Guillaume Ploussard1, Hendrik Isbarn2, Alberto Briganti3, Prasanna Sooriakumaran4, Christian I Surcel5, Laurent Salomon6, Massimo Freschi7, Cristian Mirvald5, Henk G van der Poel8, Anna Jenkins9, Piet Ost10, Inge M van Oort11, Ofer Yossepowitch12, Gianluca Giannarini13, Roderick C N van den Bergh14. 1. Department of Urology, Saint-Louis Hospital, Paris, France; Paris 7 University, Paris, France. Electronic address: g.ploussard@gmail.com. 2. Prostate Cancer Center Hamburg-Eppendorf, University Hospital Hamburg-Eppendorf and Martini-Clinic, Hamburg, Germany. 3. Department of Urology, San Raffaele Scientific Institute, Milan, Italy. 4. Nuffield Department of Surgical Sciences, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK; Department of Molecular Medicine and Surgery, Karolinska Institute, Stockholm, Sweden. 5. Department of Uronephrology and Renal Transplantation, "Fundeni" Clinical Institute, Bucharest, Romania. 6. Department of Urology, Henri Mondor Hospital, Paris, France. 7. Department of Pathology, San Raffaele Scientific Institute, Milan, Italy. 8. The Netherlands Cancer Institute, Amsterdam, The Netherlands. 9. Department of Pathology, Churchill Hospital, Oxford, UK. 10. Department of Radiation Oncology, Ghent University Hospital, Ghent, Belgium. 11. Department of Urology, Radboud University Medical Centre, Nijmegen, The Netherlands. 12. Department of Urology, Tel Aviv University, Tel Aviv, Israel. 13. Department of Experimental and Clinical Medical Sciences, University of Udine, Udine, Italy. 14. University Medical Centre, Utrecht, The Netherlands.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To test the expandability of active surveillance (AS) to Gleason score 3+4 cancers by assessing the unfavorable disease risk in a large multi-institutional cohort. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We performed a retrospective analysis including 2,323 patients with localized Gleason score 3+4 prostate cancer who underwent a radical prostatectomy between 2005 and 2013 from 6 academic centers. We analyzed the rates of biopsy downgrading/upgrading and advanced stage in the overall cohort by employing standardized AS criteria (using biopsy Gleason score 3+4). RESULTS: The final pathologic Gleason score was 3+3 = 6 in 8%, 3+4 = 7 in 67%, 4+3 = 7 in 20%, and 8 to 10 in 5% cases. The overall rate of unfavorable disease (upgrading or advanced stage or both) was 46%. In multivariable analysis, prostate-specific antigen (PSA) level>10 ng/ml, PSA density (PSAD) >0.15 ng/ml/g, clinical stage >T1, and>2 positive cores were predictors of unfavorable disease. According to the AS criteria used, the risk of unfavorable disease ranged from 30% to 42%. In patients without any risk factor (PSA level≤ 10 ng/ml, PSAD ≤ 0.15 ng/ml/g, T1c, and ≤ 2 positive cores), the unfavorable disease rate was 19%. The main limitations of this study are the retrospective design and nonstandardization of pathologic assessment between centers. CONCLUSIONS: Approximately half of patients with biopsy Gleason score 3+4 cancer have unfavorable disease at final pathology. Nevertheless, expanding AS eligibility to these patients may be acceptable provided adherence to strict selection criteria leading to a<20% risk of unfavorable disease. Future tools for selection such as magnetic resonance imaging, early rebiopsy, and serum markers may be especially beneficial in this group of patients.
OBJECTIVE: To test the expandability of active surveillance (AS) to Gleason score 3+4 cancers by assessing the unfavorable disease risk in a large multi-institutional cohort. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We performed a retrospective analysis including 2,323 patients with localized Gleason score 3+4 prostate cancer who underwent a radical prostatectomy between 2005 and 2013 from 6 academic centers. We analyzed the rates of biopsy downgrading/upgrading and advanced stage in the overall cohort by employing standardized AS criteria (using biopsy Gleason score 3+4). RESULTS: The final pathologic Gleason score was 3+3 = 6 in 8%, 3+4 = 7 in 67%, 4+3 = 7 in 20%, and 8 to 10 in 5% cases. The overall rate of unfavorable disease (upgrading or advanced stage or both) was 46%. In multivariable analysis, prostate-specific antigen (PSA) level>10 ng/ml, PSA density (PSAD) >0.15 ng/ml/g, clinical stage >T1, and>2 positive cores were predictors of unfavorable disease. According to the AS criteria used, the risk of unfavorable disease ranged from 30% to 42%. In patients without any risk factor (PSA level≤ 10 ng/ml, PSAD ≤ 0.15 ng/ml/g, T1c, and ≤ 2 positive cores), the unfavorable disease rate was 19%. The main limitations of this study are the retrospective design and nonstandardization of pathologic assessment between centers. CONCLUSIONS: Approximately half of patients with biopsy Gleason score 3+4 cancer have unfavorable disease at final pathology. Nevertheless, expanding AS eligibility to these patients may be acceptable provided adherence to strict selection criteria leading to a<20% risk of unfavorable disease. Future tools for selection such as magnetic resonance imaging, early rebiopsy, and serum markers may be especially beneficial in this group of patients.
Authors: Kathleen F McGinley; Xizi Sun; Lauren E Howard; William J Aronson; Martha K Terris; Christopher J Kane; Christopher L Amling; Matthew R Cooperberg; Stephen J Freedland Journal: Int J Urol Date: 2017-06-06 Impact factor: 3.369
Authors: Jennifer A Sinnott; Sam F Peisch; Svitlana Tyekucheva; Travis Gerke; Rosina Lis; Jennifer R Rider; Michelangelo Fiorentino; Meir J Stampfer; Lorelei A Mucci; Massimo Loda; Kathryn L Penney Journal: Clin Cancer Res Date: 2016-09-23 Impact factor: 12.531
Authors: J P Radtke; T H Kuru; D Bonekamp; M T Freitag; M B Wolf; C D Alt; G Hatiboglu; S Boxler; S Pahernik; W Roth; M C Roethke; H P Schlemmer; M Hohenfellner; B A Hadaschik Journal: Prostate Cancer Prostatic Dis Date: 2016-05-17 Impact factor: 5.554
Authors: R Schiavina; M Borghesi; E Brunocilla; D Romagnoli; D Diazzi; F Giunchi; V Vagnoni; C V Pultrone; H Dababneh; A Porreca; M Fiorentino; G Martorana Journal: Prostate Cancer Prostatic Dis Date: 2015-06-09 Impact factor: 5.554
Authors: Jiwoong Yu; Young Suk Kwon; Sinae Kim; Christopher Sejong Han; Nicholas Farber; Jongmyung Kim; Seok Soo Byun; Wun-Jae Kim; Seong Soo Jeon; Isaac Yi Kim Journal: J Urol Date: 2015-12-01 Impact factor: 7.450
Authors: Patrick Leo; Sacheth Chandramouli; Xavier Farré; Robin Elliott; Andrew Janowczyk; Kaustav Bera; Pingfu Fu; Nafiseh Janaki; Ayah El-Fahmawi; Mohammed Shahait; Jessica Kim; David Lee; Kosj Yamoah; Timothy R Rebbeck; Francesca Khani; Brian D Robinson; Natalie N C Shih; Michael Feldman; Sanjay Gupta; Jesse McKenney; Priti Lal; Anant Madabhushi Journal: Eur Urol Focus Date: 2021-04-30