Masashi Kato1, Akihiro Hirakawa2, Hiroyuki Sato2, Ryoichi Hanazawa2, Yushi Naito3, Kosuke Tochigi3, Tomoyasu Sano3, Shohei Ishida3, Yasuhito Funahashi3, Takashi Fujita3, Yoshihisa Matsukawa3, Ryohei Hattori4, Toyonori Tsuzuki5. 1. Department of Urology, Nagoya University Graduate School of Medicine, 65 Tsumai-cho, Showa-ku, Nagoya, Japan. mk-kato@med.nagoya-u.ac.jp. 2. Division of Biostatistics and Data Science, Clinical Research Center, Tokyo Medical and Dental University Tokyo, Tokyo, Japan. 3. Department of Urology, Nagoya University Graduate School of Medicine, 65 Tsumai-cho, Showa-ku, Nagoya, Japan. 4. Department of Urology, Japanese Red Cross Nagoya Daiichi Hospital, Nagoya, Japan. 5. Department of Surgical Pathology, Aichi Medical University, 1-1 Yazakokarimata, Nagakute, Aichi, Japan. tsuzuki@aichi-med-u.ac.jp.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: It has been argued that grade group 2 (GG2) with a low Gleason pattern 4 (GP4) proportion should be an indication for active surveillance (AS) of prostate cancer (PCa). However, the cut-off GP4 proportion for AS remains unclear. Here, we evaluated the effect of GP4 proportion and IDC-P on cancer recurrence following radical prostatectomy (RP) in GG1 and GG2 patients, and identified candidates for AS. METHODS: We retrospectively evaluated 646 patients with PCa who underwent RP between 2005 and 2014, and whose specimens were of GG1 or GG2 status. RESULTS: The GGs were as follows: GG1, 25.2% (n = 163); GG2 (5% ≥ GP4), 11.4% (n = 74); GG2 (5% < GP4 ≤ 10%), 25.9% (n = 167); and GG2 (20% ≤ GP4), 37.5% (n = 242). IDC-P was detected in 26 patients (4%), i.e., in 2/167 GG2 (5% < GP4 ≤ 10%; 1%) cases and 24/242 GG2 (20% ≤ GP4; 10%) cases. GG2 patients with IDC-P exhibited a significantly poorer prognosis than did those without IDC-P (P < 0.0001), as did GG2 (20% ≤ GP4) patients without IDC-P (P < 0.05). The GG2 (5% ≥ GP4) and (5% < GP4 ≤ 10%) groups exhibited prognoses similar to those of the GG1 patients. In multivariate analysis, GG2 (20% ≤ GP4) without IDC-P, the presence of IDC-P, and the prostate-specific antigen level at diagnosis significantly predicted prognosis (P < 0.05, < 0.0001, and < 0.0001, respectively). CONCLUSION: Our findings suggest that GG2 (GP4 ≤ 10%) patients could be indicated for AS, similar to GG1 patients, given the risk of IDC-P tumors.
BACKGROUND: It has been argued that grade group 2 (GG2) with a low Gleason pattern 4 (GP4) proportion should be an indication for active surveillance (AS) of prostate cancer (PCa). However, the cut-off GP4 proportion for AS remains unclear. Here, we evaluated the effect of GP4 proportion and IDC-P on cancer recurrence following radical prostatectomy (RP) in GG1 and GG2patients, and identified candidates for AS. METHODS: We retrospectively evaluated 646 patients with PCa who underwent RP between 2005 and 2014, and whose specimens were of GG1 or GG2 status. RESULTS: The GGs were as follows: GG1, 25.2% (n = 163); GG2 (5% ≥ GP4), 11.4% (n = 74); GG2 (5% < GP4 ≤ 10%), 25.9% (n = 167); and GG2 (20% ≤ GP4), 37.5% (n = 242). IDC-P was detected in 26 patients (4%), i.e., in 2/167 GG2 (5% < GP4 ≤ 10%; 1%) cases and 24/242 GG2 (20% ≤ GP4; 10%) cases. GG2patients with IDC-P exhibited a significantly poorer prognosis than did those without IDC-P (P < 0.0001), as did GG2 (20% ≤ GP4) patients without IDC-P (P < 0.05). The GG2 (5% ≥ GP4) and (5% < GP4 ≤ 10%) groups exhibited prognoses similar to those of the GG1patients. In multivariate analysis, GG2 (20% ≤ GP4) without IDC-P, the presence of IDC-P, and the prostate-specific antigen level at diagnosis significantly predicted prognosis (P < 0.05, < 0.0001, and < 0.0001, respectively). CONCLUSION: Our findings suggest that GG2 (GP4 ≤ 10%) patients could be indicated for AS, similar to GG1patients, given the risk of IDC-P tumors.
Entities:
Keywords:
Active surveillance; Gleason pattern 4; IDC-P; Prostate cancer
Authors: Freddie C Hamdy; Jenny L Donovan; J Athene Lane; Malcolm Mason; Chris Metcalfe; Peter Holding; Michael Davis; Tim J Peters; Emma L Turner; Richard M Martin; Jon Oxley; Mary Robinson; John Staffurth; Eleanor Walsh; Prasad Bollina; James Catto; Andrew Doble; Alan Doherty; David Gillatt; Roger Kockelbergh; Howard Kynaston; Alan Paul; Philip Powell; Stephen Prescott; Derek J Rosario; Edward Rowe; David E Neal Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 2016-09-14 Impact factor: 91.245
Authors: Nathan Perlis; Rashid Sayyid; Andrew Evans; Theodorus Van Der Kwast; Ants Toi; Antonio Finelli; Girish Kulkarni; Rob Hamilton; Alexandre R Zlotta; John Trachtenberg; Sangeet Ghai; Neil E Fleshner Journal: J Urol Date: 2016-07-22 Impact factor: 7.450
Authors: J Athene Lane; Jenny L Donovan; Michael Davis; Eleanor Walsh; Daniel Dedman; Liz Down; Emma L Turner; Malcolm D Mason; Chris Metcalfe; Tim J Peters; Richard M Martin; David E Neal; Freddie C Hamdy Journal: Lancet Oncol Date: 2014-08-19 Impact factor: 41.316