Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Clinical outcomes of intraductal carcinoma or cribriform in radical prostatectomy specimens of men opting for active surveillance: data from the PRIAS–JAPAN study

  • Original Article
  • Published:
International Journal of Clinical Oncology Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Background

Among early stage prostate cancer patients, intraductal carcinoma of the prostate (IDC-P) and invasive cribriform are key prognostic factors; however, their presence and clinical significance following active surveillance (AS) are unknown. In men who opted for AS, we aimed to examine the presence and impact of IDC-P or cribriform, utilizing radical prostatectomy (RP) specimens.

Methods

We re-reviewed 137 RP specimens available in the PRIAS–JAPAN prospective cohort between January 2010 and September 2020. We assessed the presence of IDC-P or cribriform, and compared the patients’ characteristics and prostate-specific antigen (PSA) recurrence-free survival after RP between groups with and without IDC-P or cribriform. In addition, we examined the predictive factors associated with IDC-P or cribriform.

Results

The percentage of patients with IDC-P or cribriform presence was 34.3% (47 patients). IDC-P or cribriform pattern was more abundant in the higher Gleason grade group in RP specimens (P < 0.001). The rates of PSA recurrence-free survival were significantly lower in the IDC-P or cribriform groups than in those without them (log rank P = 0.0211). There was no association between IDC-P or cribriform on RP with the Prostate Imaging-Reporting and Data System (PI-RADS) 4,5 score on magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) before RP even with adjustments for other covariates (OR, 1.43; 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.511–3.980, P = 0.497).

Conclusions

IDC-P or cribriform comprised approximately one-third of all RP specimens in men who underwent RP following AS, confirming their prognostic significance.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2

Similar content being viewed by others

Data availability

The datasets used and analysed in the present study are from the corresponding author on reasonable request.

References

  1. Bokhorst LP, Valdagni R, Rannikko A et al (2016) A decade of active surveillance in the PRIAS study: an update and evaluation of the criteria used to recommend a switch to active treatment. Eur Urol 70:954–960

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Tosoian JJ, Mamawala M, Epstein JI et al (2020) Active surveillance of grade group 1 prostate cancer: long-term outcomes from a large prospective cohort. Eur Urol 77:675–682

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Klotz L, Vesprini D, Sethukavalan P et al (2015) Long-term follow-up of a large active surveillance cohort of patients with prostate cancer. J Clin Oncol 33:272–277

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Mottet N, van den Bergh RCN, Briers E et al (2021) EAU-EANM-ESTRO-ESUR-SIOG guidelines on prostate cancer-2020 update. Part 1: screening, diagnosis, and local treatment with curative intent. Eur Urol 79:243–262

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  5. Klotz L (2020) Active surveillance in intermediate-risk prostate cancer. BJU Int 125:346–354

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  6. Network NCC NCCN clinical practice guidelines in oncology: Prostate cancer, version 2.2022

  7. Musunuru HB, Yamamoto T, Klotz L et al (2016) Active surveillance for intermediate risk prostate cancer: survival outcomes in the Sunnybrook experience. J Urol 196:1651–1658

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Savdie R, Aning J, So AI et al (2017) Identifying intermediate-risk candidates for active surveillance of prostate cancer. Urol Oncol 35:605.e1-605.e8

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Kweldam CF, Kümmerlin IP, Nieboer D et al (2016) Prostate cancer outcomes of men with biopsy Gleason score 6 and 7 without cribriform or intraductal carcinoma. Eur J Cancer 66:26–33

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Kimura K, Tsuzuki T, Kato M et al (2014) Prognostic value of intraductal carcinoma of the prostate in radical prostatectomy specimens. Prostate 74:680–687

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Dong F, Yang P, Wang C et al (2013) Architectural heterogeneity and cribriform growth predict adverse clinical outcome for Gleason grade 4 prostatic adenocarcinoma. Am J Surg Pathol 37:1855–1861

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Kato M, Hirakawa A, Sato H et al (2021) Grade group 2 (10% ≥ GP4) patients have very similar malignant potential with grade group 1 patients, given the risk of intraductal carcinoma of the prostate. Int J Clin Oncol 26:764–769

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  13. van den Bergh RC, Roemeling S, Roobol MJ et al (2007) Prospective validation of active surveillance in prostate cancer: the PRIAS study. Eur Urol 52:1560–1563

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Tohi Y, Kato T, Matsumoto R et al (2020) The impact of complications after initial prostate biopsy on repeat protocol biopsy acceptance rate. Results from the prostate cancer research international: active surveillance JAPAN study. Int J Clin Oncol 25:2107–2114

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Tohi Y, Kato T, Nakamura M et al (2022) Deferred radical prostatectomy in patients who initially elected for active surveillance: a multi-institutional, prospective, observational cohort of the PRIAS-JAPAN study. Int J Clin Oncol 27:194–201

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  16. Tohi Y, Kato T, Miyakawa J et al (2022) Impact of adherence to criteria on oncological outcomes of radical prostatectomy in patients opting for active surveillance: data from the PRIAS-JAPAN study. Jpn J Clin Oncol. https://doi.org/10.1093/jjco/hyac092

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Epstein JI, Egevad L, Amin MB et al (2016) The 2014 international society of urological pathology (ISUP) consensus conference on Gleason grading of prostatic carcinoma: definition of grading patterns and proposal for a new grading system. Am J Surg Pathol 40:244–252

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. McNeal JE, Yemoto CEM (1996) Spread of adenocarcinoma within prostatic ducts and acini. Morphologic and clinical correlations. Am J Surg Pathol 20:802–814

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  19. Tosoian JJ, Sundi D, Trock BJ et al (2016) Pathologic outcomes in favorable-risk prostate cancer: comparative analysis of men electing active surveillance and immediate surgery. Eur Urol 69:576–581. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eururo.2015.09.032

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. Godtman RA, Schafferer M, Pihl CG et al (2018) Long-term outcomes after deferred radical prostatectomy in men initially treated with active surveillance. J Urol 200:779–785. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.juro.2018.04.078

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. Balakrishnan AS, Cowan JE, Cooperberg MR et al (2019) Evaluating the safety of active surveillance: outcomes of deferred radical prostatectomy after an initial period of surveillance. J Urol 202:506–510. https://doi.org/10.1097/JU.0000000000000247,30958738

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. Sugimoto M, Hirama H, Yamaguchi A et al (2015) Should inclusion criteria for active surveillance for low-risk prostate cancer be more stringent? From an interim analysis of PRIAS-JAPAN. World J Urol 33:981–987

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. Ericson KJ, Wu SS, Lundy SD et al (2020) Diagnostic accuracy of prostate biopsy for detecting cribriform Gleason pattern 4 carcinoma and intraductal carcinoma in paired radical prostatectomy specimens: implications for active surveillance. J Urol 203:311–319

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. Truong M, Feng C, Hollenberg G et al (2018) A comprehensive analysis of cribriform morphology on magnetic resonance imaging/ultrasound fusion biopsy correlated with radical prostatectomy specimens. J Urol 199:106–113

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. Prendeville S, Gertner M, Maganti M et al (2018) Role of magnetic resonance imaging targeted biopsy in detection of prostate cancer harboring adverse pathological features of intraductal carcinoma and invasive cribriform growth. J Urol 200:104–113

    Article  Google Scholar 

  26. Downes MR, Gibson E, Sykes J et al (2016) Determination of the association Between T2-weighted MRI and Gleason sub-pattern: a proof of principle study. Acad Radiol 23:1412–1421

    Article  Google Scholar 

  27. Gandhi JS, Smith SC, Paner GP et al (2020) Reporting practices and resource utilization in the era of intraductal carcinoma of the prostate: a survey of genitourinary subspecialists. Am J Surg Pathol 44:673–680

    Article  Google Scholar 

  28. Chesnut GT, Vertosick EA, Benfante N et al (2020) Role of changes in magnetic resonance imaging or clinical stage in evaluation of disease progression for men with prostate cancer on active surveillance. Eur Urol 77:501–507

    Article  Google Scholar 

  29. Greenland NY, Cooperberg MR, Wong AC et al (2022) Molecular risk classifier score and biochemical recurrence risk are associated with cribriform growth type in Gleason 3+4=7 prostate cancer. Investig Clin Urol 63:27–33

    Article  Google Scholar 

  30. Sonn GA, Fan RE, Ghanouni P et al (2019) Prostate magnetic resonance imaging interpretation varies substantially across radiologists. Eur Urol Focus 5:592–599

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

We would like to extend our thanks to Dr. Shintaro Narita, Dr. Wataru Obara, Dr. Mitsugu Kanehira, Dr. Kazuo Nishimura, Dr. Norio Nonomura, Dr. Koji Hatano, Dr. Kaneki Yasuda, Dr. Masatoshi Eto, Dr. Kenichi Tabata, Dr. Hideyasu Tsumura, Dr. Hiroshi Okuno, Dr. Takayoshi Miura, Dr. Shusuke Akamatsu, Dr. Osamu Ukimura, Dr. Takumi Shiroishi, Dr. Hiroshi Fukuhara, Dr. Naoki Ninomiya, Dr. Tomomi Kamba, Dr. Yoji Murakami, Dr. Yasuo Yamamoto, Dr. Tadashi Murata, Dr. Koji Inoue, Dr. Kazuhiro Suzuki, Dr. Yoshiyuki Miyazawa, Dr. Yukio Kageyama, Dr. Naoya Masumori, Dr. Takahiro Kimura, Dr. Katsuyoshi Hashine, Dr. Tomohiko Ichikawa, Dr. Shinichi Sakamoto, Dr. Nobuyoshi Takeuchi, Dr. Ayumi Fujimoto, Dr. Yukio Naya, Dr. Satoko Kojima, Dr. Akira Miyajima, Dr. Masahiro Nitta, Dr. Haruki Kume, Dr. Koichiro Akakura, Dr. Hiroyoshi Suzuki, Dr. Naoto Kamiya, Dr. Hiro-omi Kanayama, Dr. Yoshito Kusuhara, Dr. Yasuyoshi Miyata, Dr. Hiroki Kurata, Dr. Toshiki Tanikawa, Dr. Toshihiro Saito, Dr. Yoshihiko Tomita, Dr. Fumio Ishizaki, Dr. Takayuki Sugiyama, Dr. Hideaki Miyake, Dr. Akira Yokomizo, Dr. Nobuyuki Hinata, Dr. Takashige Abe, Dr. Satoru Maruyama, Dr. Toshiyuki Kamoto, Dr. Naoki Terada, Dr. Norihiko Tsuchiya, Dr. Hidenori Kanno, Dr. Hiroaki Matsumoto, Dr. Seiichi Saito, Dr. Ryu Kimura, Dr. Isao Hara, Dr. Hiromi Hirama, and the PRIAS–JAPAN secretary, Akiko Mori, for their great contribution to this study.

Funding

This research did not receive any specific grant from funding agencies in the public, commercial, or not-for-profit sectors.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Urology, Faculty of Medicine, Kagawa University, 1750-1, Ikenobe, Miki-cho, Kita-gun, Kagawa, 761-0793, Japan

    Yoichiro Tohi, Takuma Kato, Yoshiyuki Kakehi & Mikio Sugimoto

  2. Department of Diagnostic Pathology, Faculty of Medicine, Kagawa University, Kagawa, Japan

    Ryou Ishikawa & Reiji Haba

  3. Department of Urology, Graduate School of Medicine, The University of Tokyo, Tokyo, Japan

    Jimpei Miyakawa

  4. Department of Renal and Genito-Urinary Surgery, Graduate School of Medicine, Hokkaido University, Hokkaido, Japan

    Ryuji Matsumoto

  5. Department of Urology, Jikei University School of Medicine, Tokyo, Japan

    Keiichiro Mori

  6. Department of Urology, Tohoku University Graduate School of Medicine, Miyagi, Japan

    Koji Mitsuzuka

  7. Department of Urology, Graduate School of Medical Sciences, Kyushu University, Fukuoka, Japan

    Junichi Inokuchi

  8. Department of Urology, National Hospital Organization Shikoku Cancer Center, Ehime, Japan

    Masafumi Matsumura

  9. Division of Urology, Harasanshin Hospital, Fukuoka, Japan

    Kenichiro Shiga

  10. Department of Urology, Kurashiki Central Hospital, Okayama, Japan

    Hirohito Naito

  11. Department of Urology, Wakayama Medical University, Wakayama, Japan

    Yasuo Kohjimoto

  12. Department of Urology, Osaka International Cancer Institute, Osaka, Japan

    Norihiko Kawamura

  13. Department of Urology, Saitama Cancer Center, Saitama, Japan

    Masaharu Inoue

  14. Department of Urology and Andrology, General Medical Center, Kansai Medical University, Osaka, Japan

    Hidefumi Kinoshita

  15. Department of Urology, Sapporo Medical University School of Medicine, Hokkaido, Japan

    Kohei Hashimoto

  16. Department of Urology, Hiroshima University Graduate School of Biomedical Sciences, Hiroshima, Japan

    Keisuke Goto

Authors
  1. Yoichiro Tohi
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Ryou Ishikawa
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Takuma Kato
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Jimpei Miyakawa
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Ryuji Matsumoto
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Keiichiro Mori
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  7. Koji Mitsuzuka
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  8. Junichi Inokuchi
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  9. Masafumi Matsumura
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  10. Kenichiro Shiga
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  11. Hirohito Naito
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  12. Yasuo Kohjimoto
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  13. Norihiko Kawamura
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  14. Masaharu Inoue
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  15. Hidefumi Kinoshita
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  16. Kohei Hashimoto
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  17. Keisuke Goto
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  18. Reiji Haba
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  19. Yoshiyuki Kakehi
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  20. Mikio Sugimoto
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Contributions

Conception or design of the work was performed by YT, TK, and MS. All authors contributed to the acquisition of data for the study. YT and RI were responsible for analysis and interpretation of the data for the work and for drafting the work. All authors, except for YT were responsible for critical revision of the work. All authors provided final approval of the version of this manuscript to be published.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Yoichiro Tohi.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

The authors declare no competing financial interests.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Tohi, Y., Ishikawa, R., Kato, T. et al. Clinical outcomes of intraductal carcinoma or cribriform in radical prostatectomy specimens of men opting for active surveillance: data from the PRIAS–JAPAN study. Int J Clin Oncol 28, 299–305 (2023). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10147-022-02277-8

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10147-022-02277-8

Keywords

Search

Navigation