Prostate cancer – major changes in the American Joint Committee on Cancer eighth edition cancer staging manual

CA Cancer Journal for Clinicians

Volumn 67, Issue 3, 2017, Pages 245-253

  Buyyounouski, Mark K ^a   Choyke, Peter L ^b   McKenney, Jesse K ^c   Sartor, Oliver ^d   Sandler, Howard M ^e   Amin, Mahul B ^f   Kattan, Michael W ^c   Lin, Daniel W ^g  

^a STANFORD UNIVERSITY   (United States)

^b NATIONAL CANCER INSTITUTE   (United States)

^c LERNER RESEARCH INSTITUTE   (United States)

^d TULANE UNIVERSITY SCHOOL OF MEDICINE   (United States)

^e CEDARS SINAI MEDICAL CENTER   (United States)

^f UNIVERSITY OF TENNESSEE HEALTH SCIENCE CENTER   (United States)

^g UNIVERSITY OF WASHINGTON SCHOOL OF MEDICINE   (United States)

Author keywords

American Joint Committee on Cancer (AJCC); Gleason score; group grade; prognosis; prostate cancer; prostate specific antigen; staging

Indexed keywords

PROSTATE SPECIFIC ANTIGEN; SODIUM FLUORIDE F 18; TECHNETIUM 99M;

ARTICLE; BONE METASTASIS; BONE SCINTISCANNING; CANCER GRADING; CANCER PROGNOSIS; CANCER STAGING; COMPUTER ASSISTED TOMOGRAPHY; DIAGNOSTIC ACCURACY; DISTANT METASTASIS; GLEASON SCORE; HISTOPATHOLOGY; HUMAN; IMAGE GUIDED BIOPSY; LYMPH NODE DISSECTION; LYMPH NODE METASTASIS; MEDICAL DECISION MAKING; NUCLEAR MAGNETIC RESONANCE IMAGING; POSITRON EMISSION TOMOGRAPHY-COMPUTED TOMOGRAPHY; PRACTICE GUIDELINE; PREDICTIVE VALUE; PRIMARY TUMOR; PROSTATE CANCER; PROSTATECTOMY; RISK ASSESSMENT; STATISTICAL MODEL; CLASSIFICATION; DIAGNOSTIC IMAGING; MALE; PATHOLOGY; PROGNOSIS; PROSTATE TUMOR; RADIOGRAPHY;

HUMANS; MALE; NEOPLASM GRADING; NEOPLASM STAGING; PROGNOSIS; PROSTATIC NEOPLASMS; RADIOGRAPHY;

EID: 85013427501     PISSN: 00079235     EISSN: 15424863     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.3322/caac.21391     Document Type: Article

References (28)

1. Siegel R, Miller KD, Jemal A. Cancer statistics, 2017. CA Cancer J Clin. 2017;67:7-30.
2. van der Kwast TH, Amin MB, Billis A, et al. International Society of Urological Pathology (ISUP) Consensus Conference on Handling and Staging of Radical Prostatectomy Specimens. Working Group 2: T2 substaging and prostate cancer volume. Mod Pathol. 2011;24:16-25.
3. Epstein JI, Egevad L, Amin MB, et al. The 2014 International Society of Urological Pathology (ISUP) Consensus Conference on Gleason Grading of Prostatic Carcinoma: definition of grading patterns and proposal for a new grading system. Am J Surg Pathol. 2016;40:244-252.
4. Kattan MW, Hess KR, Amin MB, et al. American Joint Committee on Cancer acceptance criteria for inclusion of risk models for individualized prognosis in the practice of precision medicine. CA Cancer J Clin. 2016;66:370-374.
5. Halabi S, Lin CY, Small EJ, et al. Prognostic model predicting metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer survival in men treated with second-line chemotherapy. J Natl Cancer Inst. 2013;105:1729-1737.
6. Halabi S, Lin CY, Kelly WK, et al. Updated prognostic model for predicting overall survival in first-line chemotherapy for patients with metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer. J Clin Oncol. 2014;32:671-677.
7. van der Kwast TH. Substaging pathologically organ confined (pT2) prostate cancer: an exercise in futility? Eur Urol. 2006;49:209-211.
8. Kordan Y, Chang SS, Salem S, et al. Pathological stage T2 subgroups to predict biochemical recurrence after prostatectomy. J Urol. 2009;182:2291-2295.
9. Chun FK, Briganti A, Lebeau T, et al. The 2002 AJCC pT2 substages confer no prognostic information on the rate of biochemical recurrence after radical prostatectomy. Eur Urol. 2006;49:273-278; discussion 289–279.
10. Ettel M, Kong M, Lee P, Zhou M, Melamed J, Deng FM. Modification of the pT2 substage classification in prostate adenocarcinoma. Hum Pathol. 2016;56:57-63.
11. Ball MW, Partin AW, Epstein JI. Extent of extraprostatic extension independently influences biochemical recurrence-free survival: evidence for further pT3 subclassification. Urology. 2015;85:161-164.
12. Berney DM, Beltran L, Fisher G, et al. Validation of a contemporary prostate cancer grading system using prostate cancer death as outcome. Br J Cancer. 2016;114:1078-1083.
13. Pierorazio PM, Walsh PC, Partin AW, et al. Prognostic Gleason grade grouping: data based on the modified Gleason scoring system. BJU Int. 2013;111:753-760.
14. Loeb S, Folkvaljon Y, Robinson D, Lissbrant IF, Egevad L, Stattin P. Evaluation of the 2015 Gleason grade groups in a nationwide population-based cohort. Eur Urol. 2016;69:1135-1141.
15. Epstein JI, Zelefsky MJ, Sjoberg DD, et al. A contemporary prostate cancer grading system: a validated alternative to the Gleason score. Eur Urol. 2016;69:428-435.
16. College of American Pathologists. Cancer Protocol Templates, Prostate Gland. cap.org/cancerprotocols. Accessed December 2, 2016.
17. Turkbey B, Brown AM, Sankineni S, Wood BJ, Pinto PA, Choyke PL. Multiparametric prostate magnetic resonance imaging in the evaluation of prostate cancer. CA Cancer J Clin. 2016;66:326-336.
18. Tay KJ, Gupta RT, Brown AF, Silverman RK, Polascik TJ. Defining the incremental utility of prostate multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging at standard and specialized read in predicting extracapsular extension of prostate cancer. Eur Urol. 2016;70:211-213.
19. Hovels AM, Heesakkers RA, Adang EM, et al. The diagnostic accuracy of CT and MRI in the staging of pelvic lymph nodes in patients with prostate cancer: a meta-analysis. Clin Radiol. 2008;63:387-395.
20. Hillner BE, Siegel BA, Hanna L, Duan F, Shields AF, Coleman RE. Impact of 18F-fluoride PET in patients with known prostate cancer: initial results from the National Oncologic PET Registry. J Nucl Med. 2014;55:574-581.
21. Epstein JI, Amin M, Boccon-Gibod L, et al. Prognostic factors and reporting of prostate carcinoma in radical prostatectomy and pelvic lymphadenectomy specimens. Scand J Urol Nephrol Suppl. 2005;216:34-63.
22. Sirintrapun S, Tomaszweski J, Narula N, et al. Histologic landmarks that define extraprostatic extension (EPE) at the prostatic apex: characteristics of extraprostatic tissue at the apex as dissected by robotic radical prostatectomy (RP) [abstract]. Mod Pathol. 2007;20(suppl):177A.
23. Maurer T, Gschwend JE, Rauscher I, et al. Diagnostic efficacy of (68)gallium-PSMA positron emission tomography compared to conventional imaging for lymph node staging of 130 consecutive patients with intermediate to high risk prostate cancer. J Urol. 2016;195:1436-1443.
24. Lindenberg L, Choyke P, Dahut W. Prostate cancer imaging with novel PET tracers [serial online]. Curr Urol Rep. 2016;17:18.
25. Meijer HJ, Fortuin AS, van Lin EN, et al. Geographical distribution of lymph node metastases on MR lymphography in prostate cancer patients. Radiother Oncol. 2013;106:59-63.
26. Hellman S, Weichselbaum RR. Oligometastases. J Clin Oncol. 1995;13:8-10.
27. Rusthoven CG, Jones BL, Flaig TW, et al. Improved survival with prostate radiation in addition to androgen deprivation therapy for men with newly diagnosed metastatic prostate cancer. J Clin Oncol. 2016;34:2835-2842.
28. Reyes DK, Pienta KJ. The biology and treatment of oligometastatic cancer. Oncotarget. 2015;6:8491-8524.