INTRODUCTION: The use of accepted prostate cancer risk stratification groups based on prostate-specific antigen, T stage and Gleason score assists in therapeutic treatment decision-making, clinical trial design and outcome reporting. The utility of integrating novel prognostic factors into an updated risk stratification schema is an area of current debate. The purpose of this work is to critically review the available literature on novel pre-treatment prognostic factors and alternative prostate cancer risk stratification schema to assess the feasibility and need for changes to existing risk stratification systems. METHODS: A systematic literature search was conducted to identify original research publications and review articles on prognostic factors and risk stratification in prostate cancer. Search terms included risk stratification, risk assessment, prostate cancer or neoplasms, and prognostic factors. Abstracted information was assessed to draw conclusions regarding the potential utility of changes to existing risk stratification schema. RESULTS: The critical review identified three specific clinically relevant potential changes to the most commonly used three-group risk stratification system: (1) the creation of a very-low risk category; (2) the splitting of intermediate-risk into a low- and high-intermediate risk groups; and (3) the clarification of the interface between intermediate- and high-risk disease. Novel pathological factors regarding high-grade cancer, subtypes of Gleason score 7 and percentage biopsy cores positive were also identified as potentially important risk-stratification factors. CONCLUSIONS: Multiple studies of prognostic factors have been performed to create currently utilized prostate cancer risk stratification systems. We propose potential changes to existing systems.
INTRODUCTION: The use of accepted prostate cancer risk stratification groups based on prostate-specific antigen, T stage and Gleason score assists in therapeutic treatment decision-making, clinical trial design and outcome reporting. The utility of integrating novel prognostic factors into an updated risk stratification schema is an area of current debate. The purpose of this work is to critically review the available literature on novel pre-treatment prognostic factors and alternative prostate cancer risk stratification schema to assess the feasibility and need for changes to existing risk stratification systems. METHODS: A systematic literature search was conducted to identify original research publications and review articles on prognostic factors and risk stratification in prostate cancer. Search terms included risk stratification, risk assessment, prostate cancer or neoplasms, and prognostic factors. Abstracted information was assessed to draw conclusions regarding the potential utility of changes to existing risk stratification schema. RESULTS: The critical review identified three specific clinically relevant potential changes to the most commonly used three-group risk stratification system: (1) the creation of a very-low risk category; (2) the splitting of intermediate-risk into a low- and high-intermediate risk groups; and (3) the clarification of the interface between intermediate- and high-risk disease. Novel pathological factors regarding high-grade cancer, subtypes of Gleason score 7 and percentage biopsy cores positive were also identified as potentially important risk-stratification factors. CONCLUSIONS: Multiple studies of prognostic factors have been performed to create currently utilized prostate cancer risk stratification systems. We propose potential changes to existing systems.
Authors: M Roach; J Lu; M V Pilepich; S O Asbell; M Mohiuddin; R Terry; D Grignon; M Mohuidden Journal: Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys Date: 2000-06-01 Impact factor: 7.038
Authors: James Mohler; Robert R Bahnson; Barry Boston; J Erik Busby; Anthony D'Amico; James A Eastham; Charles A Enke; Daniel George; Eric Mark Horwitz; Robert P Huben; Philip Kantoff; Mark Kawachi; Michael Kuettel; Paul H Lange; Gary Macvicar; Elizabeth R Plimack; Julio M Pow-Sang; Mack Roach; Eric Rohren; Bruce J Roth; Dennis C Shrieve; Matthew R Smith; Sandy Srinivas; Przemyslaw Twardowski; Patrick C Walsh Journal: J Natl Compr Canc Netw Date: 2010-02 Impact factor: 11.908
Authors: David F Penson; Gary D Grossfeld; Yu-Ping Li; James M Henning; Deborah P Lubeck; Peter R Carroll Journal: J Urol Date: 2002-04 Impact factor: 7.450
Authors: Michael Aleman; Pierre I Karakiewicz; Patrick Kupelian; Michael W Kattan; Markus Graefen; Ilias Cagiannos; James Eastham; Peter T Scardino; Hartwig Huland; Eric A Klein Journal: Urology Date: 2003-07 Impact factor: 2.649
Authors: P Sutcliffe; S Hummel; E Simpson; T Young; A Rees; A Wilkinson; F Hamdy; N Clarke; J Staffurth Journal: Health Technol Assess Date: 2009-01 Impact factor: 4.014
Authors: Patrick A Kupelian; Louis Potters; Deepak Khuntia; Jay P Ciezki; Chandana A Reddy; Alwyn M Reuther; Thomas P Carlson; Eric A Klein Journal: Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys Date: 2004-01-01 Impact factor: 7.038
Authors: Rossano Girometti; Martina Pancot; Marco Andrea Signor; Martina Urbani; Luca Balestreri; Chiara Zuiani Journal: Radiol Med Date: 2018-05-12 Impact factor: 3.469
Authors: Boris Gershman; Paul Maroni; Jon C Tilburt; Robert J Volk; Badrinath Konety; Charles L Bennett; Alexander Kutikov; Marc C Smaldone; Victor Chen; Simon P Kim Journal: World J Urol Date: 2019-01-22 Impact factor: 4.226
Authors: Alex Z Wang; Amir H Lebastchi; Luke P O'Connor; Michael Ahdoot; Sherif Mehralivand; Nitin Yerram; Samir S Taneja; Arvin K George; Rafael Sanchez-Salas; John F Ward; Pilar Laguna; Jean de la Rosette; Peter A Pinto Journal: World J Urol Date: 2021-01-02 Impact factor: 4.226
Authors: David Tiberi; George Rodrigues; Tom Pickles; Jim Morris; Juanita Crook; Andre-Guy Martin; Fabio Cury; Charles Catton; Himu Lukka; Andrew Warner; Daniel Taussky Journal: Can Urol Assoc J Date: 2017 Mar-Apr Impact factor: 1.862