Incidence of upgrading and upstaging in patients with low-volume gleason score 3+4 prostate cancers at biopsy: Finding a new group eligible for active surveillance

Urologia Internationalis

Volumn 90, Issue 3, 2013, Pages 301-305

  Park, Hee Jung ^a,b   Ha, Yun Sok ^a,c   Park, Sung Yul ^b   Kim, Yong Tae ^b   Lee, Tchun Yong ^b   Kim, Jeong Hyun ^d   Lee, Dong Hyeon ^e   Kim, Wun Jae ^c   Kim, Isaac Yi ^a  

^a ROBERT WOOD JOHNSON MEDICAL SCHOOL   (United States)

^b Hanyang University   (South Korea)

^c Chungbuk National University College of Medicine   (South Korea)

^d Kangwon National University   (South Korea)

^e Ewha Womans University   (South Korea)

Author keywords

Active surveillance; Gleason score 3+4; Prostate cancer; Radical prostatectomy

Indexed keywords

PROSTATE SPECIFIC ANTIGEN;

ADULT; AREA UNDER THE CURVE; ARTICLE; CANCER GRADING; CANCER INCIDENCE; CANCER STAGING; CORRELATION ANALYSIS; GLEASON SCORE; HUMAN; MAJOR CLINICAL STUDY; MALE; MIDDLE AGED; NEEDLE BIOPSY; OUTCOME ASSESSMENT; PREOPERATIVE PERIOD; PRIORITY JOURNAL; PROSTATE BIOPSY; PROSTATE CANCER; PROSTATECTOMY; RECEIVER OPERATING CHARACTERISTIC; RETROSPECTIVE STUDY; SENSITIVITY AND SPECIFICITY; STATISTICAL SIGNIFICANCE;

EID: 84876852020     PISSN: 00421138     EISSN: 14230399     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1159/000345292     Document Type: Article

References (18)

1. Dall'Era MA, Cooperberg MR, Chan JM, Davies BJ, Albertsen PC, Klotz LH, Warlick CA, Holmberg L, Bailey DE Jr, Wallace ME, Kantoff PW, Carroll PR: Active surveillance for early-stage prostate cancer: Review of the current literature. Cancer 2008; 112: 1650-1659.
2. Mohler J, Bahnson RR, Boston B, Busby JE, D'Amico A, Eastham JA, Enke CA, George D, Horwitz EM, Huben RP, Kantoff P, Kawachi M, Kuettel M, Lange PH, Macvicar G, Plimack ER, Pow-Sang JM, Roach M 3rd, Rohren E, Roth BJ, Shrieve DC, Smith MR, Srinivas S, Twardowski P, Walsh PC: NCCN clinical practice guidelines in oncology: prostate cancer. J Natl Compr Canc Netw 2010; 8: 162-200.
3. Cooperberg MR, Cowan JE, Hilton JF, Reese AC, Zaid HB, Porten SP, Shinohara K, Meng MV, Greene KL, Carroll PR: Outcomes of active surveillance for men with intermediaterisk prostate cancer. J Clin Oncol 2011; 29: 228-234.
4. Visapaa H, Hotakainen K, Lundin J, Ala-Opas M, Stenman UH: The proportion of free PSA and upgrading of biopsy Gleason score after radical prostatectomy. Urol Int 2010; 84: 378-381.
5. Raventos CX, Orsola A, de Torres I, Cecchini L, Trilla E, Planas J, Morote J: Preoperative prediction of pathologically insignificant prostate cancer in radical prostatectomy specimens: the role of prostate volume and the number of positive cores. Urol Int 2010; 84: 153-158.
6. Corcoran AT, Peele PB, Benoit RM: Cost comparison between watchful waiting with active surveillance and active treatment of clinically localized prostate cancer. Urology 2010; 76: 703-707.
7. Stark JR, Perner S, Stampfer MJ, Sinnott JA, Finn S, Eisenstein AS, Ma J, Fiorentino M, Kurth T, Loda M, Giovannucci EL, Rubin MA, Mucci LA: Gleason score and lethal prostate cancer: does 3+4 = 4+3? J Clin Oncol 2009; 27: 3459-3464.
8. Chan TY, Partin AW, Walsh PC, Epstein JI: Prognostic significance of Gleason score 3+4 versus Gleason score 4+3 tumor at radical prostatectomy. Urology 2000; 56: 823-827.
9. Zeliadt SB, Ramsey SD, Penson DF, Hall IJ, Ekwueme DU, Stroud L, Lee JW: Why do men choose one treatment over another? A review of patient decision-making for localized prostate cancer. Cancer 2006; 106: 1865-1874.
10. Gorin MA, Soloway CT, Eldefrawy A, Soloway MS: Factors that influence patient enrollment in active surveillance for low-risk prostate cancer. Urology 2011; 77: 588-591.
11. Kang DI, Jang TL, Jeong J, Choi EY, Johnson K, Lee DH, Kim WJ, Kim IY: Pathological findings following radical prostatectomy in patients who are candidates for active surveillance: impact of varying PSA levels. Asian J Androl 2011; 13: 838-841.
12. Klotz L, Zhang L, Lam A, Nam R, Mamedov A, Loblaw A: Clinical results of long-term follow-up of a large, active surveillance cohort with localized prostate cancer. J Clin Oncol 2010; 28: 126-131.
13. Shikanov SA, Thong A, Gofrit ON, Zagaja GP, Steinberg GD, Shalhav AL, Zorn KC: Robotic laparoscopic radical prostatectomy for biopsy Gleason 8 to 10: prediction of favorable pathologic outcome with preoperative parameters. J Endourol 2008; 22: 1477-1481.
14. Heidenreich A, Aus G, Bolla M, Joniau S, Matveev VB, Schmid HP, Zattoni F: EAU guidelines on prostate cancer. Eur Urol 2008; 53: 68-80.
15. Dall'Era MA, Konety BR, Cowan JE, Shinohara K, Stauf F, Cooperberg MR, Meng MV, Kane CJ, Perez N, Master VA, Carroll PR: Active surveillance for the management of prostate cancer in a contemporary cohort. Cancer 2008; 112: 2664-2670.
16. Freedland SJ, Kane CJ, Amling CL, Aronson WJ, Terris MK, Presti JC Jr: Upgrading and downgrading of prostate needle biopsy specimens: risk factors and clinical implications. Urology 2007; 69: 495-499.
17. Tilki D, Schlenker B, John M, Buchner A, Stanislaus P, Gratzke C, Karl A, Tan GY, Ergun S, Tewari AK, Stief CG, Seitz M, Reich O: Clinical and pathologic predictors of Gleason sum upgrading in patients after radical prostatectomy: results from a single institution series. Urol Oncol 2011; 29: 508-514.
18. Moussa AS, Li J, Soriano M, Klein EA, Dong F, Jones JS: Prostate biopsy clinical and pathological variables that predict significant grading changes in patients with intermediate and high-grade prostate cancer. BJU Int 2009; 103: 43-48.