1 or 0221 (61.4%)72.6 (63.8-72.6)-0.0270.000Intermediate-risk: Group 2 or 380 (22.2%)43.2 (35.2-51.1)0.027-0.080Poor-risk: Group 459 (16.4%)29.9 (20.7-39.2)0.0000.080-CFS: CRPC-free survival; OS: Overall survival; IDC-P: Intraductal carcinoma of the prostate; CI: Confidence interval; mPCa: metastatic prostate cancer Open table in a new tab CFS: CRPC-free survival; OS: Overall survival; IDC-P: Intraductal carcinoma of the prostate; CI: Confidence interval; mPCa: metastatic prostate cancer Legal entity responsible for the study: Department of Urology, Institute of Urology, West China Hospital, Sichuan University. Funding: This work was supported by the National Natural Science Foundation of China (NSFC 81672547, 81402110, and 81272820); Science and Technology Support Program of Sichuan Province (2015SZ0142); The 1.3.5 project for disciplines of excellence, West China Hospital, Sichuan University. Disclosure: All authors have declared no conflicts of interest.

Proposal for an optimised definition of adverse pathology (unfavourable histology) that predicts metastatic risk in prostatic adenocarcinoma independent of grade group and pathological stage

Evaluating the effect of histopathological parameters of prostate adenocarcinoma on prognosis in radical prostatectomy specimens

Pathological Assessment of Men with Grade Group 2 Prostate Cancer

Identification and Validation of the Prognostic Impact of Metastatic Prostate Cancer Phenotypes

A novel, AI-generated morphologic biomarker to predict prostate cancer recurrence in patients with intermediate risk of progression.

Comparison of Pathologist and Artificial Intelligence-based Grading for Prediction of Metastatic Outcomes After Radical Prostatectomy

DESNT: A Poor Prognosis Category of Human Prostate Cancer

Upgrading of Grade Group 1 Prostate Cancer at Prostatectomy: Germline Risk Factors in a Prospective Cohort

Management of prostate cancer patients with locally adverse pathologic features after radical prostatectomy: feasibility of active surveillance for cases with Gleason grade 3 + 4 = 7

Tumor necrosis in radical prostatectomies with high-grade prostate cancer is associated with multiple poor prognostic features and a high prevalence of residual disease

Abstract 6176: Identifying poor prognosis stage I lung adenocarcinoma patients through novel morphological biomarker based on computational pathology

Diagnostic Performance of a Nomogram Incorporating Cribriform Morphology for the Prediction of Adverse Pathology in Prostate Cancer at Radical Prostatectomy

Comparison of pathologist and deep learning–based prostate cancer grading for prediction of metastatic outcomes in primary prostate cancer.

Pathological upgrading at radical prostatectomy for patients with Grade Group 1 prostate cancer: implications of confirmatory testing for patients considering active surveillance

A Grading System for Invasive Pulmonary Adenocarcinoma: A Proposal From the International Association for the Study of Lung Cancer Pathology Committee

Proposal for a Novel Histological Scoring System as a Potential Grading Approach for Muscle-invasive Urothelial Bladder Cancer Correlating with Disease Aggressiveness and Patient Outcomes

The Prognostic Value of the Proportion and Subtype Patterns of Intraductal Carcinoma of the Prostate in Patients with De Novo Metastatic Prostate Cancer: A Propensity Score Matching Study

Nondestructive 3D pathology with analysis of nuclear features for prostate cancer risk assessment

Validation Study of New IASLC Histology Grading System in Stage I Non-Mucinous Adenocarcinoma Comparing With Minimally Invasive Adenocarcinoma

Prognostic Impact and Clinical Implications of Adverse Tumor Grade in Very Favorable Low- and Intermediate-Risk Prostate Cancer Patients Treated with Robot-Assisted Radical Prostatectomy: Experience of a Single Tertiary Referral Center

Determination of Whether Apex or Non-Apex Prostate Cancer is the Best Candidate for the Use of Prostate-Specific Antigen Density to Predict Pathological Grade Group Upgrading and Upstaging after Radical Prostatectomy