Literature DB >> 27574819

Adverse Disease Features in Gleason Score 3 + 4 "Favorable Intermediate-Risk" Prostate Cancer: Implications for Active Surveillance.

Alessandro Morlacco1, John C Cheville2, Laureano J Rangel3, Derek J Gearman1, R Jeffrey Karnes4.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: According to a recent National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN) guidelines update, patients with Gleason score (GS) 3 + 4 prostate cancer (PCa) and "favorable intermediate-risk" (FIR) characteristics might be offered active surveillance (AS). However, the risk of unfavorable disease features and its prediction in this subset of patients is not completely understood.
OBJECTIVE: To identify the risk of unfavorable disease and potential predictors of adverse outcomes among GS 3 + 4 FIR PCa patients. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: The study included patients with biopsy GS 3 + 4 and otherwise fulfilling the NCCN low-risk definition (prostate-specific antigen [PSA] <10 ng/ml, cT2a or lower) undergoing radical prostatectomy (RP) from 2006 to 2014 at a single institution. OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS AND STATISTICAL ANALYSIS: Complete information on PSA, PSA density (PSAD), clinical stage, percentage of positive cores, percentage of maximum surface specimen involvement, and RP pathology were available. GS upgrade and downgrade, non-organ-confined and non-specimen-confined disease, unfavorable disease (pT3-T4 and/or pN1 and/or a pGS ≥4 + 3) were the outcomes. Statistical analysis included descriptive statistics and multivariable logistic regression. RESULTS AND LIMITATIONS: A total of 156 patients (13.1%) experienced GS upgrade; 201 (16.9%) were downgraded. Overall, 205 men (17.2%) harbored non-organ-confined disease, and 295 (24.8%) had unfavorable disease. Age (odds ratio [OR]: 1.06), percentage surface involvement (OR: 1.01), and PSAD (OR: 1.83) were the only significant predictors of upgrade. Age (OR: 1.05), clinical stage (OR: 1.74), percentage of positive cores >50% (OR 1.57), percentage of surface area (OR: 1.02), and perineural invasion (OR: 1.89) were significant predictors of unfavorable disease at RP. The retrospective design is a limitation.
CONCLUSIONS: AS is a possible option for a subset of men with FIR GS 3 + 4. However, clinical models alone have a limited role in GS upgrade prediction, and alternative tools warrant further investigation. PATIENT
SUMMARY: Patients with Gleason score 3 + 4 at biopsy, low prostate-specific antigen, and low stage might consider the option of active surveillance, but the use of clinical information alone might be not adequate for thorough risk-adapted counseling.
Copyright © 2016 European Association of Urology. Published by Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Active surveillance; Downgrade; Eligibility; Gleason 3 + 4; Gleason score; Prostate cancer; Radical prostatectomy; Unfavorable disease; Upgrade

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2016        PMID: 27574819     DOI: 10.1016/j.eururo.2016.08.043

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Eur Urol        ISSN: 0302-2838            Impact factor:   20.096


  15 in total

1.  PBOV1 as a potential biomarker for more advanced prostate cancer based on protein and digital histomorphometric analysis.

Authors:  Neil M Carleton; Guangjing Zhu; Mikhail Gorbounov; M Craig Miller; Kenneth J Pienta; Linda M S Resar; Robert W Veltri
Journal:  Prostate       Date:  2018-03-09       Impact factor: 4.104

2.  Characterization of a "low-risk" cohort of grade group 2 prostate cancer patients: Results from the Shared Equal Access Regional Cancer Hospital database.

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

3.  Predicting Prostate Cancer Upgrading of Biopsy Gleason Grade Group at Radical Prostatectomy Using Machine Learning-Assisted Decision-Support Models.

Authors:  Hailang Liu; Kun Tang; Ejun Peng; Liang Wang; Ding Xia; Zhiqiang Chen
Journal:  Cancer Manag Res       Date:  2020-12-22       Impact factor: 3.989

Review 4.  Active surveillance for intermediate-risk prostate cancer.

Authors:  Madhur Nayan; Filipe L F Carvalho; Adam S Feldman
Journal:  World J Urol       Date:  2022-01-19       Impact factor: 4.226

5.  Computationally Derived Cribriform Area Index from Prostate Cancer Hematoxylin and Eosin Images Is Associated with Biochemical Recurrence Following Radical Prostatectomy and Is Most Prognostic in Gleason Grade Group 2.

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

6.  Prediction of pathologic upgrading in Gleason score 3+4 prostate cancer: Who is a candidate for active surveillance?

Authors:  Duc Minh Pham; Jung Kwon Kim; Sangchul Lee; Sung Kyu Hong; Seok-Soo Byun; Sang Eun Lee
Journal:  Investig Clin Urol       Date:  2020-05-25

Review 7.  Old men with prostate cancer have higher risk of Gleason score upgrading and pathological upstaging after initial diagnosis: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

Authors:  Xiaochuan Wang; Yu Zhang; Zhengguo Ji; Peiqian Yang; Ye Tian
Journal:  World J Surg Oncol       Date:  2021-01-20       Impact factor: 2.754

8.  Selecting Patients with Favorable Risk, Grade Group 2 Prostate Cancer for Active Surveillance-Does Magnetic Resonance Imaging Have a Role?

Authors:  T Stonier; A L Tin; D D Sjoberg; G Jibara; A J Vickers; S Fine; J Eastham
Journal:  J Urol       Date:  2020-11-20       Impact factor: 7.450

9.  A novel gene signature to predict immune infiltration and outcome in patients with prostate cancer.

Authors:  Ning Shao; Hong Tang; Yuanyuan Mi; Yao Zhu; Fangning Wan; Dingwei Ye
Journal:  Oncoimmunology       Date:  2020-06-01       Impact factor: 8.110

10.  Clinical outcome comparison of Grade Group 1 and Grade Group 2 prostate cancer with and without cribriform architecture at the time of radical prostatectomy.

Authors:  Eva Hollemans; Esther I Verhoef; Chris H Bangma; John Rietbergen; Monique J Roobol; Jozien Helleman; Geert J L H van Leenders
Journal:  Histopathology       Date:  2020-04       Impact factor: 5.087

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.