Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Comparison of clinical outcomes between upgraded pathologic Gleason score 3 + 4 and non-upgraded 3 + 4 prostate cancer among patients who are candidates for active surveillance

  • Original Article
  • Published:
World Journal of Urology Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Purpose

To clarify differences patients with pathological GS (pGS) 3 + 4 according to biopsy Gleason score (bGS) after radical prostatectomy (RP) among candidates for active surveillance.

Methods

Between January 2006 and June 2014, 619 patients who met Royal Marsden criteria and had a pGS 3 + 4 after RP were identified. Patients were stratified into two groups according to bGS: Group A (n = 430) with bGS (3 + 3) and Group B (n = 189) with bGS 7 (3 + 4). Pathological outcomes were compared between the two groups, and the impact of bGS on adverse pathological outcomes was analyzed by logistic regression and biochemical recurrence (BCR)-free survival compared by log-rank test and the Cox proportional hazards model.

Results

The patients in Group B had a higher rate of extracapsular extension (ECE), seminal vesicle invasion and positive surgical margins than those in Group A (p < 0.001, p = 0.005, p = 0.046, respectively). In univariate and multivariate, bGS was significantly associated with ECE [odds ratio (OR) 2.615, p < 0.001; OR 1.769, p < 0.001]. In Kaplan–Meier analysis, BCR-free survival rate was higher in Group A than in Group B (log rank, p = 0.037). In multivariable Cox regression, maximum percentage of core involvement were strongly associated with BCR [hazard ratio (HR) 1.773 (1.248–2.519), p = 0.001].

Conclusions

pGS 3 + 4 was associated with heterogeneous pathologic and biochemical outcomes according to bGS. Patients with pGS 3 + 4 upgraded from bGS 3 + 3 had more favorable pathological outcomes and biochemical survival outcomes than those with bGS 3 + 4.

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

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Ploussard G, Epstein JI, Montironi R et al (2011) The contemporary concept of significant versus insignificant prostate cancer. Eur Urol 60(2):291–303

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Klotz L, Zhang L, Lam A, Nam R, Mamedov A, Loblaw A (2010) Clinical results of long-term follow-up of a large, active surveillance cohort with localized prostate cancer. J Clin Oncol 28(1):126–131

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Cooperberg MR, Carroll PR, Klotz L (2011) Active surveillance for prostate cancer: progress and promise. J Clin Oncol 29(27):3669–3676

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Klotz L (2008) Active surveillance for prostate cancer: trials and tribulations. World J Urol 26(5):437–442

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Eggener SE, Mueller A, Berglund RK et al (2013) A multi-institutional evaluation of active surveillance for low risk prostate cancer. J Urol 189(1 Suppl):S19–S25 discussion S25

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Tosoian JJ, Trock BJ, Landis P et al (2011) Active surveillance program for prostate cancer: an update of the Johns Hopkins experience. J Clin Oncol 29(16):2185–2190

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Bul M, van den Bergh RC, Zhu X et al (2012) Outcomes of initially expectantly managed patients with low or intermediate risk screen-detected localized prostate cancer. BJU Int 110(11):1672–1677

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Godtman RA, Holmberg E, Khatami A, Stranne J, Hugosson J (2013) Outcome following active surveillance of men with screen-detected prostate cancer. Results from the Göteborg randomised population-based prostate cancer screening trial. Eur Urol 63(1):101–107

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Reese AC, Landis P, Han M, Epstein JI, Carter HB (2013) Expanded criteria to identify men eligible for active surveillance of low risk prostate cancer at Johns Hopkins: a preliminary analysis. J Urol 190(6):2033–2038

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Vellekoop A, Loeb S, Folkvaljon Y, Stattin P (2014) Population based study of predictors of adverse pathology among candidates for active surveillance with Gleason 6 prostate cancer. J Urol 191(2):350–357

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Cooperberg MR, Cowan JE, Hilton JF et al (2011) Outcomes of active surveillance for men with intermediate-risk prostate cancer. J Clin Oncol 29(2):228–234

    Article  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Epstein JI, Allsbrook WC Jr, Amin MB, Egevad LL; ISUP Grading Committee. The 2005 International Society of Urological Pathology (ISUP) Consensus Conference on Gleason Grading of Prostatic Carcinoma. Am J Surg Pathol. 29(9):1228–1242

  13. Klotz L (2013) Prostate cancer overdiagnosis and overtreatment. Curr Opin Endocrinol Diabetes Obes 20(3):204–209

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Klotz L (2013) Active surveillance: patient selection. Curr Opin Urol 23(3):239–244

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. van As NJ, Norman AR, Thomas K et al (2008) Predicting the probability of deferred radical treatment for localised prostate cancer managed by active surveillance. Eur Urol 54(6):1297–1305

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Cookson MS, Aus G, Burnett AL et al (2007) Variation in the definition of biochemical recurrence in patients treated for localized prostate cancer: the American urological association prostate guidelines for localized prostate cancer update panel report and recommendations for a standard in the reporting of surgical outcomes. J Urol 177(2):540–545

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Isbarn H, Karakiewicz PI, Ahyai SA et al (2010) Differences in histopathological and biochemical outcomes in patients with low Gleason score prostate cancer. BJU Int 105(6):818–823

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Hardie C, Parker C, Norman A et al (2005) Early outcomes of active surveillance for localized prostate cancer. BJU Int 95(7):956–960

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Selvadurai ED, Singhera M, Thomas K et al (2013) Medium-term outcomes of active surveillance for localised prostate cancer. Eur Urol 64(6):981–987

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Epstein JI, Feng Z, Trock BJ, Pierorazio PM (2012) Upgrading and downgrading of prostate cancer from biopsy to radical prostatectomy: incidence and predictive factors using the modified Gleason grading system and factoring in tertiary grades. Eur Urol 61(5):1019–1024

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Kwon O, Kim TJ, Lee IJ, Byun SS, Lee SE, Hong SK (2014) Can contemporary patients with biopsy Gleason score 3 + 4 be eligible for active surveillance? PLoS One 9(9):e109031

    Article  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Donin NM, Laze J, Zhou M, Ren Q, Lepor H (2013) Gleason 6 prostate tumors diagnosed in the PSA era do not demonstrate the capacity for metastatic spread at the time of radical prostatectomy. Urology 82(1):148–152

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. Eggener SE, Scardino PT, Walsh PC et al (2011) Predicting 15-year prostate cancer specific mortality after radical prostatectomy. J Urol 185(3):869–875

    Article  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. Kweldam CF, Wildhagen MF, Steyerberg EW, Bangma CH, van der Kwast TH, van Leenders GJ (2014) Cribriform growth is highly predictive for postoperative metastasis and disease-specific death in Gleason score 7 prostate cancer. Mod Pathol

  25. Sowalsky AG, Ye H, Bubley GJ, Balk SP (2013) Clonal progression of prostate cancers from Gleason grade 3 to grade 4. Cancer Res 73(3):1050–1055

    Article  PubMed Central  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  26. Mullins JK, Bonekamp D, Landis P et al (2013) Multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging findings in men with low-risk prostate cancer followed using active surveillance. BJU Int 111(7):1037–1045

    Article  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  27. Park BH, Jeon HG, Choo SH et al (2014) Role of multiparametric 3.0-Tesla magnetic resonance imaging in patients with prostate cancer eligible for active surveillance. BJU Int 113(6):864–870

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  28. Lee DH, Koo KC, Lee SH et al (2013) Low-risk prostate cancer patients without visible tumor (T1c) on multiparametric MRI could qualify for active surveillance candidate even if they did not meet inclusion criteria of active surveillance protocol. Jpn J Clin Oncol 43(5):553–558

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Conflict of interest

None of the authors have any conflicts of interest with any institution or product.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Seoul National University Bundang Hospital, Seongnam, Republic of Korea

    Jung Ki Jo, Sung Kyu Hong, Seok-Soo Byun, Sang Eun Lee & Jong Jin Oh

Authors
  1. Jung Ki Jo
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Sung Kyu Hong
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Seok-Soo Byun
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Sang Eun Lee
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Jong Jin Oh
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Jong Jin Oh.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Jo, J.K., Hong, S.K., Byun, SS. et al. Comparison of clinical outcomes between upgraded pathologic Gleason score 3 + 4 and non-upgraded 3 + 4 prostate cancer among patients who are candidates for active surveillance. World J Urol 33, 1729–1734 (2015). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00345-015-1527-2

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00345-015-1527-2

Keywords

Search

Navigation