Literature DB >> 31791703

Should all prostate needle biopsy Gleason score 4 + 4 = 8 prostate cancers be high risk? Implications for shared decision-making and patient counselling.

Kevin Ginsburg1, Adam I Cole2, Michael E Silverman3, Joan Livingstone4, Daryn W Smith5, Lance K Heilbrun5, Dongping Shi6, Rohit Mehra7, Wael A Sakr6, Todd M Morgan2, Michael L Cher8.   

Abstract

OBJECTIVES: To estimate the probability of downgrading to Gleason score ≤7 at radical prostatectomy for men with a prostate needle biopsy demonstrating Gleason score 8 (4 + 4).
METHODS: This is a retrospective review of men with Gleason score 8 (4 + 4) prostate cancer on needle biopsy who then underwent a radical prostatectomy at the Karmanos Cancer Institute or the University of Michigan. Men with any pattern 5 on the diagnostic biopsy were excluded. The objective was to estimate the proportion of patients whose tumors were downgraded to Gleason score ≤7 at radical prostatectomy and to identify clinical and biopsy parameters associated with downgrading.
RESULTS: Median age of our cohort was 63 years (IQR: 59, 67.5) and median follow-up was 15 months (IQR: 7, 37). Of the 105 men that met inclusion criteria, 59% (62/105) were downgraded to Gleason score ≤7 at radical prostatectomy. Having ≤2 cores demonstrating Gleason score 8, ≤50% maximal tumor involvement of any individual core positive for Gleason score 8, or the presence of Gleason pattern 3 (such as 3 + 4, 4 + 3, or 3 + 3) in other biopsy cores were all independently associated with downgrading in our multivariable model. Depending on the absence, presence, or combination of these 3 factors, patients had an estimated 6% to 82% probability of having their tumor downgraded at radical prostatectomy.
CONCLUSIONS: Men with low volume Gleason 8 (4 + 4) and/or the presence Gleason pattern 3 on prostate needle biopsy often have their tumors downgraded at radical prostatectomy. The presence of these preoperative biopsy parameters could affect pretreatment counseling and impact patient management. Published by Elsevier Inc.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Prostate biopsy; Prostate cancer; Radical prostatectomy; Risk stratification

Mesh:

Year:  2019        PMID: 31791703      PMCID: PMC7054147          DOI: 10.1016/j.urolonc.2019.11.002

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Urol Oncol        ISSN: 1078-1439            Impact factor:   3.498


  14 in total

1.  NCCN Guidelines Updates: Prostate Cancer and Prostate Cancer Early Detection.

Authors:  Peter H Carroll; James L Mohler
Journal:  J Natl Compr Canc Netw       Date:  2018-05       Impact factor: 11.908

2.  How accurately does prostate biopsy Gleason score predict pathologic findings and disease free survival?

Authors:  V Narain; F J Bianco; D J Grignon; W A Sakr; J E Pontes; D P Wood
Journal:  Prostate       Date:  2001-11-01       Impact factor: 4.104

3.  Most Gleason 8 Biopsies are Downgraded at Prostatectomy-Does 4 + 4 = 7?

Authors:  Ted Gansler; Stacey Fedewa; Robert Qi; Chun Chieh Lin; Ahmedin Jemal; Judd W Moul
Journal:  J Urol       Date:  2017-10-12       Impact factor: 7.450

4.  EAU-ESTRO-SIOG Guidelines on Prostate Cancer. Part II: Treatment of Relapsing, Metastatic, and Castration-Resistant Prostate Cancer.

Authors:  Philip Cornford; Joaquim Bellmunt; Michel Bolla; Erik Briers; Maria De Santis; Tobias Gross; Ann M Henry; Steven Joniau; Thomas B Lam; Malcolm D Mason; Henk G van der Poel; Theo H van der Kwast; Olivier Rouvière; Thomas Wiegel; Nicolas Mottet
Journal:  Eur Urol       Date:  2016-08-31       Impact factor: 20.096

5.  Upgrading and downgrading of prostate cancer from biopsy to radical prostatectomy: incidence and predictive factors using the modified Gleason grading system and factoring in tertiary grades.

Authors:  Jonathan I Epstein; Zhaoyong Feng; Bruce J Trock; Phillip M Pierorazio
Journal:  Eur Urol       Date:  2012-02-08       Impact factor: 20.096

6.  Prostate cancer - major changes in the American Joint Committee on Cancer eighth edition cancer staging manual.

Authors:  Mark K Buyyounouski; Peter L Choyke; Jesse K McKenney; Oliver Sartor; Howard M Sandler; Mahul B Amin; Michael W Kattan; Daniel W Lin
Journal:  CA Cancer J Clin       Date:  2017-02-21       Impact factor: 508.702

7.  The University of California, San Francisco Cancer of the Prostate Risk Assessment score: a straightforward and reliable preoperative predictor of disease recurrence after radical prostatectomy.

Authors:  Matthew R Cooperberg; David J Pasta; Eric P Elkin; Mark S Litwin; David M Latini; Janeen Du Chane; Peter R Carroll
Journal:  J Urol       Date:  2005-06       Impact factor: 7.450

8.  EAU-ESTRO-SIOG Guidelines on Prostate Cancer. Part 1: Screening, Diagnosis, and Local Treatment with Curative Intent.

Authors:  Nicolas Mottet; Joaquim Bellmunt; Michel Bolla; Erik Briers; Marcus G Cumberbatch; Maria De Santis; Nicola Fossati; Tobias Gross; Ann M Henry; Steven Joniau; Thomas B Lam; Malcolm D Mason; Vsevolod B Matveev; Paul C Moldovan; Roderick C N van den Bergh; Thomas Van den Broeck; Henk G van der Poel; Theo H van der Kwast; Olivier Rouvière; Ivo G Schoots; Thomas Wiegel; Philip Cornford
Journal:  Eur Urol       Date:  2016-08-25       Impact factor: 20.096

9.  Over half of contemporary clinical Gleason 8 on prostate biopsy are downgraded at radical prostatectomy.

Authors:  Robert Qi; Wen-Chi Foo; Michael N Ferrandino; Leah G Davis; Sitharthan Sekar; Thomas A Longo; Ghalib Jibara; Tracy Han; Ilhan Gokhan; Judd W Moul
Journal:  Can J Urol       Date:  2017-10       Impact factor: 1.344

10.  Clinically Localized Prostate Cancer: AUA/ASTRO/SUO Guideline. Part II: Recommended Approaches and Details of Specific Care Options.

Authors:  Martin G Sanda; Jeffrey A Cadeddu; Erin Kirkby; Ronald C Chen; Tony Crispino; Joann Fontanarosa; Stephen J Freedland; Kirsten Greene; Laurence H Klotz; Danil V Makarov; Joel B Nelson; George Rodrigues; Howard M Sandler; Mary Ellen Taplin; Jonathan R Treadwell
Journal:  J Urol       Date:  2018-01-10       Impact factor: 7.450

View more
  2 in total

1.  The predictive factor for pathological downgrading after prostatectomy in patients with biopsy Gleason score 4+3 or 4+4 prostate cancer.

Authors:  Yoichiro Tohi; Iori Matsuda; Kengo Fujiwara; Satoshi Harada; Ayako Ito; Mari Yamasaki; Yasuyuki Miyauchi; Yuki Matsuoka; Takuma Kato; Rikiya Taoka; Hiroyuki Tsunemori; Nobufumi Ueda; Mikio Sugimoto
Journal:  Mol Clin Oncol       Date:  2021-01-22

2.  Correlation of MRI-Lesion Targeted Biopsy vs. Systematic Biopsy Gleason Score with Final Pathological Gleason Score after Radical Prostatectomy.

Authors:  Mike Wenzel; Felix Preisser; Clarissa Wittler; Benedikt Hoeh; Peter J Wild; Alexandra Tschäbunin; Boris Bodelle; Christoph Würnschimmel; Derya Tilki; Markus Graefen; Andreas Becker; Pierre I Karakiewicz; Felix K H Chun; Luis A Kluth; Jens Köllermann; Philipp Mandel
Journal:  Diagnostics (Basel)       Date:  2021-05-15
  2 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.