Impact of Gleason score on biochemical recurrence in patients with pT3aN0/Nx prostate cancer with positive surgical margins: a multicenter study from the Prostate Cancer Research Committee
- 374 Downloads
Oncologic outcomes of patients with pT3aN0/Nx prostate cancer (PCa) with positive surgical margins (PSM) after radical prostatectomy (RP) are heterogeneous. We investigated the impact of Gleason score (GS) on biochemical recurrence (BCR) in these patients.
A retrospective, multicenter study was performed on 795 patients with pT3aN0/Nx PCa with PSM after RP between January 2006 and December 2014. Clinicopathologic characteristics of patients were examined and onset of BCR was identified. Kaplan–Meier survival analysis was used to illustrate BCR-free survival (BFS) and Cox proportional hazard models were applied to identify factors predicting BCR.
During the mean follow-up period of 63.9 months, BCR was identified in 274 (34.5%) patients. The 5-year BFS was 56.6% in all patients. In multivariate analysis, pathologic GS was the only significant prognostic factor for BCR in patients with pT3aN0/Nx PCa with PSM (GS 6 vs. GS 7 (3 + 4), P = 0.047; vs. GS 7 (4 + 3), P = 0.007, and vs. GS 8–10, P < 0.001). When patients were stratified according to GS, 5-year BFS was 78.6% in GS 6, 66.2% in GS 7 (3 + 4), 51.1% in GS 7 (4 + 3) and 35.5% in GS 8–10.
In patients with pT3aN0/Nx with PSM after RP, pathologic GS is the sole independent predictor for risk stratification of BCR. These findings might be used to determine the risk and timing of BCR and to help counsel patients regarding treatment strategy and prognosis of disease on an individual basis.
KeywordsBiochemical recurrence Gleason score Positive surgical margin Prostate cancer Prognostic factor
This study was performed by the Prostate Cancer Research Committee of the Korean Urological Oncology Society.
Compliance with ethical standards
Conflict of interest
The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.
All procedures performed in studies involving human participants were in accordance with the ethical standards of the institutional and/or national research committee and with the 1964 Helsinki declaration and its later amendments or comparable ethical standards.
No funding was received.
Written informed consent was exempted because of the retrospective study design.
- Abdollah F, Suardi N, Cozzarini C, Gallina A, Capitanio U, Bianchi M, Sun M, Fossati N, Passoni NM, Fiorino C, Di Muzio N, Karakiewicz PI, Rigatti P, Montorsi F, Briganti A (2013) Selecting the optimal candidate for adjuvant radiotherapy after radical prostatectomy for prostate cancer: a long-term survival analysis. Eur Urol 63:998–1008CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
- Bolla M, van Poppel H, Collette L, van Cangh P, Vekemans K, Da Pozzo L, de Reijke TM, Verbaeys A, Bosset JF, van Velthoven R, Marechal JM, Scalliet P, Haustermans K, Pierart M, European Organization for R, Treatment of C (2005) Postoperative radiotherapy after radical prostatectomy: a randomised controlled trial (EORTC trial 22911). Lancet 366:572–578CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
- Gandaglia G, Karakiewicz PI, Briganti A, Trudeau V, Trinh QD, Kim SP, Montorsi F, Nguyen PL, Abdollah F, Sun M (2015) Early radiotherapy after radical prostatectomy improves cancer-specific survival only in patients with highly aggressive prostate cancer: validation of recently released criteria. Int J Urol 22:89–95CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
- Heidenreich A, Bellmunt J, Bolla M, Joniau S, Mason M, Matveev V, Mottet N, Schmid HP, van der Kwast T, Wiegel T, Zattoni F, European Association of U (2011) EAU guidelines on prostate cancer. Part 1: screening, diagnosis, and treatment of clinically localised disease. Eur Urol 59:61–71CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
- Heidenreich A, Bastian PJ, Bellmunt J, Bolla M, Joniau S, van der Kwast T, Mason M, Matveev V, Wiegel T, Zattoni F, Mottet N, European Association of U (2014) EAU guidelines on prostate cancer. Part II: treatment of advanced, relapsing, and castration-resistant prostate cancer. Eur Urol 65:467–479CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
- Karl A, Buchner A, Tympner C, Kirchner T, Ganswindt U, Belka C, Ganzer R, Wieland W, Eder F, Hofstadter F, Schilling D, Sievert KD, Stenzl A, Scharpf M, Fend F, Vom Dorp F, Rubben H, Schmid KW, Porres-Knoblauch D, Heidenreich A, Hangarter B, Knuchel-Clarke R, Rogenhofer M, Wullich B, Hartmann A, Comploj E, Pycha A, Hanspeter E, Pehrke D, Sauter G, Graefen M, Gratzke C, Stief C, Wiegel T, Haese A (2015) Risk and timing of biochemical recurrence in pT3aN0/Nx prostate cancer with positive surgical margin—a multicenter study. Radiother Oncol 116:119–124CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
- Srigley JR, Humphrey PA, Amin MB, Chang SS, Egevad L, Epstein JI, Grignon DJ, McKiernan JM, Montironi R, Renshaw AA, Reuter VE, Wheeler TM, Members of the Cancer Committee CoAP (2009) Protocol for the examination of specimens from patients with carcinoma of the prostate gland. Arch Pathol Lab Med 133:1568–1576PubMedGoogle Scholar
- Udo K, Cronin AM, Carlino LJ, Savage CJ, Maschino AC, Al-Ahmadie HA, Gopalan A, Tickoo SK, Scardino PT, Eastham JA, Reuter VE, Fine SW (2013) Prognostic impact of subclassification of radical prostatectomy positive margins by linear extent and Gleason grade. J Urol 189:1302–1307CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
- Wiegel T, Bottke D, Steiner U, Siegmann A, Golz R, Storkel S, Willich N, Semjonow A, Souchon R, Stockle M, Rube C, Weissbach L, Althaus P, Rebmann U, Kalble T, Feldmann HJ, Wirth M, Hinke A, Hinkelbein W, Miller K (2009) Phase III postoperative adjuvant radiotherapy after radical prostatectomy compared with radical prostatectomy alone in pT3 prostate cancer with postoperative undetectable prostate-specific antigen: ARO 96-02/AUO AP 09/95. J Clin Oncol 27:2924–2930CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar