You have accessJournal of UrologyProstate Cancer: Localized II1 Apr 2015PD30-11 FATAL FAMILY HISTORY OF PROSTATE CANCER AND APPARENT MODE OF DISEASE TRANSMISSION: INDEPENDENT PREDICTORS OF RADICAL PROSTATECTOMY OUTCOMES? Kathleen Herkommer, Simon Heister, Juergen Gschwend, and Martina Kron Kathleen HerkommerKathleen Herkommer More articles by this author , Simon HeisterSimon Heister More articles by this author , Juergen GschwendJuergen Gschwend More articles by this author , and Martina KronMartina Kron More articles by this author View All Author Informationhttps://doi.org/10.1016/j.juro.2015.02.1832AboutPDF ToolsAdd to favoritesDownload CitationsTrack CitationsPermissionsReprints ShareFacebookTwitterLinked InEmail INTRODUCTION AND OBJECTIVES Family history is an established risk factor for prostate cancer (PCa), while the impact on survival is still unclear. For fatal family history there is evidence of an increased risk for PCa and for worse survival. Aim of this study was to determine the impact of fatal family history and apparent mode of disease transmission on long time survival after radical prostatectomy. METHODS In this prospective multi-center study, 3335 patients of the German national research project “Familial Prostate Cancer” who underwent radical prostatectomy and hat at least one first-degree relative with PCa were stratified according to family history (fatal family history brother, FFH brother vs. fatal family history father, FFH father vs. non-fatal family history, NFFH) and apparent mode of disease transmission (male-to-male, MTM vs. non-male-to-male, NMTM). FFH father was defined as having a father died of PCa, FFH brother as a brother died of PCa and NFFH as no first-degree relative died of PCa. MTM was defined as a father-son-transmission and NMTM as only brothers being affected by PCa. Biochemical recurrence-free survival (BRFS) and cancer-specific survival (CSS) for each group were analyzed according to the method of Kaplan and Meier and compared in a proportional hazard regression, calculating hazard ratio (HR) and p-value. RESULTS FFH father patients were younger (median age at surgery 62.6 years) compared to NFFH patients (63.7 years), FFH brother patients were older (64.4 years). FFH brother patients had less organ confined tumors (60.0 %) than NFFH patients (67.0 %) and FFH father patients (71.1 %). FFH patients had a better BRFS than NFFH patients (FFH brother: HR 0.797, FFH father: HR 0.826, p = 0.075) and a better CSS (FFH brother: HR 0.649, FFH father: HR 0.477, p = 0.175). MTM patients were younger (median age at surgery 62.8 years) than NMTM patients (64.3 years) and had a lower PSA-value at time of diagnosis (median 7.5 ng/ml vs. 8.0 ng/ml). Differences in Gleason-grading occurred in Gleason-Score 7a (MTM: 30.4 % vs. NMTM: 26.7 %) and 7b - 10 (MTM: 23.3 % vs. NMTM: 27.1 %). BRFS and CSS were comparable in both groups (BRFS: MTM vs. NMTM: HR 1.056, p = 0.434; CSS: MTM vs. NMTM: HR 1.029, p = 0.900). CONCLUSIONS In multivariate analysis, FFH and apparent mode of disease transmission were not independent predictors of BRFS and CSS. Differences seen in subgroups might be caused by increased PSA screening starting at an earlier age and subsequent surgical treatment (lead-time bias). © 2015 by American Urological Association Education and Research, Inc.FiguresReferencesRelatedDetails Volume 193Issue 4SApril 2015Page: e658 Advertisement Copyright & Permissions© 2015 by American Urological Association Education and Research, Inc.MetricsAuthor Information Kathleen Herkommer More articles by this author Simon Heister More articles by this author Juergen Gschwend More articles by this author Martina Kron More articles by this author Expand All Advertisement Advertisement PDF downloadLoading ...