The biopsy Gleason score 3+4 in a single core does not necessarily reflect an unfavourable pathological disease after radical prostatectomy in comparison with biopsy Gleason score 3+3: Looking for larger selection criteria for active surveillance candidates

Prostate Cancer and Prostatic Diseases

Volumn 18, Issue 3, 2015, Pages 270-275

  Schiavina, R ^a,b   Borghesi, M ^a,b   Brunocilla, E ^a,b   Romagnoli, D ^a   Diazzi, D ^a   Giunchi, F ^b   Vagnoni, V ^a   Pultrone, C V ^a,b   Dababneh, H ^a   Porreca, A ^c   Fiorentino, M ^b   Martorana, G ^a,b  

^a UNIVERSITY OF BOLOGNA   (Italy)

^b UNIVERSITY OF BOLOGNA   (Italy)

^c Policlinico Abano Terme   (Italy)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

PROSTATE SPECIFIC ANTIGEN;

ACINAR CELL; ADVANCED CANCER; AGED; ARTICLE; CANCER EPIDEMIOLOGY; CANCER GRADING; CANCER INCIDENCE; CANCER RADIOTHERAPY; CANCER RECURRENCE; CANCER RISK; CANCER STAGING; CELL PROLIFERATION; CONTROLLED STUDY; FOLLOW UP; GLEASON SCORE; HUMAN; HUMAN TISSUE; LOW RISK PATIENT; MAJOR CLINICAL STUDY; MALE; OUTCOME ASSESSMENT; PREDICTION; PRIORITY JOURNAL; PROSTATE BIOPSY; PROSTATE CANCER; PROSTATECTOMY; PROSTATIC INTRAEPITHELIAL NEOPLASIA; RECURRENCE FREE SURVIVAL; BIOPSY; BLOOD; METASTASIS; MIDDLE AGED; MORTALITY; PATHOLOGY; PROCEDURES; PROSTATIC NEOPLASMS; RECEIVER OPERATING CHARACTERISTIC;

AGED; BIOPSY; HUMANS; MALE; MIDDLE AGED; NEOPLASM GRADING; NEOPLASM METASTASIS; NEOPLASM STAGING; PROSTATE-SPECIFIC ANTIGEN; PROSTATECTOMY; PROSTATIC NEOPLASMS; ROC CURVE;

EID: 84939252862     PISSN: 13657852     EISSN: 14765608     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1038/pcan.2015.21     Document Type: Article

References (26)

1. 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.
2. Van den Bergh RC, Roemeling S, Roobol MJ, Roobol W, Schröder FH, Bangma CH. Prospective validation of active surveillance in prostate cancer: the PRIAS study. Eur Urol 2007; 52: 1560-1563.
3. Iremashvili V, Pelaez L, Manoharan M, Jorda M, Rosenberg DL, Soloway MS. Pathologic prostate cancer characteristics in patients eligible for active surveillance: a head-to-head comparison of contemporary protocols. Eur Urol 2012; 62: 462-468.
4. Villa L, Salonia A, Capitanio U, Scattoni V, Abdollah F, Suardi N et al. The number of cores at first biopsy may suggest the need for a confirmatory biopsy in patients eligible for active surveillance-implication for clinical decision making in the real-life setting. Urology 2014; 84: 634-641.
5. Dall'Era MA, Albertsen PC, Bangma C, Carroll PR, Carter HB, Cooperberg MR et al. Active surveillance for prostate cancer: a systematic review of the literature. Eur Urol 2012; 62: 976-983.
6. Epstein JI, Allsbrook WC Jr, Amin MB, Egevad LL, ISUP Grading Committee. The 2005 International Society of Urological Pathology (ISUP) Consensus Conference on Gleason grading of prostatic carcinoma. Am J Surg Pathol 2005; 29: 1228-1242.
7. Giunchi F, Brunocilla E, Borghesi M, Rizzi S, Ricci MS, Romagnoli D et al. Revised Gleason grading system is a better predictor of indolent prostate cancer at the time of diagnosis: retrospective clinical-pathological study on matched biopsy and radical prostatectomy specimens. Clin Genitourin Cancer 2014; 12: 325-329.
8. Klotz L. Active surveillance: the Canadian experience with an 'inclusive approach'. J Natl Cancer Inst Monogr 2012; 45: 234-241.
9. Thaxton CS, Loeb S, Roehl KA, Kan D, Catalona WJ. Treatment outcomes of radical prostatectomy in potential candidates for 3 published active surveillance protocols. Urology 2010; 75: 414-418.
10. Van den Bergh RC, Roemeling S, Roobol MJ, Aus G, Hugosson J, Rannikko AS et al. Gleason score 7 screen-detected prostate cancers initially managed expectantly: outcomes in 50 men. BJU Int 2009; 103: 1472-1477.
11. Ploussard G, Isbarn H, Briganti A, Sooriakumaran P, Surcel CI, Salomon L et al. Can we expand active surveillance criteria to include biopsy Gleason 3+4 prostate cancer? A multi-institutional study of 2323 patients. Urol Oncol 2014; 33: 71.e1-9.
12. Edge S, Byrd DR, Compton CC, Fritz AG, Greene FL, Trotti A (eds). AJCC Cancer Staging Manual. 7th edn. Springer: New York, NY, USA 2010.
13. Cooperberg MR, Cowan JE, Hilton JF, Reese AC, Zaid HB, Porten SP et al. Outcomes of active surveillance for men with intermediate-risk prostate cancer. J Clin Oncol 2011; 29: 228-234.
14. Klotz L, Vesprini D, Sethukavalan P, Jethava V, Zhang L, Jain S et al. Long-term follow-up of a large active surveillance cohort of patients with prostate cancer. J Clin Oncol 2015; 33: 272-277.
15. Hardie C, Parker C, Norman A, Eeles R, Horwich A, Huddart R et al. Early outcomes of active surveillance for localized prostate cancer. BJU Int 2005; 95: 956-960.
16. Huang CC, Kong MX, Zhou M, Rosenkrantz AB, Taneja SS, Melamed J et al. Gleason score 3+4 = 7 prostate cancer with minimal quantity of Gleason pattern 4 on needle biopsy is associated with low-risk tumor in radical prostatectomy specimen. Am J Surg Pathol 2014; 38: 1096-1101.
17. Chen DJ, Falzarano SM, McKenney JK, Przybycin CG, Reynolds JP, Roma A et al. Does cumulative prostate cancer length in prostate biopsies improve prediction of clinically insignificant cancer at radical prostatectomy in patients eligible for active surveillance? BJU Int; 2014, (doi:10.1111/bju.12880).
18. Russo GI, Cimino S, Castelli T, Favilla V, Urzì D, Veroux M et al. Percentage of cancer involvement in positive cores can predict unfavorable disease in men with low-risk prostate cancer but eligible for the prostate cancer international: Active surveillance criteria. Urol Oncol 2014; 32: 291-296.
19. Komai Y, Kawakami S, Numao N, Fujii Y, Saito K, Kubo Y et al. Extended biopsy based criteria incorporating cumulative cancer length for predicting clinically insignificant prostate cancer. BJU Int 2012; 110: E564-E569.
20. Gondo T, Hricak H, Sala E, Zheng J, Moskowitz CS, Bernstein M et al. Multiparametric 3T MRI for the prediction of pathological downgrading after radical prostatectomy in patients?with biopsy-proven Gleason score 3+4 prostate cancer. Eur Radiol 2014; 24: 3161-3170.
21. Bertaccini A, Franceschelli A, Schiavina R, Marchiori D, Baccos A, Pernetti R et al. Accuracy of a new echographic method (RULES, radiofrequency ultrasonic local estimators) in prostate cancer diagnosis. Anticancer Res 2008; 28: 1883-1886.
22. Testa C, Schiavina R, Lodi R, Salizzoni E, Tonon C, D'Errico A et al. Accuracy of MRI/MRSI-based transrectal ultrasound biopsy in peripheral and transition zones of the prostate gland in patients with prior negative biopsy. NMR Biomed 2010; 23: 1017-1026.
23. Epstein JI, Herawi M. Prostate needle biopsies containing prostatic intraepithelial neoplasia or atypical foci suspicious for carcinoma: implications for patient care. J Urol 2006; 175: 820-834.
24. Raskolnikov D, Rais-Bahrami S, George AK, Turkbey B, Shakir NA, Okoro C et al. The role of image-guided biopsy targeting in patients with atypical small acinar proliferation. J Urol 2014; 193: 473-478.
25. Brausi M, Castagnetti G, Dotti A, De Luca G, Olmi R, Cesinaro AM. Immediate radical prostatectomy in patients with atypical small acinar proliferation. Over treatment? J Urol 2004; 172: 906-908.
26. Wolters T, Roobol MJ, van Leeuwen PJ, van den Bergh RC, Hoedemaeker RF, van Leenders GJ et al. A critical analysis of the tumor volume threshold for clinically insignificant prostate cancer using a data set of a randomized screening trial. J Urol 2011; 185: 121-125.