Literature DB >> 22925240

Risk of Gleason grade inaccuracies in prostate cancer patients eligible for active surveillance.

Ronald H Shapiro1, Peter A S Johnstone.   

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate increases in Gleason grade because of sample bias after immediate rebiopsy or prostatectomy for patients considered active surveillance candidates by institutional protocol.
METHODS: A contemporary medical literature search was performed using PubMed. Series were included if the patients had no more than Gleason 6 prostate cancer score on initial biopsy and underwent a prostatectomy or rebiopsy within 6 months. Patient sets using neoadjuvant hormonal therapy or focal prostate treatment were excluded.
RESULTS: In patients who would have fallen into the D'Amico low-risk prostate cancer group, 42% were found to have an increase in the Gleason score: 32% resulting in grade ≥ 7 disease and 3% grade ≥ 8. For series that limited patients to the Epstein criteria, Gleason upgrades were 34%, 29%, and 2%, respectively. Of the 139 patients whose second tissue specimens were from a rebiopsy, 17% were found to have grade ≥ 7 disease, whereas only 1 patient had grade ≥ 8. There were no consistent multivariate analysis variables among the series to predict for an increase in Gleason score.
CONCLUSION: More than one third of the patients were found to have been undergraded based on their initial prostate biopsy. Therefore, 1 biopsy alone may not be sufficient to offer active surveillance as an option. Further exploration is necessary to better ensure low-risk disease before active surveillance.
Copyright © 2012 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2012        PMID: 22925240     DOI: 10.1016/j.urology.2012.06.022

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Urology        ISSN: 0090-4295            Impact factor:   2.649


  20 in total

1.  Relationship between Gleason score and apparent diffusion coefficients of diffusion-weighted magnetic resonance imaging in prostate cancer patients.

Authors:  Tae Heon Kim; Chan Kyo Kim; Byung Kwan Park; Hwang Gyun Jeon; Byung Chang Jeong; Seong Il Seo; Hyun Moo Lee; Han Yong Choi; Seong Soo Jeon
Journal:  Can Urol Assoc J       Date:  2016-11-10       Impact factor: 1.862

2.  Active Surveillance Versus Watchful Waiting for Localized Prostate Cancer: A Model to Inform Decisions.

Authors:  Stacy Loeb; Qinlian Zhou; Uwe Siebert; Ursula Rochau; Beate Jahn; Nikolai Mühlberger; H Ballentine Carter; Herbert Lepor; R Scott Braithwaite
Journal:  Eur Urol       Date:  2017-08-23       Impact factor: 20.096

3.  First report of robot-assisted transperineal fusion versus off-target biopsy in patients undergoing repeat prostate biopsy.

Authors:  S Kaufmann; J Mischinger; B Amend; S Rausch; M Adam; M Scharpf; F Fend; U Kramer; M Notohamiprodjo; K Nikolaou; A Stenzl; J Bedke; S Kruck
Journal:  World J Urol       Date:  2016-11-15       Impact factor: 4.226

4.  Oncological and functional outcomes 1 year after radical prostatectomy for very-low-risk prostate cancer: results from the prospective LAPPRO trial.

Authors:  Stefan Carlsson; Fredrik Jäderling; Anna Wallerstedt; Tommy Nyberg; Johan Stranne; Thordis Thorsteinsdottir; Sigrid V Carlsson; Anders Bjartell; Jonas Hugosson; Eva Haglind; Gunnar Steineck
Journal:  BJU Int       Date:  2016-03-18       Impact factor: 5.588

5.  Disease reclassification risk with stringent criteria and frequent monitoring in men with favourable-risk prostate cancer undergoing active surveillance.

Authors:  John W Davis; John F Ward; Curtis A Pettaway; Xuemei Wang; Deborah Kuban; Steven J Frank; Andrew K Lee; Louis L Pisters; Surena F Matin; Jay B Shah; Jose A Karam; Brian F Chapin; John N Papadopoulos; Mary Achim; Karen E Hoffman; Thomas J Pugh; Seungtaek Choi; Patricia Troncoso; Christopher J Logothetis; Jeri Kim
Journal:  BJU Int       Date:  2015-07-04       Impact factor: 5.588

6.  Identifying in vivo DCE MRI markers associated with microvessel architecture and gleason grades of prostate cancer.

Authors:  Asha Singanamalli; Mirabela Rusu; Rachel E Sparks; Natalie N C Shih; Amy Ziober; Li-Ping Wang; John Tomaszewski; Mark Rosen; Michael Feldman; Anant Madabhushi
Journal:  J Magn Reson Imaging       Date:  2015-06-25       Impact factor: 4.813

7.  The role of MRI-targeted and confirmatory biopsies for cancer upstaging at selection in patients considered for active surveillance for clinically low-risk prostate cancer.

Authors:  François Marliere; Philippe Puech; Ahmed Benkirane; Arnauld Villers; Laurent Lemaitre; Xavier Leroy; Nacim Betrouni; Adil Ouzzane
Journal:  World J Urol       Date:  2014-05-12       Impact factor: 4.226

8.  Future-proofing Gleason Grading: What to Call Gleason 6 Prostate Cancer?

Authors:  Stacy Loeb; Francesco Montorsi; James W Catto
Journal:  Eur Urol       Date:  2015-03-11       Impact factor: 20.096

9.  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.

Authors:  Xun Shangguan; Baijun Dong; Yanqing Wang; Fan Xu; Xiaoguang Shao; Jianjun Sha; Yinjie Zhu; Jiahua Pan; Wei Xue
Journal:  J Cancer Res Clin Oncol       Date:  2016-09-20       Impact factor: 4.553

10.  The Significance of Accurate Determination of Gleason Score for Therapeutic Options and Prognosis of Prostate Cancer.

Authors:  Burkhard Helpap; Daniel Ringli; Jens Tonhauser; Immanuel Poser; Jürgen Breul; Heidrun Gevensleben; Hans-Helge Seifert
Journal:  Pathol Oncol Res       Date:  2015-11-12       Impact factor: 3.201

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.