Jung Ki Jo1, Sung Kyu Hong1, Seok-Soo Byun1, Sang Eun Lee1, Jong Jin Oh2. 1. Seoul National University Bundang Hospital, Seongnam, Republic of Korea. 2. Seoul National University Bundang Hospital, Seongnam, Republic of Korea. urojj@snubh.org.
Abstract
PURPOSE: To clarify differences patients with pathological GS (pGS) 3 + 4 according to biopsy Gleason score (bGS) after radical prostatectomy (RP) among candidates for active surveillance. METHODS: Between January 2006 and June 2014, 619 patients who met Royal Marsden criteria and had a pGS 3 + 4 after RP were identified. Patients were stratified into two groups according to bGS: Group A (n = 430) with bGS (3 + 3) and Group B (n = 189) with bGS 7 (3 + 4). Pathological outcomes were compared between the two groups, and the impact of bGS on adverse pathological outcomes was analyzed by logistic regression and biochemical recurrence (BCR)-free survival compared by log-rank test and the Cox proportional hazards model. RESULTS: The patients in Group B had a higher rate of extracapsular extension (ECE), seminal vesicle invasion and positive surgical margins than those in Group A (p < 0.001, p = 0.005, p = 0.046, respectively). In univariate and multivariate, bGS was significantly associated with ECE [odds ratio (OR) 2.615, p < 0.001; OR 1.769, p < 0.001]. In Kaplan-Meier analysis, BCR-free survival rate was higher in Group A than in Group B (log rank, p = 0.037). In multivariable Cox regression, maximum percentage of core involvement were strongly associated with BCR [hazard ratio (HR) 1.773 (1.248-2.519), p = 0.001]. CONCLUSIONS: pGS 3 + 4 was associated with heterogeneous pathologic and biochemical outcomes according to bGS. Patients with pGS 3 + 4 upgraded from bGS 3 + 3 had more favorable pathological outcomes and biochemical survival outcomes than those with bGS 3 + 4.
PURPOSE: To clarify differences patients with pathological GS (pGS) 3 + 4 according to biopsy Gleason score (bGS) after radical prostatectomy (RP) among candidates for active surveillance. METHODS: Between January 2006 and June 2014, 619 patients who met Royal Marsden criteria and had a pGS 3 + 4 after RP were identified. Patients were stratified into two groups according to bGS: Group A (n = 430) with bGS (3 + 3) and Group B (n = 189) with bGS 7 (3 + 4). Pathological outcomes were compared between the two groups, and the impact of bGS on adverse pathological outcomes was analyzed by logistic regression and biochemical recurrence (BCR)-free survival compared by log-rank test and the Cox proportional hazards model. RESULTS: The patients in Group B had a higher rate of extracapsular extension (ECE), seminal vesicle invasion and positive surgical margins than those in Group A (p < 0.001, p = 0.005, p = 0.046, respectively). In univariate and multivariate, bGS was significantly associated with ECE [odds ratio (OR) 2.615, p < 0.001; OR 1.769, p < 0.001]. In Kaplan-Meier analysis, BCR-free survival rate was higher in Group A than in Group B (log rank, p = 0.037). In multivariable Cox regression, maximum percentage of core involvement were strongly associated with BCR [hazard ratio (HR) 1.773 (1.248-2.519), p = 0.001]. CONCLUSIONS: pGS 3 + 4 was associated with heterogeneous pathologic and biochemical outcomes according to bGS. Patients with pGS 3 + 4 upgraded from bGS 3 + 3 had more favorable pathological outcomes and biochemical survival outcomes than those with bGS 3 + 4.
Entities:
Keywords:
Active surveillance; Pathology; Prostatectomy; Prostatic neoplasms
Authors: Scott E Eggener; Peter T Scardino; Patrick C Walsh; Misop Han; Alan W Partin; Bruce J Trock; Zhaoyong Feng; David P Wood; James A Eastham; Ofer Yossepowitch; Danny M Rabah; Michael W Kattan; Changhong Yu; Eric A Klein; Andrew J Stephenson Journal: J Urol Date: 2011-01-15 Impact factor: 7.450
Authors: Charlotte F Kweldam; Mark F Wildhagen; Ewout W Steyerberg; Chris H Bangma; Theodorus H van der Kwast; Geert J L H van Leenders Journal: Mod Pathol Date: 2014-09-05 Impact factor: 7.842
Authors: Scott E Eggener; Alex Mueller; Ryan K Berglund; Raj Ayyathurai; Cindy Soloway; Mark S Soloway; Robert Abouassaly; Eric A Klein; Steven J Jones; Chris Zappavigna; Larry Goldenberg; Peter T Scardino; James A Eastham; Bertrand Guillonneau Journal: J Urol Date: 2013-01 Impact factor: 7.450
Authors: Jeffrey J Tosoian; Bruce J Trock; Patricia Landis; Zhaoyong Feng; Jonathan I Epstein; Alan W Partin; Patrick C Walsh; H Ballentine Carter Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2011-04-04 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: Hendrik Isbarn; Pierre I Karakiewicz; Sascha A Ahyai; Felix K H Chun; Claudio Jeldres; Alexander Haese; Hans Heinzer; Mario Zacharias; Roman Heuer; Christian Eichelberg; Thomas Steuber; Lars Budäus; Jens Köllermann; Georg Salomon; Thorsten Schlomm; Paul Perrotte; Margit Fisch; Hartwig Huland; Markus Graefen Journal: BJU Int Date: 2009-09-14 Impact factor: 5.588
Authors: Samuel Rosas; Ryan T Hughes; Michael Farris; Hwajin Lee; Emory R McTyre; Johannes F Plate; Lihong Shi; Cynthia L Emory; A William Blackstock; Bethany A Kerr; Jeffrey S Willey Journal: Oncotarget Date: 2019-07-30