Clinical predictors of gleason score upgrading - Implications for patients considering watchful waiting, active surveillance, or brachytherapy

被引:92
|
作者
Kulkarni, Girish S.
Lockwood, Gina
Evans, Andrew
Toi, Ants
Trachtenberg, John
Jewett, Michael A. S.
Finelli, Antonio
Fleshner, Neil E.
机构
[1] Univ Toronto, Hlth Network, Div Urol, Dept Surg, Toronto, ON, Canada
[2] Univ Toronto, Hlth Network, Dept Biostat, Toronto, ON, Canada
[3] Univ Toronto, Hlth Network, Dept Pathol, Toronto, ON, Canada
[4] Univ Toronto, Hlth Network, Dept Radiol, Toronto, ON, Canada
关键词
D O I
10.1002/cncr.22712
中图分类号
R73 [肿瘤学];
学科分类号
100214 ;
摘要
BACKGROUND. Brachytherapy, active surveillance, and watchful waiting are increasingly being offered to men with low-risk prostate cancer. However, many of these men harbor undetected high-grade disease (Gleason pattern >= 4). The ability to identify those individuals with occult high-grade disease may help guide treatment decisions in this patient cohort. METHODS. The authors identified 175 cases of low-risk prostate cancer treated with radical prostatectomy By using logistic regression analysis, 11 a priori-defined preoperative risk factors were evaluated for their ability to predict upgrading from Gleason 6 at biopsy to Gleason >= 7 at radical prostatectomy. An internally validated nomogram using all clinical variables was subsequently created to help physicians identify patients who had undetected high-grade disease. RESULTS. A total of 60 (34%) patients were upgraded to high-grade disease. On multivariate analyses, both prostate-specific antigen (PSA) level (P =.02) and the level of pathologist expertise (P =.007) were predictive of upgrading. The predictive nomogram contained these variables plus age, digital rectal examination, transrectal ultrasound results, biopsy scheme applied (sextant vs extended), presence of prostatic intraepithelial neoplasia, prostate gland volume, and percentage of cancer in the biopsy The nomogram provided acceptable discrimination (C statistic 0.71). CONCLUSIONS. The authors identified significant predictors of upgrading for patients diagnosed with low-risk prostate cancer. A nomogram based on these study findings could help physicians further risk-stratify patients with low-risk prostate cancer before embarking on treatment. Caution should be exercised in recommending nonradical therapy to individuals with a high probability of undetected high-grade disease.
引用
收藏
页码:2432 / 2438
页数:7
相关论文
共 50 条
  • [11] PREDICTORS FOR GLEASON SUM UPGRADING IN POTENTIAL CANDIDATES FOR ACTIVE SURVEILLANCE OF PRESUMED LOW-RISK PROSTATE CANCER
    Tan, Gerald
    Ng, Casey
    Dorsey, Phil
    Peters, David
    Srivastava, Abhishek
    Grover, Sonal
    El Douaihy, Youssef
    Mudaliar, Kumaran
    Ye, DaWei
    Fung, Jason
    Lawlor, Amanda
    Leung, Robert
    John, Majnu
    Tewari, Ashutosh
    JOURNAL OF UROLOGY, 2010, 183 (04): : E790 - E791
  • [12] Incidence and Predictors of Upgrading and Upstaging Among 10,000 Patients with Gleason 3+4 Favorable Intermediate-Risk Prostate Cancer: Implications for Active Surveillance
    Yang, D. D.
    Mahal, B. A.
    Muralidhar, V.
    Nezolosky, M. D.
    Vastola, M.
    Labe, S.
    Boldbaatar, N.
    King, M.
    Martin, N. E.
    Orio, P. F., III
    Beard, C. J.
    Trinh, Q. D.
    Nguyen, P. L.
    INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF RADIATION ONCOLOGY BIOLOGY PHYSICS, 2017, 99 (02): : E276 - E277
  • [13] Polygenic Risk Score and Upgrading in Patients With Prostate Cancer Receiving Active Surveillance
    Goss, Louisa B.
    Liu, Menghan
    Zheng, Yingye
    Guo, Boya
    Conti, David V.
    Haiman, Christopher A.
    Kachuri, Linda
    Catalona, William J.
    Witte, John S.
    Lin, Daniel W.
    Newcomb, Lisa F.
    Darst, Burcu F.
    JAMA ONCOLOGY, 2025, 11 (02) : 168 - 171
  • [14] CORRELATION OF BIOPSY GLEASON SCORE AND GLEASON SCORE OF THE CORRESPONDING RADICAL PROSTATECTOMY SPECIMEN IN PATIENTS WHO MET THE INCLUSION CRITERIA FOR ACTIVE SURVEILLANCE
    Skradski, V
    Bektic, J.
    Horninger, W.
    EUROPEAN UROLOGY SUPPLEMENTS, 2011, 10 (02) : 313 - 313
  • [15] CORRELATION OF BIOPSY GLEASON SCORE AND GLEASON SCORE OF THE CORRESPONDING RADICAL PROSTATECTOMY SPECIMEN IN PATIENTS WHO MET THE INCLUSION CRITERIA FOR ACTIVE SURVEILLANCE
    Skradski, Viktor
    Bektic, Jasmin
    Ladurner-Rennau, Michael
    Horninger, Wolfgang
    JOURNAL OF UROLOGY, 2012, 187 (04): : E539 - E540
  • [16] Patients with Biopsy Gleason Score 3+4 Are Not Appropriate Candidates for Active Surveillance
    Park, Juhyun
    Yoo, Sangjun
    Cho, Min Chul
    Jeong, Chorok
    Ku, Ja Hyeon
    Kwak, Cheol
    Kim, Hyeon Hoe
    Jeong, Hyeon
    UROLOGIA INTERNATIONALIS, 2020, 104 (3-4) : 199 - 204
  • [17] PREDICTORS OF TRANSITION TO WATCHFUL WAITING FROM ACTIVE SURVEILLANCE AMONG MEN WITH LOW-RISK PROSTATE CANCER (FIVO COHORT)
    Carmen Mir, Maria
    Ramirez-Backhaus, Miguel
    Luis Dominguez-Escrig, Jose
    Casanova, Juan
    Iborra, Immaculada
    Collado, Argimiro
    Gomez-Ferrer, Alvaro
    Manuel Mascaros, Juan
    Rubio-Briones, Jose
    JOURNAL OF UROLOGY, 2018, 199 (04): : E210 - E211
  • [18] Predictors of Gleason Score (GS) upgrading on subsequent prostatectomy: a single Institution study in a cohort of patients with GS 6
    Mehta, Vikas
    Rycyna, Kevin
    Baesens, Bart M. M.
    Barkan, Gueliz A.
    Paner, Gladell P.
    Flanigan, Robert C.
    Wojcik, Eva M.
    Venkataraman, Girish
    INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF CLINICAL AND EXPERIMENTAL PATHOLOGY, 2012, 5 (06): : 496 - 502
  • [19] PATIENTS NOT SUITABLE FOR ACTIVE SURVEILLANCE BUT IN WHOM GLEASON UPGRADING COULD BE EXCLUDED HAVE BIOCHEMICAL RECURRENCE RATES SIMILARLY FAVORABLE TO PATIENTS WHO ARE SUITABLE FOR ACTIVE SURVEILLANCE
    van den Bergh, Roderick
    Murphy, Declan
    Murphy, Declan
    van der Poel, Henk
    JOURNAL OF UROLOGY, 2016, 195 (04): : E156 - E157
  • [20] Individual Core Length, but Not Total Number of Cores or Total Core Length, Is Associated with Gleason Score Upgrading at Radical Prostatectomy in Patients Eligible for Active Surveillance
    Kawaguchi, K. R.
    Herman, M. P.
    Park, K.
    Srivastava, A.
    Tewari, A. K.
    Mosquera, J. M.
    Robinson, B. D.
    LABORATORY INVESTIGATION, 2012, 92 : 217A - 217A