David D Yang1, Brandon A Mahal2, Vinayak Muralidhar2, Michelle D Nezolosky3, Marie E Vastola3, Shelby A Labe3, Ninjin Boldbaatar3, Martin T King4, Neil E Martin4, Peter F Orio4, Clair J Beard4, Karen E Hoffman5, Quoc-Dien Trinh6, Daniel E Spratt7, Felix Y Feng8, Paul L Nguyen9. 1. Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA, USA. 2. Harvard Radiation Oncology Program, Boston, MA, USA. 3. Department of Radiation Oncology, Brigham and Women's Hospital/Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, Boston, MA, USA. 4. Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA, USA; Department of Radiation Oncology, Brigham and Women's Hospital/Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, Boston, MA, USA. 5. Department of Radiation Oncology, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX, USA. 6. Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA, USA; Division of Urological Surgery, Brigham and Women's Hospital, Boston, MA, USA. 7. Department of Radiation Oncology, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI, USA. 8. Departments of Radiation Oncology, Urology & Medicine and Helen Diller Family Comprehensive Cancer Center, University of California at San Francisco, San Francisco, CA, USA. 9. Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA, USA; Department of Radiation Oncology, Brigham and Women's Hospital/Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, Boston, MA, USA. Electronic address: pnguyen@lroc.harvard.edu.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: It is unknown whether active surveillance can be safely offered to patients with Gleason 3+4 favorable intermediate-risk (FIR) prostate cancer. OBJECTIVE: To examine the incidence and predictors of upgrading and upstaging among patients with Gleason 3+4 FIR disease. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: The study involved 10 089 patients in the National Cancer Database diagnosed from 2010 to 2012 with Gleason 3+4 disease, prostate-specific antigen (PSA) <10ng/ml, and cT1c-2a prostate cancer with <50% positive biopsy cores (PBCs) who underwent radical prostatectomy. OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS AND STATISTICAL ANALYSIS: Logistic regression was used to examine predictors of upgrading (pathologic Gleason ≥4+3 or tertiary Gleason 5 in a Gleason 7 tumor) or upstaging (pT3-4/N1). RESULTS AND LIMITATIONS: Some 30.3% of Gleason 3+4 FIR patients were upgraded or upstaged. On multivariable analysis, predictors included higher PSA, percentage PBC, age, and cT2a versus cT1c (all p<0.001), but not black race (p=0.895). When stratified into ordinal variables, PSA 8.1-9.9 versus ≤4.0ng/ml (adjusted odds ratio [AOR] 1.93, 38.3% vs 24.4%), PBC 37.5-49.9% versus <12.5% (AOR 1.79, 37.8% vs 25.1%); highest age quartile (≥67 yr) versus lowest (≤55 yr; AOR 1.46, 35.7% vs 24.7%); and cT2a versus cT1c (AOR 1.33, 34.3% vs 29.8%) were associated with a higher risk of upgrading or upstaging (all p<0.001). Men with PBC <12.5% and PSA ≤4.0ng/ml had a 21.7% risk of more advanced disease. This increased to 44.3% for PBC 37.5-49.9% and PSA 8.1-9.9ng/ml. A limitation of the study is its retrospective nature. CONCLUSIONS: Approximately one in three patients with Gleason 3+4 FIR harbored disease of higher grade or stage. Younger patients with low percentage PBC and PSA and cT1c disease have a lower risk and may be candidates for active surveillance. However, widely available clinical information is insufficient for predicting the risk of more advanced disease, and the development and incorporation of additional tools, including magnetic resonance imaging and genomic tests, are necessary. PATIENT SUMMARY: Nearly one-third of patients with Gleason 3+4 favorable intermediate-risk prostate cancer harbor disease of higher grade or higher stage than their biopsy and clinical examination suggest. These patients would therefore be poor candidates for active surveillance.
BACKGROUND: It is unknown whether active surveillance can be safely offered to patients with Gleason 3+4 favorable intermediate-risk (FIR) prostate cancer. OBJECTIVE: To examine the incidence and predictors of upgrading and upstaging among patients with Gleason 3+4 FIR disease. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: The study involved 10 089 patients in the National Cancer Database diagnosed from 2010 to 2012 with Gleason 3+4 disease, prostate-specific antigen (PSA) <10ng/ml, and cT1c-2a prostate cancer with <50% positive biopsy cores (PBCs) who underwent radical prostatectomy. OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS AND STATISTICAL ANALYSIS: Logistic regression was used to examine predictors of upgrading (pathologic Gleason ≥4+3 or tertiary Gleason 5 in a Gleason 7 tumor) or upstaging (pT3-4/N1). RESULTS AND LIMITATIONS: Some 30.3% of Gleason 3+4 FIR patients were upgraded or upstaged. On multivariable analysis, predictors included higher PSA, percentage PBC, age, and cT2a versus cT1c (all p<0.001), but not black race (p=0.895). When stratified into ordinal variables, PSA 8.1-9.9 versus ≤4.0ng/ml (adjusted odds ratio [AOR] 1.93, 38.3% vs 24.4%), PBC 37.5-49.9% versus <12.5% (AOR 1.79, 37.8% vs 25.1%); highest age quartile (≥67 yr) versus lowest (≤55 yr; AOR 1.46, 35.7% vs 24.7%); and cT2a versus cT1c (AOR 1.33, 34.3% vs 29.8%) were associated with a higher risk of upgrading or upstaging (all p<0.001). Men with PBC <12.5% and PSA ≤4.0ng/ml had a 21.7% risk of more advanced disease. This increased to 44.3% for PBC 37.5-49.9% and PSA 8.1-9.9ng/ml. A limitation of the study is its retrospective nature. CONCLUSIONS: Approximately one in three patients with Gleason 3+4 FIR harbored disease of higher grade or stage. Younger patients with low percentage PBC and PSA and cT1c disease have a lower risk and may be candidates for active surveillance. However, widely available clinical information is insufficient for predicting the risk of more advanced disease, and the development and incorporation of additional tools, including magnetic resonance imaging and genomic tests, are necessary. PATIENT SUMMARY: Nearly one-third of patients with Gleason 3+4 favorable intermediate-risk prostate cancer harbor disease of higher grade or higher stage than their biopsy and clinical examination suggest. These patients would therefore be poor candidates for active surveillance.
Authors: Christian J Konopka; Marcin Woźniak; Jamila Hedhli; Anna Siekierzycka; Jarosław Skokowski; Rafał Pęksa; Marcin Matuszewski; Gnanasekar Munirathinam; Andre Kajdacsy-Balla; Iwona T Dobrucki; Leszek Kalinowski; Lawrence W Dobrucki Journal: Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging Date: 2020-03-12 Impact factor: 9.236
Authors: Liang G Qu; Modher Al-Shawi; Tess Howard; Nathan Papa; Cedric Poyet; Brian Kelly; A J Matthew Egan; Nathan Lawrentschuk; Damien Bolton; Gregory S Jack Journal: Int Urol Nephrol Date: 2021-10-08 Impact factor: 2.370
Authors: Adam B Murphy; Michael R Abern; Li Liu; Heidy Wang; Courtney M P Hollowell; Roohollah Sharifi; Patricia Vidal; Andre Kajdacsy-Balla; Marin Sekosan; Karen Ferrer; Shoujin Wu; Marlene Gallegos; Patrice King-Lee; Lisa K Sharp; Carol E Ferrans; Peter H Gann Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2021-04-09 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: Kathleen Herkommer; Nikola Maier; Donna P Ankerst; Stefan Schiele; Jürgen E Gschwend; Valentin H Meissner Journal: World J Urol Date: 2020-10-13 Impact factor: 4.226