Literature DB >> 25681290

Incidence and Predictors of Upgrading and Up Staging among 10,000 Contemporary Patients with Low Risk Prostate Cancer.

Kathryn T Dinh1, Brandon A Mahal1, David R Ziehr1, Vinayak Muralidhar1, Yu-Wei Chen2, Vidya B Viswanathan3, Michelle D Nezolosky3, Clair J Beard4, Toni K Choueiri5, Neil E Martin4, Peter F Orio4, Christopher J Sweeney5, Quoc D Trinh6, Paul L Nguyen7.   

Abstract

PURPOSE: We determined the incidence of pathological upgrading and up staging for contemporary, clinically low risk patients, and identified predictors of having occult, advanced disease to inform the selection of patients for active surveillance.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: We studied 10,273 patients in the SEER database diagnosed with clinically low risk disease (cT1c/T2a, prostate specific antigen less than 10 ng/ml, Gleason 3 + 3 = 6) in 2010 to 2011 and treated with prostatectomy. The primary outcome was the incidence of upgrading to pathological Gleason score 7-10 or up staging to pathological T3-T4/N1 disease. Multivariable logistic regression of cases with complete biopsy data (5,581) identified significant predictors of upgrading or up staging, which were then used to create a risk stratification table.
RESULTS: At prostatectomy 44% of cases were upgraded and 9.7% were up staged. Multivariable analysis of 5,581 patients showed age, prostate specific antigen and percent positive cores (all p < 0.001) but not race were associated with occult, advanced disease. With these variables dichotomized at the median, age older than 60 years (AOR 1.39), prostate specific antigen greater than 5.0 ng/ml (AOR 1.28) and more than 25% positive cores (AOR 1.76) were significantly associated with upgrading (all p < 0.001). Similarly, age older than 60 years (AOR 1.42), prostate specific antigen greater than 5.0 ng/ml (AOR 1.44) and more than 25% positive cores (AOR 2.26) were associated with up staging (all p < 0.001). Overall 60% of 5,581 low risk cases with prostate specific antigen 7.5 to 9.9 ng/ml and more than 25% positive cores were upgraded. This study is limited by possible bias introduced by only using patients selected for prostatectomy.
CONCLUSIONS: Nearly half of clinically low risk patients harbor Gleason 7 or greater, or pT3 or greater disease, and should be risk stratified by prostate specific antigen and percent positive cores for consideration of further testing before deciding on active surveillance.
Copyright © 2015 American Urological Association Education and Research, Inc. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

Entities:  

Keywords:  SEER program; neoplasm grading; neoplasm staging; prostatic neoplasms; watchful waiting

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2015        PMID: 25681290     DOI: 10.1016/j.juro.2015.02.015

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Urol        ISSN: 0022-5347            Impact factor:   7.450


  34 in total

1.  [Multiparametric MRI and MRI-TRUS fusion biopsy in patients with prior negative prostate biopsy].

Authors:  C Kesch; J P Radtke; F Distler; S Boxler; T Klein; C Hüttenbrink; K Hees; W Roth; M Roethke; H P Schlemmer; M Hohenfellner; B A Hadaschik
Journal:  Urologe A       Date:  2016-08       Impact factor: 0.639

Review 2.  Prostate Biopsy in Active Surveillance Protocols: Immediate Re-biopsy and Timing of Subsequent Biopsies.

Authors:  Jonathan H Wang; Tracy M Downs; E Jason Abel; Kyle A Richards; David F Jarrard
Journal:  Curr Urol Rep       Date:  2017-07       Impact factor: 3.092

Review 3.  The Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER) Program and Pathology: Toward Strengthening the Critical Relationship.

Authors:  Máire A Duggan; William F Anderson; Sean Altekruse; Lynne Penberthy; Mark E Sherman
Journal:  Am J Surg Pathol       Date:  2016-12       Impact factor: 6.394

4.  An RNA-Based Digital Circulating Tumor Cell Signature Is Predictive of Drug Response and Early Dissemination in Prostate Cancer.

Authors:  David T Miyamoto; Richard J Lee; Mark Kalinich; Joseph A LiCausi; Yu Zheng; Tianqi Chen; John D Milner; Erin Emmons; Uyen Ho; Katherine Broderick; Erin Silva; Sarah Javaid; Tanya Todorova Kwan; Xin Hong; Douglas M Dahl; Francis J McGovern; Jason A Efstathiou; Matthew R Smith; Lecia V Sequist; Ravi Kapur; Chin-Lee Wu; Shannon L Stott; David T Ting; Anita Giobbie-Hurder; Mehmet Toner; Shyamala Maheswaran; Daniel A Haber
Journal:  Cancer Discov       Date:  2018-01-04       Impact factor: 39.397

Review 5.  Prostate cancer in men of African origin.

Authors:  Kathleen F McGinley; Kae Jack Tay; Judd W Moul
Journal:  Nat Rev Urol       Date:  2015-12-31       Impact factor: 14.432

6.  Postoperative upgrading of prostate cancer in men ≥75 years: a propensity score-matched analysis.

Authors:  Annika Herlemann; Alexander Buchner; Alexander Kretschmer; Maria Apfelbeck; Christian G Stief; Christian Gratzke; Stefan Tritschler
Journal:  World J Urol       Date:  2017-05-10       Impact factor: 4.226

7.  Prostate biopsy characteristics: A comparison between pre- and post- United States Preventive Service Task Force Prostate Cancer Screening Guidelines of 2012.

Authors:  Navin Shah; Thomas Huebner; Vladimir Ioffe; Richard Hum
Journal:  Rev Urol       Date:  2017

8.  Prostate Biopsy Characteristics: A Comparison Between the Pre- and Post-2012 United States Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) Prostate Cancer Screening Guidelines.

Authors:  Navin Shah; Vladimir Ioffe; Thomas Huebner; Ivelina Hristova
Journal:  Rev Urol       Date:  2018

9.  Cribriform morphology predicts upstaging after radical prostatectomy in patients with Gleason score 3 + 4 = 7 prostate cancer at transrectal ultrasound (TRUS)-guided needle biopsy.

Authors:  Daniel T Keefe; Nicola Schieda; Soufiane El Hallani; Rodney H Breau; Chris Morash; Susan J Robertson; Kien T Mai; Eric C Belanger; Trevor A Flood
Journal:  Virchows Arch       Date:  2015-07-31       Impact factor: 4.064

10.  Further reduction of disqualification rates by additional MRI-targeted biopsy with transperineal saturation biopsy compared with standard 12-core systematic biopsies for the selection of prostate cancer patients for active surveillance.

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

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.