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. 1. Wayne State University, Department of Urology, Detroit, MI. Electronic address: keginsbu@med.wayne.edu. 2. University of Michigan, Department of Urology, Ann Arbor, MI. 3. Wayne State University, School of Medicine, Detroit MI. 4. Karmanos Cancer Institute, Detroit, MI. 5. Wayne State University, Department of Oncology, Detroit, MI. 6. Wayne State University, Department of Pathology, Detroit, MI. 7. University of Michigan, Department of Pathology, Ann Arbor, MI. 8. Wayne State University, Department of Urology, Detroit, MI.
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.
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.
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
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
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
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
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
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
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