Nathan Perlis1, Rashid Sayyid2, Andrew Evans3, Theodorus Van Der Kwast3, Ants Toi4, Antonio Finelli2, Girish Kulkarni2, Rob Hamilton2, Alexandre R Zlotta5, John Trachtenberg2, Sangeet Ghai4, Neil E Fleshner2. 1. Division of Urology, Department of Surgical Oncology, University Health Network, University of Toronto, Ontario, Canada. Electronic address: Nathan.perlis@uhn.ca. 2. Division of Urology, Department of Surgical Oncology, University Health Network, University of Toronto, Ontario, Canada. 3. Department of Pathology, University Health Network, University of Toronto, Ontario, Canada. 4. Joint Department of Medical Imaging, University Health Network, University of Toronto, Ontario, Canada. 5. Division of Urology, Department of Surgical Oncology, University Health Network, University of Toronto, Ontario, Canada; Division of Urology, Department of Surgery, Mount Sinai Hospital, University of Toronto, Ontario, Canada.
Abstract
PURPOSE: In prostate cancer biopsy Gleason score predicts stage and helps determine active surveillance suitability. Evidence suggests that small incremental differences in the quantitative percent of Gleason pattern 4 on biopsy stratify disease extent, biochemical failure following surgery and eligibility for active surveillance. We explored the overall quantitative percent of Gleason pattern 4 levels and adverse outcomes in patients with low and intermediate risk prostate cancer to whom active surveillance may be offered under expanded criteria. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We analyzed the records of patients with biopsy Gleason score 6 (3 + 3) or 7 (3 + 4) who underwent radical prostatectomy from January 2008 to August 2015. Age, prostate specific antigen, Gleason score, quantitative percent of Gleason pattern 4, overall percent positive cores (percent of prostate cancer) and clinical stage were explored as predictors of nonorgan confined disease and time to failure after radical prostatectomy. RESULTS: In 1,255 patients biopsy Gleason score 7 (3 + 4) was associated with T3 or greater disease at radical prostatectomy in 35.0% compared with Gleason score 6 (3 + 3) in 19.0% (p <0.001). On multivariate analysis for each quantitative percent of Gleason pattern 4 increase there were 2% higher odds of T3 or greater disease (OR 1.02, 95% CI 1.01-1.04, p <0.001). When stratified, patients with Gleason score 7 (3 + 4) only approximated the pT3 rates of Gleason score 6 (3 + 3) when prostate specific antigen was less than 8 ng/ml and the percent of prostate cancer was less than 15%. In those cases the quantitative percent of Gleason pattern 4 had less effect. Time to failure after radical prostatectomy was worse in Gleason score 7 (3 + 4) than 6 (3 + 3) cases. CONCLUSIONS: The quantitative percent of Gleason pattern 4 helps predict advanced disease and Gleason score 7 (3 + 4) is associated with worse outcomes. However, the impact of the quantitative percent of Gleason pattern 4 on adverse pathological and clinical outcomes is best used in combination with prostate specific antigen, age and disease volume since each has a greater impact on predicting nonorgan confined disease. The calculated absolute risk of T3 or greater can be used in shared decision making on prostate cancer treatment by patients and clinicians. Copyright Â
PURPOSE: In prostate cancer biopsy Gleason score predicts stage and helps determine active surveillance suitability. Evidence suggests that small incremental differences in the quantitative percent of Gleason pattern 4 on biopsy stratify disease extent, biochemical failure following surgery and eligibility for active surveillance. We explored the overall quantitative percent of Gleason pattern 4 levels and adverse outcomes in patients with low and intermediate risk prostate cancer to whom active surveillance may be offered under expanded criteria. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We analyzed the records of patients with biopsy Gleason score 6 (3 + 3) or 7 (3 + 4) who underwent radical prostatectomy from January 2008 to August 2015. Age, prostate specific antigen, Gleason score, quantitative percent of Gleason pattern 4, overall percent positive cores (percent of prostate cancer) and clinical stage were explored as predictors of nonorgan confined disease and time to failure after radical prostatectomy. RESULTS: In 1,255 patients biopsy Gleason score 7 (3 + 4) was associated with T3 or greater disease at radical prostatectomy in 35.0% compared with Gleason score 6 (3 + 3) in 19.0% (p <0.001). On multivariate analysis for each quantitative percent of Gleason pattern 4 increase there were 2% higher odds of T3 or greater disease (OR 1.02, 95% CI 1.01-1.04, p <0.001). When stratified, patients with Gleason score 7 (3 + 4) only approximated the pT3 rates of Gleason score 6 (3 + 3) when prostate specific antigen was less than 8 ng/ml and the percent of prostate cancer was less than 15%. In those cases the quantitative percent of Gleason pattern 4 had less effect. Time to failure after radical prostatectomy was worse in Gleason score 7 (3 + 4) than 6 (3 + 3) cases. CONCLUSIONS: The quantitative percent of Gleason pattern 4 helps predict advanced disease and Gleason score 7 (3 + 4) is associated with worse outcomes. However, the impact of the quantitative percent of Gleason pattern 4 on adverse pathological and clinical outcomes is best used in combination with prostate specific antigen, age and disease volume since each has a greater impact on predicting nonorgan confined disease. The calculated absolute risk of T3 or greater can be used in shared decision making on prostate cancer treatment by patients and clinicians. Copyright Â
Authors: Jiayun Li; Karthik V Sarma; King Chung Ho; Arkadiusz Gertych; Beatrice S Knudsen; Corey W Arnold Journal: AMIA Annu Symp Proc Date: 2018-04-16
Authors: Charlotte F Kweldam; Intan P Kümmerlin; Daan Nieboer; Ewout W Steyerberg; Chris H Bangma; Luca Incrocci; Theodorus H van der Kwast; Monique J Roobol; Geert J van Leenders Journal: Mod Pathol Date: 2017-05-19 Impact factor: 7.842
Authors: Marlon Perera; Melissa J Assel; Nicole E Benfante; Andrew J Vickers; Victor E Reuter; Sigrid Carlsson; Vincent Laudone; Karim A Touijer; James A Eastham; Peter T Scardino; Samson W Fine; Behfar Ehdaie Journal: J Urol Date: 2022-04-01 Impact factor: 7.600
Authors: Lucas W Dean; Melissa Assel; Daniel D Sjoberg; Andrew J Vickers; Hikmat A Al-Ahmadie; Ying-Bei Chen; Anuradha Gopalan; S Joseph Sirintrapun; Satish K Tickoo; James A Eastham; Peter T Scardino; Victor E Reuter; Behfar Ehdaie; Samson W Fine Journal: J Urol Date: 2019-01 Impact factor: 7.450
Authors: Tristan Barrett; Ferdia A Gallagher; Nikita Sushentsev; Mary A McLean; Anne Y Warren; Arnold J V Benjamin; Cara Brodie; Amy Frary; Andrew B Gill; Julia Jones; Joshua D Kaggie; Benjamin W Lamb; Matthew J Locke; Jodi L Miller; Ian G Mills; Andrew N Priest; Fraser J L Robb; Nimish Shah; Rolf F Schulte; Martin J Graves; Vincent J Gnanapragasam; Kevin M Brindle Journal: Nat Commun Date: 2022-01-24 Impact factor: 14.919
Authors: Geert J L H van Leenders; Theodorus H van der Kwast; David J Grignon; Andrew J Evans; Glen Kristiansen; Charlotte F Kweldam; Geert Litjens; Jesse K McKenney; Jonathan Melamed; Nicholas Mottet; Gladell P Paner; Hemamali Samaratunga; Ivo G Schoots; Jeffry P Simko; Toyonori Tsuzuki; Murali Varma; Anne Y Warren; Thomas M Wheeler; Sean R Williamson; Kenneth A Iczkowski Journal: Am J Surg Pathol Date: 2020-08 Impact factor: 6.298
Authors: Rajiv Jayadevan; Ely R Felker; Lorna Kwan; Danielle E Barsa; Haoyue Zhang; Anthony E Sisk; Merdie Delfin; Leonard S Marks Journal: JAMA Netw Open Date: 2019-09-04