Prognostic Nomogram Predicting Survival and Propensity Score Matching with Demographics and Comparative Analysis of Prostate Small Cell and Large Cell Neuroendocrine Carcinoma

Authors:
Open Access
Publisher website
Google Scholar
Abstract
Background: This retrospective study aims to examine the patient demographics, survival rates, and treatment methods for small-cell neuroendocrine carcinoma (SCNEC) and large-cell neuroendocrine carcinoma (LCNEC) of prostate origin while also identifying the main differences between common types of prostate cancer with comparative analysis for survival. Methods: Our analysis utilized the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results database (SEER), and data was collected from 2000–2020. Cox proportional hazards and chi-squared analysis were used for statistical analysis. Results: A total of 718 cases of prostate small and large neuroendocrine carcinoma were identified. The median age was 71.5 years, and the median follow-up was 11.0 years (95% confidence interval (95% CI) = 9.2–12.8). Most patients were over the age of 80 years (33.8%) and Caucasian (74.4%). The overall 5-year survival was 8.0% (95% CI = 6.8–9.2). The 5-year OS for Caucasians was 7.3% (95% C.I. 6.0–8.3). For Black Americans, the 5-year OS was 11.9% (95% C.I. 7.3–16.5). For Hispanics, the 5-year OS was 12.2% (95% C.I. 7.7–16.7). The 5-year cause-specific survival (CSS) was 16.2% (95% CI = 14.3–18.1). For treatment modality, the five-year survival for each were as follows: chemotherapy, 3.5% (95% CI = 2.1–4.9); surgery, 18.2% (95% CI = 13.6–22.8); multimodality therapy (surgery and chemotherapy), 4.8% (95% CI = 1.7–7.9); and combination (chemoradiation with surgery), 5.0% (95% CI = 1.0–9.0). The prognostic nomogram created to predict patient survivability matched the findings from the statistical analysis with a statistical difference found in race, income, housing, stage, and nodal status. The nomogram also indicated a slight increase in mortality with tumors of greater size. This analysis showed a slight increase in mortality for patients of Asian race. In addition, there was a significant increase in death for patients with stage 3 tumors, as well as patients who underwent surgery and radiation. Furthermore, we performed propensity score matching for survival differences, and no survival difference was found between SCNEC and LCNEC. Conclusions: Asian patients, larger tumor size, and distant disease were associated with worse long-term clinical outcomes. By leveraging insights from registry-based studies, clinicians can better strategize treatment options, improving patient outcomes in this challenging oncology arena.

This publication has 31 references indexed in Scilit: