OBJECTIVE: To identify preoperative factors predicting Gleason score downgrading after radical prostatectomy (RP) in patients with biopsy Gleason score 3+4 prostate cancer and to determine if prediction of downgrading can identify potential candidates for active surveillance (AS). PATIENTS AND METHODS: We identified 1317 patients with biopsy Gleason score 3+4 prostate cancers who underwent RP at the Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center between 2005 and 2013. Several preoperative and biopsy characteristics were evaluated by forward selection regression, and selected predictors of downgrading were analysed by multivariable logistic regression. Decision curve analysis was used to evaluate the clinical utility of the multivariate model. RESULTS: Gleason score was downgraded after RP in 115 patients (9%). We developed a multivariable model using age, prostate-specific antigen density, percentage of positive cores with Gleason pattern 4 cancer out of all cores taken, and maximum percentage of cancer involvement within a positive core with Gleason pattern 4 cancer. The area under the curve for this model was 0.75 after 10-fold cross validation. However, decision curve analysis revealed that the model was not clinically helpful in identifying patients who will downgrade at RP for the purpose of reassigning them to AS. CONCLUSION: While patients with pathological Gleason score 3 + 3 with tertiary Gleason pattern ≤4 at RP in patients with biopsy Gleason score 3 + 4 prostate cancer may be potential candidates for AS, decision curve analysis showed limited utility of our model to identify such men. Future study is needed to identify new predictors to help identify potential candidates for AS among patients with biopsy confirmed Gleason score 3 + 4 prostate cancer.
OBJECTIVE: To identify preoperative factors predicting Gleason score downgrading after radical prostatectomy (RP) in patients with biopsy Gleason score 3+4 prostate cancer and to determine if prediction of downgrading can identify potential candidates for active surveillance (AS). PATIENTS AND METHODS: We identified 1317 patients with biopsy Gleason score 3+4 prostate cancers who underwent RP at the Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center between 2005 and 2013. Several preoperative and biopsy characteristics were evaluated by forward selection regression, and selected predictors of downgrading were analysed by multivariable logistic regression. Decision curve analysis was used to evaluate the clinical utility of the multivariate model. RESULTS: Gleason score was downgraded after RP in 115 patients (9%). We developed a multivariable model using age, prostate-specific antigen density, percentage of positive cores with Gleason pattern 4 cancer out of all cores taken, and maximum percentage of cancer involvement within a positive core with Gleason pattern 4 cancer. The area under the curve for this model was 0.75 after 10-fold cross validation. However, decision curve analysis revealed that the model was not clinically helpful in identifying patients who will downgrade at RP for the purpose of reassigning them to AS. CONCLUSION: While patients with pathological Gleason score 3 + 3 with tertiary Gleason pattern ≤4 at RP in patients with biopsy Gleason score 3 + 4 prostate cancer may be potential candidates for AS, decision curve analysis showed limited utility of our model to identify such men. Future study is needed to identify new predictors to help identify potential candidates for AS among patients with biopsy confirmed Gleason score 3 + 4 prostate cancer.
Authors: Matthew R Cooperberg; Janet E Cowan; Joan F Hilton; Adam C Reese; Harras B Zaid; Sima P Porten; Katsuto Shinohara; Maxwell V Meng; Kirsten L Greene; Peter R Carroll Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2010-11-29 Impact factor: 44.544
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: Jared M Whitson; Sima P Porten; Janet E Cowan; Jeff P Simko; Matthew R Cooperberg; Peter R Carroll Journal: Urol Oncol Date: 2011-04-08 Impact factor: 3.498
Authors: Meike Adam; Amir Hannah; Lars Budäus; Thomas Steuber; Georg Salomon; Uwe Michl; Alexander Haese; Margit Fisch; Corinna Wittmer; Stefan Steurer; Sarah Minner; Hans Heinzer; Hartwig Huland; Markus Graefen; Guido Sauter; Thorsten Schlomm; Hendrik Isbarn Journal: J Urol Date: 2014-02-08 Impact factor: 7.450
Authors: Michael S Cohen; Robert S Hanley; Teodora Kurteva; Robin Ruthazer; Mark L Silverman; Andrea Sorcini; Karim Hamawy; Robert A Roth; Ingolf Tuerk; John A Libertino Journal: Eur Urol Date: 2008-03-28 Impact factor: 20.096
Authors: Jeffrey J Tosoian; Eric JohnBull; Bruce J Trock; Patricia Landis; Jonathan I Epstein; Alan W Partin; Patrick C Walsh; H Ballentine Carter Journal: J Urol Date: 2013-04-30 Impact factor: 7.450
Authors: Ashley E Ross; Luigi Marchionni; Milena Vuica-Ross; Chris Cheadle; Jinshui Fan; David M Berman; Edward M Schaeffer Journal: Prostate Date: 2011-02-25 Impact factor: 4.012
Authors: Denzel Zhu; William Shyr; Michelle Toker; Ethan Fram; Jinrong Cheng; Evan Z Kovac; Ilir Agalliu; Ahmed Aboumohamed; Kara L Watts Journal: World J Urol Date: 2021-11-30 Impact factor: 4.226