scholarly journals Impact of Pathology Review for Decision Therapy in Localized Prostate Cancer

2017 ◽  
Vol 10 ◽  
pp. 117955571774013 ◽  
Author(s):  
Pedro Luiz Serrano Usón ◽  
Ricardo Silvestre e Silva Macarenco ◽  
Fernando Nunes Oliveira ◽  
Oren Smaletz
Keyword(s):  
Prostate Cancer ◽  
Gleason Score ◽  
Specific Antigen ◽  
Treatment Decision ◽  
Localized Prostate Cancer ◽  
Karnofsky Performance Score ◽  
Biopsy Specimens ◽  
Recent Diagnosis ◽  
The Impact ◽  
Pathology Review

Background: The Gleason score is an essential tool in the decision to treat localized prostate cancer. However, experienced pathologists can classify Gleason score differently than do low-volume pathologists, and this may affect the treatment decision. This study sought to assess the impact of pathology review of external biopsy specimens from 23 men with a recent diagnosis of localized prostate cancer. Methods: All external biopsy specimens were reviewed at our pathology department. Data were retrospectively collected from scanned charts. Results: The median patient age was 63 years (range: 46-74 years). All patients had a Karnofsky performance score of 90% to 100%. The median prostate-specific antigen level was 23.6 ng/dL (range: 1.04-13.6 ng/dL). Among the 23 reviews, the Gleason score changed for 8 (35%) patients: 7 upgraded and 1 downgraded. The new Gleason score affected the treatment decision in 5 of 8 cases (62.5%). Conclusions: This study demonstrates the need for pathology review in patients with localized prostate cancer before treatment because Gleason score can change in more than one-third of patients and can affect treatment decision in almost two-thirds of recategorized patients.

Advancing age and the risk of adverse pathology at radical prostatectomy in men with biopsy Gleason score 6 prostate cancer.

2020 ◽  
Vol 38 (6_suppl) ◽  
pp. 289-289
Author(s):  
Daniel Kim ◽  
Ming-Hui Chen ◽  
Hartwig Huland ◽  
Markus Graefen ◽  
Derya Tilki ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Prostate Cancer ◽  
Radical Prostatectomy ◽  
Gleason Score ◽  
Specific Antigen ◽  
Cancer Center ◽  
Study Cohort ◽  
Pathologic Features ◽  
Younger Men ◽  
Biopsy Gleason Score ◽  
The Impact

289 Background: We evaluated the impact of age > 65 years versus younger on the odds of finding adverse pathologic features (pT3/T4 and/or R1 and/or Gleason score 8, 9, 10) at radical prostatectomy (RP) among men with biopsy Gleason score 6 prostate cancer (PC). Methods: The study cohort comprised 3191 men with biopsy Gleason score 6 PC treated with a RP between February 28, 1992 and February 15, 2016 at the Martini-Klinik Prostate Cancer Center. Multivariable logistic regression was used to evaluate the impact of age > 65 years versus younger on the adjusted odds ratio (AOR) of finding adverse pathology at RP adjusting for pre-RP prostate specific antigen (PSA), clinical tumor category, year of diagnosis, percent positive biopsies (PPB), and PSA density (PSAd). Results: Men age > 65 years as compared to younger had significantly lower median PPB (16.67% vs 20.0%; p = 0.01) and PSAd (0.13 ng/mL vs 0.15 ng/mL; p < 0.0001). Yet, while both increasing PPB (AOR 1.018, 95% CI 1.013, 1.023; p- < 0.0001) and PSAd (AOR 4.28, 95% CI 1.66, 11.01; p = 0.003) were significantly associated with an increased odds of finding adverse pathology at RP, men age > 65 years versus younger had a higher odds of adverse pathology at RP (AOR 1.28, 95% CI 1.002, 1.62; p = 0.048). Conclusions: Despite a more favorable median PPB and PSAd, men with biopsy Gleason score 6 PC and who are age > 65 years compared to younger men are at higher risk for having adverse pathology at RP and may benefit from a multiparametric MRI and targeted biopsy before proceeding with active surveillance. If higher grade/stage disease is discovered and treatment indicated then this information could guide both the use and duration of supplemental androgen deprivation therapy in men considering radiation therapy.

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 Physician Recommendations Trump Patient Preferences in Prostate Cancer Treatment Decisions

2016 ◽  
Vol 37 (1) ◽  
pp. 56-69 ◽  
Author(s):  
Karen A. Scherr ◽  
Angela Fagerlin ◽  
Timothy Hofer ◽  
Laura D. Scherer ◽  
Margaret Holmes-Rovner ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Prostate Cancer ◽  
Gleason Score ◽  
Active Treatment ◽  
Patient Preferences ◽  
Initial Treatment ◽  
Specific Antigen ◽  
Treatment Decisions ◽  
Localized Prostate Cancer ◽  
Treatment Preference ◽  
Medical Factors

Objective. To assess the influence of patient preferences and urologist recommendations in treatment decisions for clinically localized prostate cancer. Methods. We enrolled 257 men with clinically localized prostate cancer (prostate-specific antigen <20; Gleason score 6 or 7) seen by urologists (primarily residents and fellows) in 4 Veterans Affairs medical centers. We measured patients’ baseline preferences prior to their urology appointments, including initial treatment preference, cancer-related anxiety, and interest in sex. In longitudinal follow-up, we determined which treatment patients received. We used hierarchical logistic regression to determine the factors that predicted treatment received (active treatment v. active surveillance) and urologist recommendations. We also conducted a directed content analysis of recorded clinical encounters to determine if urologists discussed patients’ interest in sex. Results. Patients’ initial treatment preferences did not predict receipt of active treatment versus surveillance, Δχ2(4) = 3.67, P = 0.45. Instead, receipt of active treatment was predicted primarily by urologists’ recommendations, Δχ2(2) = 32.81, P < 0.001. Urologists’ recommendations, in turn, were influenced heavily by medical factors (age and Gleason score) but were unrelated to patient preferences, Δχ2(6) = 0, P = 1. Urologists rarely discussed patients’ interest in sex (<15% of appointments). Conclusions. Patients’ treatment decisions were based largely on urologists’ recommendations, which, in turn, were based on medical factors (age and Gleason score) and not on patients’ personal views of the relative pros and cons of treatment alternatives.

scholarly journals Needle biopsy size and pathological Gleason Score diagnosis: No evidence for a link

2013 ◽  
Vol 7 (9-10) ◽  
pp. 567 ◽  
Author(s):  
Antonio Cicione ◽  
Francesco Cantiello ◽  
Cosimo De Nunzio ◽  
Andrea Tubaro ◽  
Rocco Damiano
Keyword(s):  
Prostate Cancer ◽  
Gleason Score ◽  
Prostate Biopsy ◽  
Specific Antigen ◽  
Kappa Statistic ◽  
Study Groups ◽  
Localized Prostate Cancer ◽  
Needle Size ◽  
Biopsy Needle ◽  
Biopsy Gleason Score

Background: Biopsy Gleason score (GS), in combination with other clinical parameters, is important to take a therapeutic decision for patients with diagnosis of localized prostate cancer. However, preoperative GS is often upgraded after a radical prostatectomy. Increasing the amount of tissue in prostate biopsy may be a way to avoid this issue. We evaluate the influence of a larger biopsy needle size on the concordance between biopsy and pathological GS.Methods: We analyzed paired biopsies and prostatectomy specimens from 104 cases of men with clinically localized prostate cancer. At the time of prostate biopsy, the patients were prospectively randomized into two needle groups (16-Gauge [G] and 18G) using a 1:1 ratio. GS concordance was estimated performing kappa statistic testing, overall concordance rate and risk to under grade biopsy GS=6. A logistic regression analysis was performed to evaluate the patients’ characteristics as possible risk factors.Results: The overall concordance between prostate biopsy and pathological GS was 76.9% and 75.6% (p = 0.875) and the k values were 0.821 and 0.811 (p = 0.424), respectively, for 16G and 18G needle study groups. The risk to undergrade a biopsy GS=6 was 21.1% and 15.4% (p = 0.709) using a 16G and 18G needle, respectively. Age, prostate-specific antigen, prostate volume and needle calibre were not independently associated with a higher risk of GS discordance.Conclusions: Needle size does not affect the concordance between biopsy and pathological GS. Although GS is not the only way to determine treatment, it is still an unresolved urological issue.

The impact of comorbidity on survival among men with localized prostate cancer.

2011 ◽  
Vol 29 (7_suppl) ◽  
pp. 8-8 ◽  
Author(s):  
G. L. Lu-Yao ◽  
D. Moore ◽  
W. Shih ◽  
Y. Lin ◽  
H. Li ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Prostate Cancer ◽  
Gleason Score ◽  
Tumor Grade ◽  
Tumor Stage ◽  
Localized Prostate Cancer ◽  
Medicare Program ◽  
Co Morbidity ◽  
Underlying Causes ◽  
Morbidity Index ◽  
The Impact

8 Background: To provide patients and clinicians more accurate estimates of co-morbidity specific survival stratified by patient age, tumor stage and tumor grade. Methods: We conducted a ten year competing risk analysis of 19,639 men age 66 years and older identified by the Surveillance, Epidemiology and End Results (SEER) program linked to Medicare program files. All men were diagnosed with localized prostate cancer and received no surgery or radiation within 180 days of diagnosis. The analysis was stratified by tumor grade and stage and by age and co-morbidity at diagnosis classified using the Charlson co-morbidity index. Underlying causes of death were obtained from SEER. Results: During the first ten years following diagnosis men with moderately and poorly differentiated prostate cancer were more likely to die from causes other than their disease. For men age 66-74 years with stage T1c Gleason score 5-7 disease at diagnosis, ten year overall mortality rates and prostate cancer specific rates were 28.8%, 50.5%, 83.1% and 4.8%, 2.0%, 5.3% respectively for men with Charlson scores 0, 1 and > 2. For men age 66-74 years with T1c Gleason score 8-10 disease at diagnosis, the corresponding rates were 55.0%, 52.0%, 64.3% and 25.7%, 20.2%, 13.7% respectively for men with Charlson scores 0, 1, > 2. Death from competing medical hazards was roughly comparable for men with stage T2 disease and higher for all men over age 75. Conclusions: Patients and clinicians should consider using co-morbidity specific data to estimate the threat posed by localized prostate cancer. No significant financial relationships to disclose.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document