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

2015 ◽  
Vol 33 (11) ◽  
pp. 1729-1734 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jung Ki Jo ◽  
Sung Kyu Hong ◽  
Seok-Soo Byun ◽  
Sang Eun Lee ◽  
Jong Jin Oh
Keyword(s):  
Prostate Cancer ◽  
Clinical Outcomes ◽  
Active Surveillance ◽  
Gleason Score

Adverse Disease Features in Gleason Score 3 + 4 “Favorable Intermediate-Risk” Prostate Cancer: Implications for Active Surveillance

2017 ◽  
Vol 72 (3) ◽  
pp. 442-447 ◽  
Author(s):  
Alessandro Morlacco ◽  
John C. Cheville ◽  
Laureano J. Rangel ◽  
Derek J. Gearman ◽  
R. Jeffrey Karnes
Keyword(s):  
Prostate Cancer ◽  
Active Surveillance ◽  
Gleason Score ◽  
Intermediate Risk ◽  
Risk Prostate Cancer

scholarly journals Natural history of prostate cancer on active surveillance: stratification by MRI using the PRECISE recommendations in a UK cohort

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Francesco Giganti ◽  
Armando Stabile ◽  
Vasilis Stavrinides ◽  
Elizabeth Osinibi ◽  
Adam Retter ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Prostate Cancer ◽  
Active Surveillance ◽  
Gleason Score ◽  
Rank Test ◽  
Gleason Grade ◽  
Clinical Progression ◽  
Radiological Progression ◽  
Grade Group ◽  
Psa Density

Abstract Objectives The PRECISE recommendations for magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) in patients on active surveillance (AS) for prostate cancer (PCa) include repeated measurement of each lesion, and attribution of a PRECISE radiological progression score for the likelihood of clinically significant change over time. We aimed to compare the PRECISE score with clinical progression in patients who are managed using an MRI-led AS protocol. Methods A total of 553 patients on AS for low- and intermediate-risk PCa (up to Gleason score 3 + 4) who had two or more MRI scans performed between December 2005 and January 2020 were included. Overall, 2161 scans were retrospectively re-reported by a dedicated radiologist to give a PI-RADS v2 score for each scan and assess the PRECISE score for each follow-up scan. Clinical progression was defined by histological progression to ≥ Gleason score 4 + 3 (Gleason Grade Group 3) and/or initiation of active treatment. Progression-free survival was assessed using Kaplan-Meier curves and log-rank test was used to assess differences between curves. Results Overall, 165/553 (30%) patients experienced the primary outcome of clinical progression (median follow-up, 74.5 months; interquartile ranges, 53–98). Of all patients, 313/553 (57%) did not show radiological progression on MRI (PRECISE 1–3), of which 296/313 (95%) had also no clinical progression. Of the remaining 240/553 patients (43%) with radiological progression on MRI (PRECISE 4–5), 146/240 (61%) experienced clinical progression (p < 0.0001). Patients with radiological progression on MRI (PRECISE 4-5) showed a trend to an increase in PSA density. Conclusions Patients without radiological progression on MRI (PRECISE 1-3) during AS had a very low likelihood of clinical progression and many could avoid routine re-biopsy. Key Points • Patients without radiological progression on MRI (PRECISE 1–3) during AS had a very low likelihood of clinical progression and many could avoid routine re-biopsy. • Clinical progression was almost always detectable in patients with radiological progression on MRI (PRECISE 4–5) during AS. • Patients with radiological progression on MRI (PRECISE 4–5) during AS showed a trend to an increase in PSA density.

scholarly journals Essential Updates in Grading, Morphotyping, Reporting, and Staging of Prostate Carcinoma for General Surgical Pathologists

2019 ◽  
Vol 143 (5) ◽  
pp. 550-564 ◽  
Author(s):  
Gladell P. Paner ◽  
Jatin Gandhi ◽  
Bonnie Choy ◽  
Mahul B. Amin
Keyword(s):  
Prostate Cancer ◽  
Active Surveillance ◽  
Gleason Score ◽  
Prostate Carcinoma ◽  
Multidisciplinary Care ◽  
Tnm Staging ◽  
International Consensus ◽  
Gleason Pattern ◽  
Consensus Conferences ◽  
Worse Prognosis

Context.— Within this decade, several important updates in prostate cancer have been presented through expert international consensus conferences and influential publications of tumor classification and staging. Objective.— To present key updates in prostate carcinoma. Data Sources.— The study comprised a review of literature and our experience from routine and consultation practices. Conclusions.— Grade groups, a compression of the Gleason system into clinically meaningful groups relevant in this era of active surveillance and multidisciplinary care management for prostate cancer, have been introduced. Refinements in the Gleason patterns notably result in the contemporarily defined Gleason score 6 cancers having a virtually indolent behavior. Grading of tertiary and minor higher-grade patterns in radical prostatectomy has been clarified. A new classification for prostatic neuroendocrine tumors has been promulgated, and intraductal, microcystic, and pleomorphic giant cell carcinomas have been officially recognized. Reporting the percentage of Gleason pattern 4 in Gleason score 7 cancers has been recommended, and data on the enhanced risk for worse prognosis of cribriform pattern are emerging. In reporting biopsies for active surveillance criteria–based protocols, we outline approaches in special situations, including variances in sampling or submission. The 8th American Joint Commission on Cancer TNM staging for prostate cancer has eliminated pT2 subcategorization and stresses the importance of nonanatomic factors in stage groupings and outcome prediction. As the clinical and pathology practices for prostate cancer continue to evolve, it is of utmost importance that surgical pathologists become fully aware of the new changes and challenges that impact their evaluation of prostatic specimens.

Multiparametric prostate MRI and MRI/ultrasound fusion biopsy as tools to follow prostate cancer progression for men on active surveillance.

2014 ◽  
Vol 32 (4_suppl) ◽  
pp. 63-63 ◽  
Author(s):  
Nabeel Shakir ◽  
Annerleim Walton-Diaz ◽  
Soroush Rais-Bahrami ◽  
Baris Turkbey ◽  
Jason Rothwax ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Prostate Cancer ◽  
Active Surveillance ◽  
Gleason Score ◽  
Cancer Progression ◽  
Predictive Value ◽  
Low Risk ◽  
Fusion Biopsy ◽  
Trus Biopsy ◽  
Risk Prostate Cancer ◽  
Low Risk Prostate Cancer

63 Background: Active surveillance (AS) is an option for patients with low risk prostate cancer (PCa); however, determining disease progression is challenging. At the NCI, multiparametric MRI (MP-MRI) with our biopsy protocol (MR-US fusion-guided plus 12 core extended sextant biopsy) has been used to confirm eligibility for AS. We evaluated the utility of these modalities in monitoring patients on AS. Methods: Patients who underwent MP-MRI of the prostate with biopsy per our protocol between 2007-2012 were reviewed. We selected a subset who met Johns Hopkins criteria for AS (Gleason score≤6, PSA density≤0.15, tumor involvement of ≤2 cores, and ≤50% of any single core) by outside 12−core TRUS biopsy. Patients with Gleason score≤6 confirmed at first NCI biopsy session were followed with annual MP-MRI and biopsy. MRI progression was defined as an increase in MP-MRI suspicion level, lesion diameter, or number of lesions. Pathologic progression was defined as an increase to Gleason score≥7 in either 12-core or MR-fusion biopsy. We determined the association between MRI and pathologic progression. Results: 129 patients met JHU criteria for AS by outside biopsy. Mean age was 61.6 years and mean PSA 5.16ng/mL. 28/129 (21.7%) patients had Gleason score ≥7 at first NCI biopsy session.31 patients had at least two biopsy sessions (mean follow up 18 months, range 12-54 months) of which 9/31 (29%) increased in Gleason score, all to 3+4=7. Fusion biopsy detected more pathologic progression than did standard biopsy (Table). The positive predictive value of MP-MRI for pathologic progression was 50%, while the negative predictive value was 84%. The sensitivity and specificity of MP-MRI for increase in Gleason score was 67% and 73%, respectively. Conclusions: Stable findings on MP-MRI are associated with Gleason score stability in patients with low-risk PCa choosing AS. The majority of patients who had pathologic progression were detected on fusion biopsy, which may suggest that random biopsies are unnecessary in this population. Larger studies are needed to validate these findings. [Table: see text]

Gleason score upgrade among 10,282 men who underwent surgery as initial treatment in 2010: A population-based study.

2014 ◽  
Vol 32 (4_suppl) ◽  
pp. 72-72
Author(s):  
Hong Zhang ◽  
Edward M. Messing ◽  
Hamza Ahmed ◽  
Yuhchyau Chen
Keyword(s):  
Prostate Cancer ◽  
Active Surveillance ◽  
Gleason Score ◽  
Specific Antigen ◽  
Low Risk ◽  
Categorical Variables ◽  
Intermediate Risk ◽  
Time Of Surgery ◽  
Significant Difference ◽  
Risk Prostate Cancer

72 Background: Active surveillance is now accepted initial management for men who have localized prostate cancer with low risk of disease progression. Many criteria have been used for patient identification, including Gleason score (GS) obtained from prostate biopsy. Because of concerns of sampling error, some have recommended repeated biopsy before committing to active surveillance. However, there is limited information about the risk of missing high grade disease using the current standard biopsy approach. This study seeks to compare GS difference from biopsy and surgery to provide an estimated rate of GS upgrade. Methods: The Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER) program was used to identify men with American Joint Committee on Cancer stage T1-2cN0M0 prostate cancer diagnosed between January 2010 and December 2010. Patients who underwent prostatectomy were selected for further analysis. Based on prostate-specific antigen (PSA) levels and GS, cases were divided into low (PSA <=10 and GS <=6) and intermediate (10<PSA<=20 or GS=7) risk groups. The rates of GS upgrade were reported for each group. Chi-square tests were used to assess differences in categorical variables (e.g. age and race) between groups of GS upgrade and no change/downgrade. Results: A total of 10,282 men were evaluated, with 9.2% (n=942) having low-risk disease, and 90.8% (n=9340) having intermediate-risk disease. Among men with low-risk prostate cancer, 22.3% (n=210) had GS upgrade and 0.8% (n=8) had GS 8 disease. Among men with intermediate risk disease, 26.2% (n=2446) had GS upgrade and 2.3% (n=214) had GS 8 disease. There was no statistically significant difference in either age or race distribution among men who had GS upgrade versus no change or downgrade at the time of surgery. Conclusions: A substantial number of low- and intermediate-risk prostate cancer patients had GS upgrade at the time of surgery, but few had upgraded to GS 8 high risk disease. These observations suggest that repeat biopsy prior to active surveillance may not be necessary.

Pathologic upgrading on confirmatory biopsy in a racially diverse group of men on active surveillance for prostate cancer.

2016 ◽  
Vol 34 (2_suppl) ◽  
pp. 142-142
Author(s):  
Allison H. Feibus ◽  
Nora M. Haney ◽  
John Boxberger ◽  
Justin Levy ◽  
Robert Scott Libby ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Prostate Cancer ◽  
Active Surveillance ◽  
Gleason Score ◽  
Repeat Biopsy ◽  
Diverse Group ◽  
Racially Diverse ◽  
Clinical Variables ◽  
Increased Risk ◽  
Initial Biopsy ◽  
Multiple Variables

142 Background: To evaluate the clinical variables associated with upgrading at confirmatory biopsy among a racially-diverse group of men with prostate cancer (PCa) who elect Active Surveillance (AS). Methods: Following IRB approval, of the more than 260 men from our multi-institutional prospective AS database we identified 140 that had undergone at least 1 confirmatory biopsy since their initial diagnosis. Patients whose diagnosis was made on TURP, had any Gleason 4 on their initial biopsy or whose initial and confirmatory biopsy were more than 2 years apart were excluded. The analysis cohort included 121 men who had Gleason Score ≤ 6, clinical stage ≤ T2a and PSA ≤ 20 ng/mL. Disease upgrading on confirmatory biopsy was Gleason score ≥ 7. Multiple variables were examined as univariate and MV predictors of upgrading. Results: We identified 121 men who fit inclusion criteria, 55 (45%) African Americans (AA) and 66 non-AA (55%) with a median follow-up of 22 months. The median age was 66, median number of biopsy cores taken at diagnostic biopsy was 12 and median time interval between diagnostic and confirmatory biopsy was 12 months. On confirmatory biopsy, no evidence of disease was noted for 51 (42%) men (26 AA, 25 non-AA), 48 (40%) men (18, AA, 30 non-AA) had findings consistent with their initial biopsy and 22 men (11 AA, 11 non-AA) experienced upgrading at repeat biopsy. Of the 22 (18%) men who were upgraded, 18 (8 AA, 10 non-AA) upgraded to a Gleason score of 7, 3 (2 AA, 1 non-AA) were upgraded to a Gleason score of 8 and 1 (AA) had a Gleason score of 9. In univariate analysis AA race was associated with a greater number of positive cores (p = 0.04) and greater total prostate volume (p = 0.03) at confirmatory biopsy. Multivariate analysis was performed and none of the clinical variables examined (race, age, BMI, PSA, volume, PSAD, number of positive cores, total number of cores, percentage of positive cores, time between biopsies) were associated with upgrading on repeat biopsy. Conclusions: Our findings suggest that race is not associated with an increased risk of upgrading at confirmatory biopsy. AA with low-risk PCa are reasonable candidates for inclusion in most AS protocols and should not be excluded based on race alone.

scholarly journals Active Surveillance for the Management of Localized Prostate Cancer (Cancer Care Ontario Guideline): American Society of Clinical Oncology Clinical Practice Guideline Endorsement

2016 ◽  
Vol 34 (18) ◽  
pp. 2182-2190 ◽  
Author(s):  
Ronald C. Chen ◽  
R. Bryan Rumble ◽  
D. Andrew Loblaw ◽  
Antonio Finelli ◽  
Behfar Ehdaie ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Prostate Cancer ◽  
Clinical Practice ◽  
Clinical Oncology ◽  
Active Surveillance ◽  
Gleason Score ◽  
Cancer Care ◽  
Specific Antigen ◽  
Localized Prostate Cancer ◽  
Risk Category ◽  
American Society

Purpose To endorse Cancer Care Ontario’s guideline on Active Surveillance for the Management of Localized Prostate Cancer. The American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO) has a policy and set of procedures for endorsing clinical practice guidelines developed by other professional organizations. Methods The Active Surveillance for the Management of Localized Prostate Cancer guideline was reviewed for developmental rigor by methodologists. The ASCO Endorsement Panel then reviewed the content and the recommendations. Results The ASCO Endorsement Panel determined that the recommendations from the Active Surveillance for the Management of Localized Prostate Cancer guideline, published in May 2015, are clear, thorough, and based upon the most relevant scientific evidence. ASCO endorsed the Active Surveillance for the Management of Localized Prostate Cancer guideline with added qualifying statements. The Cancer Care Ontario recommendation regarding 5-alpha reductase inhibitors was not endorsed by the ASCO panel. Recommendations For most patients with low-risk (Gleason score ≤ 6) localized prostate cancer, active surveillance is the recommended disease management strategy. Factors including younger age, prostate cancer volume, patient preference, and ethnicity should be taken into account when making management decisions. Select patients with low-volume, intermediate-risk (Gleason 3 + 4 = 7) prostate cancer may be offered active surveillance. Active surveillance protocols should include prostate-specific antigen testing, digital rectal examinations, and serial prostate biopsies. Ancillary radiologic and genomic tests are investigational but may have a role in patients with discordant clinical and/or pathologic findings. Patients who are reclassified to a higher-risk category (Gleason score ≥ 7) or who have significant increases in tumor volume on subsequent biopsies should be offered active therapy.

scholarly journals Changes in Prostate Cancer Grade on Serial Biopsy in Men Undergoing Active Surveillance

2011 ◽  
Vol 29 (20) ◽  
pp. 2795-2800 ◽  
Author(s):  
Sima P. Porten ◽  
Jared M. Whitson ◽  
Janet E. Cowan ◽  
Matthew R. Cooperberg ◽  
Katsuto Shinohara ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Prostate Cancer ◽  
Active Surveillance ◽  
Gleason Score ◽  
Sampling Error ◽  
Survival Rates ◽  
Specific Antigen ◽  
Extended Period ◽  
Low Risk ◽  
Gleason Grade

Purpose Active surveillance is now considered a viable treatment option for men with low-risk prostate cancer. However, little is known regarding changes in Gleason grade on serial biopsies over an extended period of time. Patients and Methods Men diagnosed with prostate cancer between 1998 and 2009 who elected active surveillance as initial treatment, with 6 or more months of follow-up and a minimum of six cores at biopsy, were included in analysis. Upgrading and downgrading were defined as an increase or decrease in primary or secondary Gleason score. Means and frequency tables were used to describe patient characteristics, and treatment-free survival rates were determined by life-table product limit estimates. Results Three hundred seventy-seven men met inclusion criteria. Mean age at diagnosis was 61.9 years. Fifty-three percent of men had prostate-specific antigen of 6 ng/mL or less, and 94% had Gleason score of 6 or less. A majority of men were cT1 (62%), had less than 33% of biopsy cores involved (80%), and were low risk (77%) at diagnosis. Median number of cores taken at diagnostic biopsy was 13, mean time to follow-up was 18.5 months, and 29% of men had three or more repeat biopsies. Overall, 34% (129 men) were found to have an increase in Gleason grade. The majority of men who experienced an upgrade (81%) did so by their second repeat biopsy. Conclusion A proportion of men experience an upgrade in Gleason score while undergoing active surveillance. Men who experience early upgrading likely represent initial sampling error, whereas later upgrading may reflect tumor dedifferentiation.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document