308 Background: Risk stratification in localised prostate cancer (PCa) based on clinicopathological parameters is inadequate, leading to under- and over-treatment. We used CHHiP trial data to externally validate a previously-developed MMAI prognostic model with potential for cost-effective improved treatment personalisation. Methods: H trial primary endpoint) and development of distant metastases (DM) were performed with models including age and MMAI as continuous (per 0.1 increase) and categorical (ArteraAI pre-validated 3-tier risk groups) variables. The additional prognostic value of MMAI beyond UK-recommended Cambridge Prognostic Group (CPG) and NCCN risk group models was assessed by change in Concordance Index and Likelihood Ratio Test (LRT). Results: Of 1854 patients with centrally-reviewed pathology, 1797 (97%) had clinical data and H&E with sufficient tumour for MMAI analysis. Median follow up was 14.3 years. Patients were classified as MMAI High (129, 7.2%), Intermediate (885, 49.2%) or Low (783, 43.6%). In univariable analysis, high MMAI score was significantly associated with increased BCR risk, as both a categorical variable (MMAI High risk hazard ratio (HR) = 5.07, 95%CI = 3.77-6.81, p=<0.001, MMAI Intermediate-risk HR = 1.90, 1.52-2.36, p=<0.001), and continuous variable (MMAI raw score HR = 1.55, 1.44-1.67, p=<0.001). MMAI was also significantly associated with DM. Addition of MMAI to CPG and NCCN multivariable models significantly improves discrimination (C-index) and overall fit (change in LRT) for BCR and DM (Table 1). Conclusions: ArteraAI MMAI improves prediction of BCR and DM in CHHiP over standard criteria. This first large-scale external validation in a contemporary UK cohort of localised PCa with rigorously standardized care will inform future prospective trials of MMAI biomarker-guided PCa treatment selection. Endpoint Model C index (MMAI risk group) ΔLRT χ² (p) C index (MMAI raw score) ΔLRT χ² (p) BCR CPG + ageCPG + age + MMAI 0.620.65+0.03 p=<0.001 55.6 p=<0.001 0.620.67+0.05 p=<0.001 67.5 p=<0.001 BCR NCCN + ageNCCN + age + MMAI 0.590.64+0.05 p=<0.001 67.2 p=<0.001 0.590.66+0.07 p=<0.001 80.9 p=<0.001 DM CPG + ageCPG + age + MMAI 0.650.71+0.06 p=0.001 35.3 p=<0.001 0.650.73+0.08p=<0.001 47.0 p=<0.001 DM NCCN + ageNCCN + age + MMAI 0.610.70+0.09 p=<0.001 43.4 p=<0.001 0.610.72+0.11 p=<0.001 55.8 p=<0.001 Total, n=1794. Events BCR, n = 426 (23.7%), DM, n = 121 (6.7%).
Building similarity graph...
Analyzing shared references across papers
Loading...
Sarah Stewart
Elizabeth Limb
Holly Tovey
Journal of Clinical Oncology
Institute of Cancer Research
Royal Marsden NHS Foundation Trust
Clatterbridge Cancer Centre NHS Foundation Trust
Building similarity graph...
Analyzing shared references across papers
Loading...
Stewart et al. (Sun,) studied this question.
www.synapsesocial.com/papers/69a7cc8ed48f933b5eed822e — DOI: https://doi.org/10.1200/jco.2026.44.7_suppl.308
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: