Favorable intermediate risk prostate cancer with biopsy Gleason score of 6

被引:2
|
作者
Oh, Jong Jin [1 ,2 ]
Ahn, Hyungwoo [3 ]
Hwang, Sung Il [3 ]
Lee, Hak Jong [3 ,4 ]
Choe, Gheeyoung [5 ]
Lee, Sangchul [1 ]
Lee, Hakmin [1 ]
Byun, Seok-Soo [1 ,2 ]
Hong, Sung Kyu [1 ,2 ]
机构
[1] Seoul Natl Univ, Bundang Hosp, Dept Urol, Seongnam, South Korea
[2] Seoul Natl Univ, Coll Med, Dept Urol, Seoul, South Korea
[3] Seoul Natl Univ, Bundang Hosp, Dept Radiol, Seongnam, South Korea
[4] Seoul Natl Univ, Coll Med, Dept Radiol, Seoul, South Korea
[5] Seoul Natl Univ, Bundang Hosp, Dept Pathol, Seongnam, South Korea
基金
新加坡国家研究基金会;
关键词
Prostate cancer; Intermediate risk group; MRI;
D O I
10.1186/s12894-021-00827-2
中图分类号
R5 [内科学]; R69 [泌尿科学(泌尿生殖系疾病)];
学科分类号
1002 ; 100201 ;
摘要
Background To identify potential prognostic factors among patients with favorable intermediate risk prostate cancer with a biopsy Gleason score 6. Methods From 2003 to 2019, favorable intermediate risk patients who underwent radical prostatectomy were included in this study. All patients were evaluated preoperatively with MRI. Using PI-RADS scores, patients were divided into two groups, and clinic-pathological outcomes were compared. The impact of preoperative factors on significant pathologic Gleason score upgrading (>= 4 + 3) and biochemical recurrence were assessed via multivariate analysis. Subgroup analysis was performed in patients with PI-RADS <= 2. Results Among the 239 patients, 116 (48.5%) were MRI-negative (PI-RADS <= 3) and 123 (51.5%) were MRI-positive (PI-RADS > 3). Six patients in the MRI-negative group (5.2%) were characterized as requiring significant pathologic Gleason score upgrading compared with 34 patients (27.6%) in the MRI-positive group (p < 0.001). PI-RADS score was shown to be a significant predictor of significant pathologic Gleason score upgrading (OR = 6.246, p < 0.001) and biochemical recurrence (HR = 2.595, p = 0.043). 10-years biochemical recurrence-free survival was estimated to be 84.4% and 72.6% in the MRI-negative and MRI-positive groups (p = 0.035). In the 79 patients with PI-RADS <= 2, tumor length in biopsy cores was identified as a significant predictor of pathologic Gleason score (OR = 11.336, p = 0.014). Conclusions Among the patients with favorable intermediate risk prostate cancer with a biopsy Gleason score 6, preoperative MRI was capable of predicting significant pathologic Gleason score upgrading and biochemical recurrence. Especially, the patients with PI-RADS <= 2 and low biopsy tumor length could be a potential candidate to active surveillance.
引用
收藏
页数:7
相关论文
共 50 条
  • [41] CORE LENGTH AS A PREDICTOR OF GLEASON SCORE UPGRADING IN MEN DIAGNOSED WITH LOW RISK PROSTATE CANCER BY CONTEMPORARY MULTICORE PROSTATE BIOPSY
    Lee, Sangchul
    Lee, Jung Keun
    Jeong, Chang Wook
    Jeong, Seong Jin
    Hong, Sung Kyu
    Byun, Seok-Soo
    Lee, Sang Eun
    Lee, Hansol
    JOURNAL OF UROLOGY, 2013, 189 (04): : E608 - E608
  • [42] Adverse pathological findings in patients with needle biopsy gleason score 6 prostate cancer following radical prostatectomy
    Bektic, J.
    Pelzer, A. E.
    Schaefer, G.
    Bartsch, G.
    Horninger, W.
    EUROPEAN UROLOGY SUPPLEMENTS, 2007, 6 (02) : 281 - 281
  • [43] THE VALUE OF BIOPSY LATERALITY IN ASSOCIATION WITH PSA AND GLEASON SCORE FOR THE IDENTIFICATION OF SUBJECTS AT HIGH RISK OF RECURRENCE IN PROSTATE CANCER
    Gravina, Giovanni Luca
    Ventura, Luca
    Di Staso, Mario
    Bonfili, Pierluigi
    Festuccia, Cluadio
    Francesco, Marampon
    Tombolini, Vincenzo
    Lenzi, Andrea
    Jannini, Emmanuele A.
    ANTICANCER RESEARCH, 2012, 32 (05) : 1902 - 1903
  • [44] Risk of Upgrading and Upstaging Among 10 000 Patients with Gleason 3+4 Favorable Intermediate-risk Prostate Cancer
    Yang, David D.
    Mahal, Brandon A.
    Muralidhar, Vinayak
    Nezolosky, Michelle D.
    Vastola, Marie E.
    Labe, Shelby A.
    Boldbaatar, Ninjin
    King, Martin T.
    Martin, Neil E.
    Orio, Peter F., III
    Beard, Clair J.
    Hoffman, Karen E.
    Quoc-Dien Trinh
    Spratt, Daniel E.
    Feng, Felix Y.
    Nguyen, Paul L.
    EUROPEAN UROLOGY FOCUS, 2019, 5 (01): : 69 - 76
  • [45] Surgery vs Radiotherapy in the Management of Biopsy Gleason Score 9-10 Prostate Cancer and the Risk of Mortality
    Tilki, Derya
    Chen, Ming-Hui
    Wu, Jing
    Huland, Hartwig
    Graefen, Markus
    Braccioforte, Michelle
    Moran, Brian J.
    D'Amico, Anthony V.
    JAMA ONCOLOGY, 2019, 5 (02) : 213 - 220
  • [46] EFFECT OF TUMOR VOLUME AND PRESENCE OF GLEASON PATTERN 3 IN PROSTATE CANCER PATIENTS WITH GLEASON SCORE 8 ON PROSTATE NEEDLE BIOPSY
    Ginsburg, Kevin
    Silverman, Michael
    Livingstone, Joan
    Smith, Daryn
    Heilbrun, Lance
    Cher, Michael
    JOURNAL OF UROLOGY, 2018, 199 (04): : E705 - E705
  • [47] Editorial Comment to Biopsy undergrading in men with Gleason score 6 and fatal prostate cancer in the European Randomized study of Screening for Prostate Cancer Rotterdam
    Egevad, Lars
    Samaratunga, Hemamali
    Delahunt, Brett
    INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF UROLOGY, 2017, 24 (04) : 286 - 287
  • [48] SURVEILLANCE RATES FOR FAVORABLE INTERMEDIATE AND LOW RISK PROSTATE CANCER
    Frankel, Jason
    Jung, Nathan
    Ferenczi, Basil
    Flores, John Paul
    Porter, Christopher
    JOURNAL OF UROLOGY, 2020, 203 : E149 - E149
  • [49] CANCER OF THE PROSTATE RISK ASSESSMENT SCORE FOLLOWING BIOPSY GLEASON UPGRADE DURING PROSTATE CANCER ACTIVE SURVEILLANCE IS ASSOCIATED WITH ADVERSE PATHOLOGY AT PROSTATECTOMY
    Leapman, Michael
    Ameli, Niloufar
    Chu, Carissa
    Hussein, Ahmed
    Welty, Christopher
    Cooperberg, Matthew
    Carroll, Peter
    JOURNAL OF UROLOGY, 2015, 193 (04): : E513 - E513
  • [50] COMPARISON OF BIOCHEMICAL RELAPSE-FREE SURVIVAL BETWEEN PRIMARY GLEASON SCORE 3 AND PRIMARY GLEASON SCORE 4 FOR BIOPSY GLEASON SCORE 7 PROSTATE CANCER
    Burdick, Michael J.
    Reddy, Chandana A.
    Ulchaker, James
    Angermeier, Kenneth
    Altman, Andrew
    Chehade, Nabil
    Mahadevan, Arul
    Kupelian, Patrick A.
    Klein, Eric A.
    Ciezki, Jay P.
    INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF RADIATION ONCOLOGY BIOLOGY PHYSICS, 2009, 73 (05): : 1439 - 1445