Abstract
Purpose
This study aimed to evaluate (1) the time interval between a decision to commence on active surveillance (AS) and grade progression in community practice; (2) factors predicting grade progression in localised prostate cancer (CaP) patients apparently undergoing AS.
Methods
Data from the Prostate Cancer Outcomes Registry—Victoria were used to analyze men with Gleason 3 + 3 CaP or less who had at least one repeat biopsy. Unadjusted and adjusted 5-year Kaplan–Meier survival curves were used to assess the time to grade progression. Both univariate and multivariate analyses for grade progression were performed using Cox proportional hazards.
Results
The cohort included 951 men. Overall, 39% of men had Gleason grade reclassified to a higher risk disease state with median of 2.2 years [IQR 1.2–3.7 years]. Men who harboured cT2 disease were 30% more likely to have upgrading compared to men with cT1 disease (adjusted HR: 1.3, 95% CI 1.0–1.6, p = 0.048). Half of the men with cT2 in our cohort had their Gleason grade reclassified within 1.6 years from diagnosis as compared with 2.7 years for the cT1 group. The presence of percentage of core involvement >25.0% and a PSA velocity of >1.01 ng/mL/year remained significant for a higher progression rate. The adjusted HR: 1.6; 95% CI [1.2–2.3], p = 0.004; adjusted HR: 1.6, 95% CI [1.2–2.4], p = 0.021, for percent of core involvement of 25.1–37.5%, and ≥37.6%, respectively. The adjusted HRs and p value associated with PSA velocity were 1.5; 95% CI [1.1–2.1], p = 0.016 and 1.6; 95% CI [1.2–2.3], p = 0.003 for PSA velocity values of 1.01–2 ng/mL per year and >2 ng/mL per year, respectively. Men who were diagnosed in regional hospital and subsequently had biopsy in metropolitan hospital were twice at risk of having Gleason upgrade compared to those whom both diagnostic and surveillance biopsies were carried out in metropolitan hospitals (adjusted HR: 1.9; 95% CI 1.1–3.3, p = 0.029).
Conclusions
When placing men on AS and considering time to histologic progression, clinicians should pay particular attention to the likely accuracy of the diagnostic specimen, their tumour stage, volume of tumour (percent of core involvement), and rising PSA. Those diagnosed with T2 disease and had >25.0% of core involvement, and a PSA velocity greater than 1 ng/mL per year is at particular risk for more rapid disease progression and, for this reason, should be counselled on the importance of following the recommended surveillance regimen. For half of these men, their disease will have ‘progressed’ according to biopsy results in 2 years.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Bul M, Zhu X, Valdagni R, Pickles T, Kakehi Y, Rannikko A et al (2013) Active surveillance for low-risk prostate cancer worldwide: the PRIAS study. Eur Urol 63(4):597–603
Chen RC, Rumble RB, Loblaw DA, Finelli A, Ehdaie B, Cooperberg MR et al (2016) Active surveillance for the management of localized prostate cancer (cancer care ontario guideline): American Society of Clinical Oncology clinical practice guideline endorsement. J Clin Oncol 34(18):2182–2190
Moyer VA, Force UPST (2012) Screening for prostate cancer: US preventive services task force recommendation statement. Ann Intern Med 157(2):120
Prostate Cancer Foundation of Australia and Cancer Council Australia PSA Testing Guidelines Expert Advisory Panel (2016) Short form summary: clinical practice guidelines for PSA testing and early management of test-detected prostate cancer. Prostate Cancer Foundation of Australia and Cancer Council Australia, Sydney. Accessed 28 Feb 2017
Sampurno F, Earnest A, Kumari PB, Millar JL, Davis ID, Murphy DG et al (2016) Quality of care achievements of the prostate cancer outcomes registry-Victoria. Med J Aust 204(8):319
Steginga SK, Ferguson M, Clutton S, Gardiner RA, Nicol D (2008) Early decision and psychosocial support intervention for men with localised prostate cancer: an integrated approach. Support Care Cancer 16(7):821–829
Evans SM, Millar JL, Wood JM, Davis ID, Bolton D, Giles GG et al (2013) The Prostate Cancer Registry: monitoring patterns and quality of care for men diagnosed with prostate cancer. BJU Int 111(4 Pt B):E158–E166
Edge S, Byrd DR, Compton CC, Fritz AG, Greene FL, Trotti A (eds) (2010) AJCC Cancer Staging Handbook, 7 edn. Springer-Verlag, New York
Prostate Cancer (Core/Needle Biopsy) Structured reporting protocol (1st Edition 2014). https://www.rcpa.edu.au/getattachment/a3e7f3e0-c69d-4845-bdd2-95d240c92b88/Protocol-prostate-cancer-core-biopsy.aspx. Accessed 28 Feb 2017
Weerakoon M, Papa N, Lawrentschuk N, Evans S, Millar J, Frydenberg M et al (2015) The current use of active surveillance in an Australian cohort of men: a pattern of care analysis from the Victorian Prostate Cancer Registry. BJU Int 115:50–56
Klotz L (2003) Active surveillance with selective delayed intervention: a biologically nuanced approach to favorable-risk prostate cancer. Clin Prostate Cancer 2(2):106–110
van den Bergh RC, Vasarainen H, van der Poel HG, Vis-Maters JJ, Rietbergen JB, Pickles T et al (2010) Short-term outcomes of the prospective multicentre ‘Prostate Cancer Research International: active Surveillance’ study. BJU Int 105(7):956–962
D’Elia C, Cerruto MA, Cioffi A, Novella G, Cavalleri S, Artibani W (2014) Upgrading and upstaging in prostate cancer: from prostate biopsy to radical prostatectomy. Mol Clin Oncol 2(6):1145–1149
Nafie S, Mellon JK, Dormer JP, Khan MA (2014) The role of transperineal template prostate biopsies in prostate cancer diagnosis in biopsy naive men with PSA less than 20 ng ml(−1). Prostate Cancer Prostat Dis 17(2):170–173
Tilki D, Schlenker B, John M, Buchner A, Stanislaus P, Gratzke C et al (2011) Clinical and pathologic predictors of Gleason sum upgrading in patients after radical prostatectomy: results from a single institution series. Urol Oncol 29(5):508–514
Mohler JL, Armstrong AJ, Bahnson RR, et al (2012) Prostate cancer, Version 3, featured updates to the NCCN guidelines. J Natl Compr Cancer Netw 10:1081–1087
Komisarenko M, Wong LM, Richard PO, Timilshina N, Toi A, Evans A et al (2016) An increase in gleason 6 tumor volume while on active surveillance portends a greater risk of grade reclassification with further followup. J Urol 195(2):307–312
Porten SP, Whitson JM, Cowan JE, Perez N, Shinohara K, Carroll PR (2011) Changes in cancer volume in serial biopsies of men on active surveillance for early stage prostate cancer. J Urol 186(5):1825–1829
Loeb S, Sutherland DE, D’Amico AV, Roehl KA, Catalona WJ (2008) PSA velocity is associated with gleason score in radical prostatectomy specimen: marker for prostate cancer aggressiveness. Urology 72(5):1116–1120
O’Brien MF, Cronin AM, Fearn PA, Smith B, Stasi J, Guillonneau B et al (2009) Pretreatment prostate-specific antigen (PSA) velocity and doubling time are associated with outcome but neither improves prediction of outcome beyond pretreatment PSA alone in patients treated with radical prostatectomy. J Clin Oncol 27(22):3591–3597
Thiel R, Pearson JD, Epstein JI, Walsh PC, Carter HB (1997) Role of prostate-specific antigen velocity in prediction of final pathologic stage in men with localized prostate cancer. Urology 49(5):716–720
Kvale R, Moller B, Wahlqvist R, Fossa SD, Berner A, Busch C et al (2009) Concordance between Gleason scores of needle biopsies and radical prostatectomy specimens: a population-based study. BJU Int 103(12):1647–1654
Graham J, Baker M, Macbeth F et al (2008) Diagnosis and treatment of prostate cancer: summary of NICE guidance. BMJ 336(7644):610–612
Nakai Y, Tanaka N, Shimada K, Konishi N, Miyake M, Anai S et al (2015) Review by urological pathologists improves the accuracy of Gleason grading by general pathologists. BMC Urol 15:70
Pal RP, Elmussareh M, Chanawani M, Khan MA (2012) The role of a standardized 36 core template-assisted transperineal prostate biopsy technique in patients with previously negative transrectal ultrasonography-guided prostate biopsies. BJU Int 109(3):367–371
Sampurno F, Evans SM (2015) Victorian prostate cancer clinical registry—five year report: Monash University. http://pcr.registry.org.au. Accessed 28 Feb 2017
Jain S, Loblaw A, Vesprini D, Zhang LY, Kattan MW, Mamedov A et al (2015) Gleason upgrading with time in a large prostate cancer active surveillance cohort. J Urol 194(1):79–84
Sheridan TB, Carter HB, Wang W, Landis PB, Epstein JI (2008) Change in prostate cancer grade over time in men followed expectantly for stage T1c disease. J Urol 179(3):901–904
Wong LM, Tang V, Peters J, Costello A, Corcoran N (2016) Feasibility for active surveillance in biopsy Gleason 3 + 4 prostate cancer: an Australian radical prostatectomy cohort. BJU Int 117(Suppl 4):82–87
Acknowledgements
We would like to thank the participating clinicians and data collectors for their valuable contribution to the PCOR-Vic. We would also like to gratefully acknowledge Movember Foundation for funding support for this project.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Contributions
FS designed the study, conducted data analysis, and wrote the manuscript. AE and SE participated in its design, helped with the preparation of the data set and coordination, and helped to draft the manuscript. JM, MF, DM, and WD provided conceptual advice. All authors read and approved the final manuscript.
Corresponding author
Ethics declarations
Conflict of interest
The authors declare that they have no competing interests.
Research involving human participant
The study was approved by the Human Research Ethics Committee of each participating hospital as well as the Monash University Human Research Ethics Committee (CF09/0931-2009000436) and the Cancer Council Victoria (Project No. 0908).
Informed consent
This study used anonymous clinical data that were obtained from patients who have consented to participate in the Prostate Cancer Outcomes Registry—Victoria.
Electronic supplementary material
Below is the link to the electronic supplementary material.
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Sampurno, F., Earnest, A., Millar, J. et al. Population-based study of grade progression in patients who harboured Gleason 3 + 3. World J Urol 35, 1689–1699 (2017). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00345-017-2047-z
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00345-017-2047-z