Medical Oncology

, Volume 29, Issue 5, pp 3339–3344

Association between percentage of tumor involvement and Gleason score upgrading in low-risk prostate cancer

  • Qiang Fu
  • Judd W. Moul
  • Lionel L. Bañez
  • Leon Sun
  • Vladimir Mouraviev
  • Dongha Xie
  • Thomas J. Polascik
Original Paper

Abstract

To find the predictors of Gleason score upgrading in a cohort of low-risk prostate cancer patients, data were analyzed comprising 1,632 consecutive men with low-risk prostate cancer who underwent radical prostatectomy between 1993 and 2009. Assessment focused on preoperative parameters including patient age, race, diagnostic prostate-specific antigen (PSA) levels, clinical stage and biopsy Gleason score, along with pathological parameters including percentage of tumor involvement (PTI), tumor laterality, pathological stage, extra-capsular extension, seminal vesicle invasion, and surgical margins. These parameters were analyzed using univariate and multivariate methods. Kaplan–Meier curves compared differences in biochemical disease-free survival in men having cancers with and without Gleason score upgrading. Cases involving pathological Gleason score upgrading were identified in 723 (44.3 %) of 1,632 patients. Kaplan–Meier PSA recurrence-free survival curves showed a difference in outcome between men with and without Gleason score upgrading (p < 0.001). Of Gleason score upgraded patients, 35 (4.8 %) men had PTI of <5 %, 237 (32.8 %) had PTI of 5–9.9 %, 177 (24.5 %) had PTI of 10–14.9 %, and 274 (37.9 %) had PTI ≥ 15 % (p < 0.001). PTI (p < 0.001) along with diagnostic PSA, patient age, diagnostic biopsy Gleason score, pathologic stage, and surgical margin status were independent predictors of pathological Gleason score upgrading on multivariate logistic regression. PTI correlates closely with Gleason score upgrading in a low-risk prostate cancer cohort. Low-risk prostate cancer patients with clinical findings suggestive of high PTI or large volume cancers should not benefit from active surveillance strategies.

Keywords

Prostate cancer Pathological stage Gleason score Low-risk disease 

References

  1. 1.
    Cooperberg MR, Broering JM, Kantoff PW, Carroll PR. Contemporary trends in low risk prostate cancer: risk assessment and treatment. J Urol. 2007;178:14–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Carroll PR. Early stage prostate cancer-do we have a problem with over-detection, overtreatment or both? J Urol. 2005;173:1061–2.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Klotz L. Active surveillance for favorable risk prostate cancer: what are the results, and how safe is it? Semin Radiat Oncol. 2008;18:2–6.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Stattin P, Holmberg E, Johansson JE, Holmberg L, Adolfsson J, et al. National Prostate Cancer Register (NPCR) of Sweden. Outcomes in localized prostate cancer: National Prostate Cancer Register of Sweden follow-up study. J Natl Cancer Inst. 2010;102:950–8.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    D’Amico AV, Renshaw AA, Arsenault L, Schultz D, Richie JP. Clinical predictors of upgrading to Gleason grade 4 or 5 disease at radical prostatectomy: potential implications for patient selection for radiation and androgen suppression therapy. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 1999;45:841–6.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Fukagai T, Namiki T, Namiki H, Carlile RG, Shimada M, et al. Discrepancies between Gleason scores of needle biopsy and radical prostatectomy specimens. Pathol Int. 2001;51:364–70.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Moussa AS, Li J, Soriano M, Klein EA, Dong F, et al. Prostate biopsy clinical and pathological variables that predict significant grading changes inpatients with intermediate and high grade prostate cancer. BJU Int. 2009;103:43–8.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Albertsen PC, Hanley JA, Fine J. 20-year outcomes following conservative management of clinically localized prostate cancer. JAMA. 2005;293:2095–101.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Turley RS, Hamilton RJ, Terris MK, Kane CJ, Aronson WJ, et al. Small transrectal ultrasound volume predicts clinically significant Gleason score upgrading after radical prostatectomy: results from the SEARCH database. J Urol. 2008;179:523–7.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Freedland SJ, Kane CJ, Amling CL, Aronson WJ, Terris MK, et al. Upgrading and downgrading of prostate needle biopsy specimens: risk factors and clinical implications. Urology. 2007;69:495–9.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Uhlman MA, Sun L, Stackhouse DA, Caire AA, Polascik TJ, et al. Tumor volume, tumor percentage involvement, or prostate volume: which is predictive of prostate-specific antigen recurrence? Urology. 2010;75:460–6.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Mouraviev V, Sun L, Madden JF, Mayes JM, Moul JW, et al. Prostate cancer laterality does not predict prostate-specific antigen recurrence after radical prostatectomy. Urology. 2007;70:1141–5.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Shao YH, Demissie K, Shih W, Mehta AR, Stein MN, et al. Contemporary risk profile of prostate cancer in the United States. J Natl Cancer Inst. 2009;101:1280–3.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Carter HB, Kettermann A, Warlick C, Metter EJ, Landis P, et al. Expectant management of prostate cancer with curative intent: an update of the Johns Hopkins experience. J Urol. 2007;178:2359–64.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Klotz L. Active surveillance for prostate cancer: for whom? J Clin Oncol. 2005;23:8165–9.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Müntener M, Epstein JI, Hernandez DJ, Gonzalgo ML, Mangold L, et al. Prognostic significance of Gleason score discrepancies between needle biopsy and radical prostatectomy. Eur Urol. 2008;53:767–75.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Hong SK, Han BK, Lee ST, Kim SS, Min KE, et al. Prediction of Gleason score upgrading in low-risk prostate cancers diagnosed via multi (> or =12)-core prostate biopsy. World J Urol. 2009;27:271–6.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Capitanio U, Karakiewicz PI, Valiquette L, Perrotte P, Jeldres C, et al. Biopsy core number represents one of foremost predictors of clinically significant Gleason sum upgrading in patients with low-risk prostate cancer. Urology. 2009;73:1087–91.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    van den Bergh RC, Vasarainen H, van der Poel HG, Vis-Maters JJ, Rietbergen JB, et al. Short-term outcomes of the prospective multicentre ‘Prostate Cancer Research International: Active Surveillance’ study. BJU Int. 2010;105:956–62.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Taira AV, Merrick GS, Galbreath RW, Andreini H, Taubenslag W, et al. Performance of transperineal template guided mapping biopsy in detecting prostate cancer in the initial and repeat biopsy setting. Prostate Cancer Prostatic Dis. 2010;13:71–7.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2012

Authors and Affiliations

  • Qiang Fu
    • 1
    • 2
  • Judd W. Moul
    • 1
  • Lionel L. Bañez
    • 1
  • Leon Sun
    • 1
  • Vladimir Mouraviev
    • 1
  • Dongha Xie
    • 1
  • Thomas J. Polascik
    • 1
  1. 1.Division of Urology, Department of Surgery, Duke Prostate CenterDuke University Medical CenterDurhamUSA
  2. 2.Department of UrologyProvincial Hospital Affiliated to Shandong UniversityJinanChina

Personalised recommendations