Literature DB >> 33472645

Old men with prostate cancer have higher risk of Gleason score upgrading and pathological upstaging after initial diagnosis: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

Xiaochuan Wang1, Yu Zhang1, Zhengguo Ji1, Peiqian Yang1, Ye Tian2.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: To evaluate the predictive performance of age for the risk of Gleason score change and pathologic upstaging. EVIDENCE ACQUISITION: Ovid MEDLINE, Ovid Embase, and the Cochrane Library were searched from inception until May 2020. Quality of included studies was appraised utilizing the Newcastle-Ottawa Quality Assessment Scale for case-control studies. The publication bias was evaluated by funnel plots and Egger's tests. EVIDENCE SYNTHESIS: Our search yielded 27 studies with moderate-to-high quality including 84296 patients with mean age of 62.1 years. From biopsy to prostatectomy, upgrading and upstaging occurred in 32.3% and 9.8% of patients, respectively. Upgrading from diagnostic biopsy to confirmatory biopsy was found in 16.8%. Older age was associated with a significant increased risk of upgrading (OR 1.04, 95% CI 1.03-1.05), and similar direction of effect was found in studies focused on upgrading from diagnostic biopsy to confirmatory biopsy (OR 1.06, 95% CI 1.04-1.08). For pathologic upstaging within older men compared with younger, the pooled odds was 1.03 (95% CI 1.01-1.04).
CONCLUSION: Thorough consideration of age in the context of effect sizes for other factors not only prompts more accurate risk stratification but also helps providers to select optimal therapies for patients with prostate cancer.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Age; Gleason grading system; Meta-analysis; Neoplasm staging; Prostate cancer; Systematic review

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2021        PMID: 33472645      PMCID: PMC7818761          DOI: 10.1186/s12957-021-02127-3

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  World J Surg Oncol        ISSN: 1477-7819            Impact factor:   2.754


  44 in total

1.  Prostate cancer in men 70 years old or older, indolent or aggressive: clinicopathological analysis and outcomes.

Authors:  Stephen A Brassell; Kevin R Rice; Patrick M Parker; Yongmei Chen; James S Farrell; Jennifer Cullen; David G McLeod
Journal:  J Urol       Date:  2010-11-12       Impact factor: 7.450

2.  Evaluation of predictors of unfavorable pathological features in men eligible for active surveillance using radical prostatectomy specimens: a multi-institutional study.

Authors:  Kei Mizuno; Takahiro Inoue; Hidefumi Kinoshita; Toshifumi Yano; Hiroaki Kawanishi; Hideki Kanda; Naoki Terada; Takashi Kobayashi; Tomomi Kamba; Yoshiki Mikami; Taizo Shiraishi; Yoshiko Uemura; Yukihiro Imai; Gen Honjo; Tomoyuki Shirase; Kazuhiro Okumura; Mutsushi Kawakita; Keiji Ogura; Yoshiki Sugimura; Tadashi Matsuda; Osamu Ogawa
Journal:  Jpn J Clin Oncol       Date:  2016-10-15       Impact factor: 3.019

3.  Pathologic outcomes for low-risk prostate cancer after delayed radical prostatectomy in the United States.

Authors:  Adam B Weiner; Sanjay G Patel; Scott E Eggener
Journal:  Urol Oncol       Date:  2015-01-23       Impact factor: 3.498

4.  Utility of digital rectal examination in a population with prostate cancer treated with active surveillance.

Authors:  Jaime O Herrera-Caceres; Marian S Wettstein; Hanan Goldberg; Ants Toi; Thenappan Chandrasekar; Dixon T S Woon; Ardalan E Ahmad; Noelia Sanmamed-Salgado; Omar Alhunaidi; Khaled Ajib; Gregory Nason; Guan Hee Tan; Neil Fleshner; Laurence Klotz
Journal:  Can Urol Assoc J       Date:  2020-03-30       Impact factor: 1.862

5.  Unfavorable Intermediate-Risk Prostate Cancer and the Odds of Upgrading to Gleason 8 or Higher at Prostatectomy.

Authors:  Neil E Martin; Ming-Hui Chen; Danjie Zhang; Jerome P Richie; Anthony V D'Amico
Journal:  Clin Genitourin Cancer       Date:  2016-06-16       Impact factor: 2.872

6.  The presence of high-grade prostatic intraepithelial neoplasia or atypia on prostate biopsy does not adversely affect prostatectomy outcomes for patients otherwise eligible for active surveillance.

Authors:  Eugene J Pietzak; Abdo E Kabarriti; Phillip Mucksavage; Thomas Bavaria; Keith Van Arsdalen; S Bruce Malkowicz; Alan J Wein; Thomas J Guzzo
Journal:  Urology       Date:  2014-10-05       Impact factor: 2.649

7.  Preoperative Statin Use at the Time of Radical Prostatectomy Is Not Associated With Biochemical Recurrence or Pathologic Upgrading.

Authors:  Timothy D Lyon; Robert M Turner; Jonathan G Yabes; Elen Woldemichael; Benjamin J Davies; Bruce L Jacobs; Joel B Nelson
Journal:  Urology       Date:  2016-08-08       Impact factor: 2.649

8.  Biopsy core number represents one of foremost predictors of clinically significant gleason sum upgrading in patients with low-risk prostate cancer.

Authors:  Umberto Capitanio; Pierre I Karakiewicz; Luc Valiquette; Paul Perrotte; Claudio Jeldres; Alberto Briganti; Andrea Gallina; Nazareno Suardi; Andrea Cestari; Giorgio Guazzoni; Andrea Salonia; Francesco Montorsi
Journal:  Urology       Date:  2009-02-04       Impact factor: 2.649

9.  Magnetic resonance imaging/ultrasound-fusion biopsy significantly upgrades prostate cancer versus systematic 12-core transrectal ultrasound biopsy.

Authors:  M Minhaj Siddiqui; Soroush Rais-Bahrami; Hong Truong; Lambros Stamatakis; Srinivas Vourganti; Jeffrey Nix; Anthony N Hoang; Annerleim Walton-Diaz; Brian Shuch; Michael Weintraub; Jochen Kruecker; Hayet Amalou; Baris Turkbey; Maria J Merino; Peter L Choyke; Bradford J Wood; Peter A Pinto
Journal:  Eur Urol       Date:  2013-06-12       Impact factor: 20.096

10.  Comparative rates of upstaging and upgrading in Caucasian and Korean prostate cancer patients eligible for active surveillance.

Authors:  Hwang Gyun Jeon; Jae Ho Yoo; Byong Chang Jeong; Seong Il Seo; Seong Soo Jeon; Han-Yong Choi; Hyun Moo Lee; Michelle Ferrari; James D Brooks; Benjamin I Chung
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2017-11-14       Impact factor: 3.240

View more
  1 in total

1.  From Cognitive MR-Targeted Fusion Prostate Biopsy to Radical Prostatectomy: Incidence and Predictors of Gleason Grade Group Upgrading in a Chinese Cohort.

Authors:  Huaqing Yan; Yiming Wu; Xiaobo Cui; Sinian Zheng; Peng Zhang; Rubing Li
Journal:  Biomed Res Int       Date:  2022-08-17       Impact factor: 3.246

  1 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.