Association between percentage of tumor involvement and Gleason score upgrading in low-risk prostate cancer

Medical Oncology

Volumn 29, Issue 5, 2012, Pages 3339-3344

  Fu, Qiang ^a,b   Moul, Judd W ^a   Bañez, Lionel L ^a   Sun, Leon ^a   Mouraviev, Vladimir ^a   Xie, Dongha ^a   Polascik, Thomas J ^a  

^a DUKE UNIVERSITY MEDICAL CENTER   (United States)

^b SHANDONG PROVINCIAL HOSPITAL AFFILIATED TO SHANDONG UNIVERSITY   (China)

Author keywords

Gleason score; Low risk disease; Pathological stage; Prostate cancer

Indexed keywords

PROSTATE SPECIFIC ANTIGEN;

ADULT; AFRICAN AMERICAN; AGE; AGED; ARTICLE; BIOCHEMICAL RECURRENCE FREE SURVIVAL; CANCER PATIENT; CANCER RISK; CANCER SURVIVAL; CAUCASIAN; COHORT ANALYSIS; CONTROLLED STUDY; DISEASE FREE SURVIVAL; GLEASON SCORE; HISTOPATHOLOGY; HUMAN; HUMAN TISSUE; KAPLAN MEIER METHOD; MAJOR CLINICAL STUDY; MALE; PRIORITY JOURNAL; PROSTATE BIOPSY; PROSTATE CANCER; PROSTATECTOMY; RISK ASSESSMENT; SEMINAL VESICLE; SURVIVAL RATE; TUMOR BIOPSY; TUMOR INVASION; BLOOD; CANCER GRADING; CANCER STAGING; MIDDLE AGED; MORTALITY; PATHOLOGY; PROGNOSIS; PROSTATE TUMOR; RISK FACTOR;

ADULT; AGED; DISEASE-FREE SURVIVAL; HUMANS; KAPLAN-MEIER ESTIMATE; MALE; MIDDLE AGED; NEOPLASM GRADING; NEOPLASM STAGING; PROGNOSIS; PROSTATE-SPECIFIC ANTIGEN; PROSTATIC NEOPLASMS; RISK FACTORS;

EID: 84880306415     PISSN: 13570560     EISSN: 1559131X     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1007/s12032-012-0270-4     Document Type: Article

References (20)

1. Cooperberg MR, Broering JM, Kantoff PW, Carroll PR. Contemporary trends in low risk prostate cancer: risk assessment and treatment. J Urol. 2007;178:14-9.
2. Carroll PR. Early stage prostate cancer-do we have a problem with over-detection, overtreatment or both? J Urol. 2005;173:1061-2.
3. Klotz L. Active surveillance for favorable risk prostate cancer: what are the results, and how safe is it? Semin Radiat Oncol. 2008;18:2-6.
4. Stattin P, Holmberg E, Johansson JE, Holmberg L, Adolfsson J, et al. National Prostate Cancer Register (NPCR) of Sweden. Outcomes in localized prostate cancer: National Prostate Cancer Register of Sweden follow-up study. J Natl Cancer Inst. 2010;102:950-8.
5. D'Amico AV, Renshaw AA, Arsenault L, Schultz D, Richie JP. Clinical predictors of upgrading to Gleason grade 4 or 5 disease at radical prostatectomy: potential implications for patient selection for radiation and androgen suppression therapy. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 1999;45:841-6.
6. Fukagai T, Namiki T, Namiki H, Carlile RG, Shimada M, et al. Discrepancies between Gleason scores of needle biopsy and radical prostatectomy specimens. Pathol Int. 2001;51:364-70.
7. Moussa AS, Li J, Soriano M, Klein EA, Dong F, et al. Prostate biopsy clinical and pathological variables that predict significant grading changes inpatients with intermediate and high grade prostate cancer. BJU Int. 2009;103:43-8.
8. Albertsen PC, Hanley JA, Fine J. 20-year outcomes following conservative management of clinically localized prostate cancer. JAMA. 2005;293:2095-101.
9. Turley RS, Hamilton RJ, Terris MK, Kane CJ, Aronson WJ, et al. Small transrectal ultrasound volume predicts clinically significant Gleason score upgrading after radical prostatectomy: results from the SEARCH database. J Urol. 2008;179:523-7.
10. Freedland SJ, Kane CJ, Amling CL, Aronson WJ, Terris MK, et al. Upgrading and downgrading of prostate needle biopsy specimens: risk factors and clinical implications. Urology. 2007;69:495-9.
11. Uhlman MA, Sun L, Stackhouse DA, Caire AA, Polascik TJ, et al. Tumor volume, tumor percentage involvement, or prostate volume: which is predictive of prostate-specific antigen recurrence? Urology. 2010;75:460-6.
12. Mouraviev V, Sun L, Madden JF, Mayes JM, Moul JW, et al. Prostate cancer laterality does not predict prostate-specific antigen recurrence after radical prostatectomy. Urology. 2007;70:1141-5.
13. Shao YH, Demissie K, Shih W, Mehta AR, Stein MN, et al. Contemporary risk profile of prostate cancer in the United States. J Natl Cancer Inst. 2009;101:1280-3.
14. Carter HB, Kettermann A, Warlick C, Metter EJ, Landis P, et al. Expectant management of prostate cancer with curative intent: an update of the Johns Hopkins experience. J Urol. 2007;178:2359-64.
15. Klotz L. Active surveillance for prostate cancer: for whom? J Clin Oncol. 2005;23:8165-9.
16. Müntener M, Epstein JI, Hernandez DJ, Gonzalgo ML, Mangold L, et al. Prognostic significance of Gleason score discrepancies between needle biopsy and radical prostatectomy. Eur Urol. 2008;53:767-75.
17. Hong SK, Han BK, Lee ST, Kim SS, Min KE, et al. Prediction of Gleason score upgrading in low-risk prostate cancers diagnosed via multi (> or =12)-core prostate biopsy. World J Urol. 2009;27:271-6.
18. Capitanio U, Karakiewicz PI, Valiquette L, Perrotte P, Jeldres C, et al. Biopsy core number represents one of foremost predictors of clinically significant Gleason sum upgrading in patients with low-risk prostate cancer. Urology. 2009;73:1087-91.
19. van den Bergh RC, Vasarainen H, van der Poel HG, Vis-Maters JJ, Rietbergen JB, et al. Short-term outcomes of the prospective multicentre 'Prostate Cancer Research International: Active Surveillance' study. BJU Int. 2010;105:956-62.
20. Taira AV, Merrick GS, Galbreath RW, Andreini H, Taubenslag W, et al. Performance of transperineal template guided mapping biopsy in detecting prostate cancer in the initial and repeat biopsy setting. Prostate Cancer Prostatic Dis. 2010;13:71-7.