OBJECTIVE: To establish whether the good prognosis of Gleason score 6 (GS6) is maintained in the setting of multiple involved cores. PATIENTS AND METHODS: In total, 6156 men (from 1 April 2000 to 30 April 2007) with GS6 on biopsy underwent radical prostatectomy (RP) at our institution. The number of positive cores was correlated with the outcome at RP. RESULTS: More positive cores correlated with less organ-confined disease (P < 0.001), positive margins (P < 0.012), increasing RP grade (P < 0.001) and increased seminal vesicles/lymph node involvement (P = 0.012). For men with data available, the actuarial risk of being biochemically free of disease at 5 years was 93.2% when ≤6 cores were positive (812 men followed to 5 years) vs 89.1% if >6 cores were positive (41 men followed to 2 years) (P = 0.6). Although the predicted 'cure rate' of >75% probability of a tumour showing no evidence of biochemical recurrence at 10 years after RP was statistically different between cases with ≤6 vs >6 positive cores (P < 0.0001), the outcome in both groups was still favourable (90.5% vs 84%). Partin-like tables were generated factoring in the number of positive cores to predict organ-confined disease as a guide for urologists to perform nerve-sparing surgery. For example, with T1c disease, there was a ≥75% probability of organ-confined disease with one to three positive cores regardless of prostate-specific antigen (PSA) level, and the same probability was present with four to six positive cores and a PSA level of 0-4 ng/mL. CONCLUSION: A low Gleason score on biopsy is a powerful prognostic finding, such that this favourable outcome is maintained even in the setting of multiple positive cores with GS6.
OBJECTIVE: To establish whether the good prognosis of Gleason score 6 (GS6) is maintained in the setting of multiple involved cores. PATIENTS AND METHODS: In total, 6156 men (from 1 April 2000 to 30 April 2007) with GS6 on biopsy underwent radical prostatectomy (RP) at our institution. The number of positive cores was correlated with the outcome at RP. RESULTS: More positive cores correlated with less organ-confined disease (P < 0.001), positive margins (P < 0.012), increasing RP grade (P < 0.001) and increased seminal vesicles/lymph node involvement (P = 0.012). For men with data available, the actuarial risk of being biochemically free of disease at 5 years was 93.2% when ≤6 cores were positive (812 men followed to 5 years) vs 89.1% if >6 cores were positive (41 men followed to 2 years) (P = 0.6). Although the predicted 'cure rate' of >75% probability of a tumour showing no evidence of biochemical recurrence at 10 years after RP was statistically different between cases with ≤6 vs >6 positive cores (P < 0.0001), the outcome in both groups was still favourable (90.5% vs 84%). Partin-like tables were generated factoring in the number of positive cores to predict organ-confined disease as a guide for urologists to perform nerve-sparing surgery. For example, with T1c disease, there was a ≥75% probability of organ-confined disease with one to three positive cores regardless of prostate-specific antigen (PSA) level, and the same probability was present with four to six positive cores and a PSA level of 0-4 ng/mL. CONCLUSION: A low Gleason score on biopsy is a powerful prognostic finding, such that this favourable outcome is maintained even in the setting of multiple positive cores with GS6.
Authors: Ying Huang; Sumit Isharwal; Alexander Haese; Felix K H Chun; Danil V Makarov; Ziding Feng; Misop Han; Elizabeth Humphreys; Jonathan I Epstein; Alan W Partin; Robert W Veltri Journal: BJU Int Date: 2010-09-28 Impact factor: 5.588
Authors: Stephen J Freedland; Christopher J Kane; Christopher L Amling; William J Aronson; Martha K Terris; Joseph C Presti Journal: Urology Date: 2007-03 Impact factor: 2.649
Authors: Matthew R Cooperberg; David J Pasta; Eric P Elkin; Mark S Litwin; David M Latini; Janeen Du Chane; Peter R Carroll Journal: J Urol Date: 2005-06 Impact factor: 7.450
Authors: Fei Dong; J Stephen Jones; Andrew J Stephenson; Cristina Magi-Galluzzi; Alwyn M Reuther; Eric A Klein Journal: J Urol Date: 2008-01-22 Impact factor: 7.450
Authors: Makoto Ohori; Michael W Kattan; Hideshige Koh; Norio Maru; Kevin M Slawin; Shahrokh Shariat; Masatoshi Muramoto; Victor E Reuter; Thomas M Wheeler; Peter T Scardino Journal: J Urol Date: 2004-05 Impact factor: 7.450
Authors: Stephen A Boorjian; R Jeffrey Karnes; Laureano J Rangel; Eric J Bergstralh; Michael L Blute Journal: J Urol Date: 2008-03-04 Impact factor: 7.450
Authors: Misop Han; Alan W Partin; Marianna Zahurak; Steven Piantadosi; Johnathan I Epstein; Patrick C Walsh Journal: J Urol Date: 2003-02 Impact factor: 7.450
Authors: A V D'Amico; R Whittington; S B Malkowicz; D Schultz; K Blank; G A Broderick; J E Tomaszewski; A A Renshaw; I Kaplan; C J Beard; A Wein Journal: JAMA Date: 1998-09-16 Impact factor: 56.272
Authors: Tatsuo Gondo; Bing Ying Poon; Kazuhiro Matsumoto; Melanie Bernstein; Daniel D Sjoberg; James A Eastham Journal: BJU Int Date: 2014-08-13 Impact factor: 5.588
Authors: Glen Denmer R Santok; Ali Abdel Raheem; Lawrence Hc Kim; Kidon Chang; Trenton Gh Lum; Byung Ha Chung; Young Deuk Choi; Koon Ho Rha Journal: Investig Clin Urol Date: 2017-02-15
Authors: Tamara L Lotan; Filipe Lf Carvalho; Sarah B Peskoe; Jessica L Hicks; Jennifer Good; Helen Fedor; Elizabeth Humphreys; Misop Han; Elizabeth A Platz; Jeremy A Squire; Angelo M De Marzo; David M Berman Journal: Mod Pathol Date: 2014-07-04 Impact factor: 7.842