Benedikt Hoeh1, Rocco Simone Flammia2, Lukas Hohenhorst3, Gabriele Sorce4, Francesco Chierigo5, Zhe Tian6, Fred Saad6, Michele Gallucci7, Alberto Briganti8, Carlo Terrone9, Shahrokh F Shariat10, Markus Graefen11, Derya Tilki12, Luis A Kluth13, Philipp Mandel13, Felix K H Chun13, Pierre I Karakiewicz6. 1. Department of Urology, University Hospital Frankfurt, Goethe University Frankfurt am Main, Frankfurt am Main, Germany; Cancer Prognostics and Health Outcomes Unit, Division of Urology, University of Montréal Health Center, Montréal, Québec, Canada. Electronic address: benedikt.hoeh@kgu.de. 2. Cancer Prognostics and Health Outcomes Unit, Division of Urology, University of Montréal Health Center, Montréal, Québec, Canada; Department of Maternal-Child and Urological Sciences, Sapienza Rome University, Policlinico Umberto I Hospital, Rome, Italy. 3. Cancer Prognostics and Health Outcomes Unit, Division of Urology, University of Montréal Health Center, Montréal, Québec, Canada; Martini-Klinik Prostate Cancer Center, University Hospital Hamburg-Eppendorf, Hamburg, Germany. 4. Cancer Prognostics and Health Outcomes Unit, Division of Urology, University of Montréal Health Center, Montréal, Québec, Canada; Division of Experimental Oncology/Unit of Urology, URI, Urological Research Institute, IRCCS San Raffaele Scientific Institute, Milan, Italy. 5. Cancer Prognostics and Health Outcomes Unit, Division of Urology, University of Montréal Health Center, Montréal, Québec, Canada; Department of Surgical and Diagnostic Integrated Sciences (DISC), University of Genova, Genova, Italy. 6. Cancer Prognostics and Health Outcomes Unit, Division of Urology, University of Montréal Health Center, Montréal, Québec, Canada. 7. Department of Maternal-Child and Urological Sciences, Sapienza Rome University, Policlinico Umberto I Hospital, Rome, Italy. 8. Division of Experimental Oncology/Unit of Urology, URI, Urological Research Institute, IRCCS San Raffaele Scientific Institute, Milan, Italy. 9. Department of Surgical and Diagnostic Integrated Sciences (DISC), University of Genova, Genova, Italy. 10. Department of Urology, Comprehensive Cancer Center, Medical University of Vienna, Vienna, Austria; Department of Urology, Weill Cornell Medical College, New York, NY; Department of Urology, University of Texas Southwestern, Dallas, TX; Hourani Center for Applied Scientific Research, Al-Ahliyya Amman University, Amman, Jordan. 11. Martini-Klinik Prostate Cancer Center, University Hospital Hamburg-Eppendorf, Hamburg, Germany. 12. Martini-Klinik Prostate Cancer Center, University Hospital Hamburg-Eppendorf, Hamburg, Germany; Department of Urology, University Hospital Hamburg-Eppendorf, Hamburg, Germany; Department of Urology, Koc University Hospital, Istanbul, Turkey. 13. Department of Urology, University Hospital Frankfurt, Goethe University Frankfurt am Main, Frankfurt am Main, Germany.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: Not infrequently patients are diagnosed with clinically localized prostate based on a single positive biopsy core exhibiting Gleason grade group 1 (GGG1) with variable prostate-specific antigen (PSA) levels. We investigated treatment patterns and hypothesized that regardless of PSA in cT1- to cT2-stage patients, presence of GGG3/GGG4/GGG5 and/or non-organ confined stage will rarely be identified. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Within the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results database (2010-2015), clinically localized prostate cancer (CaP) patients with PSA ≤ 50 ng/ml and a single positive GGG1 biopsy core were identified. Overall treatment rates were examined, estimated annual percentage changes and logistic regression analyses were fitted to test for no-local treatment. Subsequently, rates of upgrading (GGG3/GGG4/GGG5) and/or upstaging (≥pT3 and/or pN1) were investigated in radical prostatectomy patients. RESULTS: 13,342 clinically localized CaP patients harbored single GGG1 positive biopsy core at diagnosis. No local treatment was recorded in 5,235 (53.0%) cT1-stage vs. in 1,039 (49.0%) cT2-stage patients. No local treatment rates increased over time from 35.0% to 67.0% vs. 34.0% to 63.0% in cT1 vs. cT2 patients, observations were confirmed in logistic regression analyses (cT1: multivariable odds ratio [mOR]: 1.39; cT2: mOR: 1.33). In radical prostatectomy treated cT1-patients (n = 2,293) and cT2-patients (n = 659), upgrading vs. upstaging vs. upgrading/upstaging combined was 6.1%, 6.5%, 11.0% and 6.2%, 5.0%, 9.9% respectively. CONCLUSIONS: In single GGG1 positive biopsy core CaP patients, the combined proportion of upgrading and upstaging should be expected in one tenth. In consequence, the overwhelming majority harbors favorable grade and stage that is compatible with no local treatment.
OBJECTIVE: Not infrequently patients are diagnosed with clinically localized prostate based on a single positive biopsy core exhibiting Gleason grade group 1 (GGG1) with variable prostate-specific antigen (PSA) levels. We investigated treatment patterns and hypothesized that regardless of PSA in cT1- to cT2-stage patients, presence of GGG3/GGG4/GGG5 and/or non-organ confined stage will rarely be identified. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Within the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results database (2010-2015), clinically localized prostate cancer (CaP) patients with PSA ≤ 50 ng/ml and a single positive GGG1 biopsy core were identified. Overall treatment rates were examined, estimated annual percentage changes and logistic regression analyses were fitted to test for no-local treatment. Subsequently, rates of upgrading (GGG3/GGG4/GGG5) and/or upstaging (≥pT3 and/or pN1) were investigated in radical prostatectomy patients. RESULTS: 13,342 clinically localized CaP patients harbored single GGG1 positive biopsy core at diagnosis. No local treatment was recorded in 5,235 (53.0%) cT1-stage vs. in 1,039 (49.0%) cT2-stage patients. No local treatment rates increased over time from 35.0% to 67.0% vs. 34.0% to 63.0% in cT1 vs. cT2 patients, observations were confirmed in logistic regression analyses (cT1: multivariable odds ratio [mOR]: 1.39; cT2: mOR: 1.33). In radical prostatectomy treated cT1-patients (n = 2,293) and cT2-patients (n = 659), upgrading vs. upstaging vs. upgrading/upstaging combined was 6.1%, 6.5%, 11.0% and 6.2%, 5.0%, 9.9% respectively. CONCLUSIONS: In single GGG1 positive biopsy core CaP patients, the combined proportion of upgrading and upstaging should be expected in one tenth. In consequence, the overwhelming majority harbors favorable grade and stage that is compatible with no local treatment.