Literature DB >> 29225057

Comparison of Pathological and Oncologic Outcomes of Favorable Risk Gleason Score 3 + 4 and Low Risk Gleason Score 6 Prostate Cancer: Considerations for Active Surveillance.

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

Abstract

PURPOSE: Recent NCCN® (National Comprehensive Cancer Network®) Guidelines® show that patients with biopsy Gleason score 3 + 4/Grade Group 2 but otherwise favorable features are active surveillance candidates. However, little is known about the long-term outcomes compared to that in men in the low risk Gleason score 6/Grade Group 1 group. We sought to clarify the risk of adverse features and oncologic outcomes in surgically treated, favorable Grade Group 2 vs 1 cases.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: We queried our prospectively maintained radical prostatectomy database for all 8,095 patients with biopsy Grade Group 1 or 2 prostate cancer who otherwise fulfilled the NCCN low risk definition of prostate specific antigen less than 10 ng/ml and cT2a or less, and who underwent radical prostatectomy from 1987 to 2014. Multivariable logistic regression and Kaplan-Meier methods were used to compare pathological and oncologic outcomes.
RESULTS: Organ confined disease was present in 93.9% and 82.6% of Grade Group 1 and favorable intermediate risk Grade Group 2 cases while seminal vesicle invasion was noted in 1.7% and 4.7%, and nodal disease was noted in 0.3% and 1.8%, respectively (all p <0.0001). On multivariable logistic regression biopsy proven Grade Group 2 disease was associated with a threefold greater risk of nonorgan confined disease (OR 3.1, 95% CI 1.7-5.7, p <0.001). The incidence of late treatment (more than 90 days from surgery) in Grade Group 1 vs 2 was 3.1% vs 8.5% for hormonal therapy and 6.0% vs 12.2% for radiation (p <0.001). In the Grade Group 1 vs 2 cohorts the 10-year biochemical recurrence-free survival rate was 88.9% vs 81.2% and the 10-year systemic progression-free survival rate was 99% vs 96.5% (each p <0.001).
CONCLUSIONS: Men at favorable risk with Grade Group 2 disease who are considering active surveillance should be informed of the risks of harboring adverse pathological features which impact secondary therapies and an increased risk of cancer progression.
Copyright © 2018 American Urological Association Education and Research, Inc. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

Entities:  

Keywords:  neoplasm grading; prostatectomy; prostatic neoplasms; risk factors; watchful waiting

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2017        PMID: 29225057     DOI: 10.1016/j.juro.2017.11.116

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


  10 in total

1.  Improving the detection of aggressive prostate cancer using immunohistochemical staining of protein marker panels.

Authors:  Qing Kay Li; Tung-Shing Mamie Lih; Yuefan Wang; Yingwei Hu; Naseruddin Höti; Daniel W Chan; Hui Zhang
Journal:  Am J Cancer Res       Date:  2022-03-15       Impact factor: 6.166

2.  MEIS-mediated suppression of human prostate cancer growth and metastasis through HOXB13-dependent regulation of proteoglycans.

Authors:  Calvin VanOpstall; Srikanth Perike; Hannah Brechka; Marc Gillard; Sophia Lamperis; Baizhen Zhu; Ryan Brown; Raj Bhanvadia; Donald J Vander Griend
Journal:  Elife       Date:  2020-06-18       Impact factor: 8.140

3.  Can SUVmax values of Ga-68-PSMA PET/CT scan predict the clinically significant prostate cancer?

Authors:  Emre Demirci; Levent Kabasakal; Onur E Şahin; Elife Akgün; Mehmet Hamza Gültekin; Tünkut Doğanca; Mustafa B Tuna; Can Öbek; Mert Kiliç; Tarik Esen; Ali R Kural
Journal:  Nucl Med Commun       Date:  2019-01       Impact factor: 1.690

Review 4.  Biochemical recurrence after radical prostatectomy: Current status of its use as a treatment endpoint and early management strategies.

Authors:  Barrett Z McCormick; Ali M Mahmoud; Stephen B Williams; John W Davis
Journal:  Indian J Urol       Date:  2019 Jan-Mar

5.  Cause-specific mortality of low and selective intermediate-risk prostate cancer patients with active surveillance or watchful waiting.

Authors:  Xiangkun Wu; Daojun Lv; Md Eftekhar; Chao Cai; Zhijian Zhao; Di Gu; Yongda Liu
Journal:  Transl Androl Urol       Date:  2021-01

6.  Machine Learning-Based Prediction of Pathological Upgrade From Combined Transperineal Systematic and MRI-Targeted Prostate Biopsy to Final Pathology: A Multicenter Retrospective Study.

Authors:  Junlong Zhuang; Yansheng Kan; Yuwen Wang; Alessandro Marquis; Xuefeng Qiu; Marco Oderda; Haifeng Huang; Marco Gatti; Fan Zhang; Paolo Gontero; Linfeng Xu; Giorgio Calleris; Yao Fu; Bing Zhang; Giancarlo Marra; Hongqian Guo
Journal:  Front Oncol       Date:  2022-04-07       Impact factor: 5.738

7.  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

8.  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

9.  Prediction of Pathological Upgrading at Radical Prostatectomy in Prostate Cancer Eligible for Active Surveillance: A Texture Features and Machine Learning-Based Analysis of Apparent Diffusion Coefficient Maps.

Authors:  Jinke Xie; Basen Li; Xiangde Min; Peipei Zhang; Chanyuan Fan; Qiubai Li; Liang Wang
Journal:  Front Oncol       Date:  2021-02-04       Impact factor: 6.244

10.  No detrimental effect of a positive family history on postoperative upgrading and upstaging in men with low risk and favourable intermediate-risk prostate cancer: implications for active surveillance.

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

  10 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.