Introduction: To evaluate the pathological outcomes of Turkish men meeting the criteria for Active Surveillance (AS), who elected to undergo immediate radical prostatectomy (RP). Material and Methods: Retrospective analysis including 1,212 patients with clinically localized prostate cancer (PCa) who met the eligibility criteria for AS. The primary outcomes were pathological upstaging and pathological upgrading. Results: Nine hundred ninety-one patients were eligible for analysis after the central review of the submitted data. The mean prostate-specific antigen (PSA) level was 6.89 (0.51–15) ng/mL and the mean biopsy core number was 12 (8–47). The mean tumor positive core on final biopsy pathology was 1.95 (1–6) (16.6% [2.1–33.3%]). Overall, 30.6% of the men experienced a Gleason sum (GS) upgrade and 13.2% had pathological upstaging. For GS upgrade, the percentage of tumor-positive cores and free-to-total-PSA ratio were significant both in univariate analysis and multivariate logistic regression analysis. Variables predicting pathological upstaging were percentage of tumor-positive cores and PSA density, which were significant in univariate analysis. However, only PSA density was significant in multivariate logistic regression. Although biochemical recurrence-free survival was longer in patients without GS upgrade, it was not statistically significant between patients with and without any GS upgrade (mean 133.7 vs. 148.2 months, p = 0.243). A similar observation was made for patients with or without pathological upstaging (mean 117.1 vs. 148.3 months, p = 0.190). Conclusions: Upgrading and upstaging at RP are quite common among Turkish men with clinically low-risk PCa, who are candidates for AS, and a great majority of them experienced long-term PSA control.

Keywords:
Prostate cancer, Active surveillance, Radical prostatectomy
1.
Arnold M, Karim-Kos HE, Coebergh JW, Byrnes G, Antilla A, Ferlay J, Renehan AG, Forman D, Soerjomataram I: Recent trends in incidence of five common cancers in 26 European countries since 1988: analysis of the European Cancer Observatory. Eur J Cancer 2015; 51: 1164–1187.
2.
De Angelis R, Sant M, Coleman MP, Francisci S, Baili P, Pierannunzio D, Trama A, Visser O, Brenner H, Ardanaz E, Bielska-Lasota M, Engholm G, Nennecke A, Siesling S, Berrino F, Capocaccia R, EUROCARE-5 Working Group: Cancer survival in Europe 1999–2007 by country and age: results of EUROCARE–5-a population-based study. Lancet Oncol 2014; 15: 23–34.
3.
Heidenreich A, Bastian PJ, Bellmunt J, Bolla M, Joniau S, van der Kwast T, Mason M, Matveev V, Wiegel T, Zattoni F, Mottet N, European Association of Urology: EAU guidelines on prostate cancer. part 1: screening, diagnosis, and local treatment with curative intent-update 2013. Eur Urol 2014; 65: 124–137.
4.
Beauval JB, Ploussard G, Soulie M, Pfister C, Van Agt S, Vincendeau S, Larue S, Rigaud J, Gaschignard N, Roupret M, Drouin S, Peyromaure M, Long JA, Iborra F, Vallancien G, Rozet F, Salomon L; Members of Committee of Cancerology of the French Association of Urology (CCAFU): Pathologic findings in radical prostatectomy specimens from patients eligible for active surveillance with highly selective criteria: a multicenter study. Urology 2012; 80: 656–660.
5.
Ganz PA, Barry JM, Burke W, Col NF, Corso PS, Dodson E, Hammond ME, Kogan BA, Lynch CF, Newcomer L, Seifter EJ, Tooze JA, Viswanath K, Wessells H: National institutes of health state-of-the-science conference: role of active surveillance in the management of men with localized prostate cancer. Ann Intern Med 2012; 156: 591–595.
6.
Conti SL, Dall’era M, Fradet V, Cowan JE, Simko J, Carroll PR: Pathological outcomes of candidates for active surveillance of prostate cancer. J Urol 2009; 181: 1628–1633; discussion 1633–1634.
7.
Epstein JI, Walsh PC, Carmichael M, Brendler CB: Pathologic and clinical findings to predict tumor extent of nonpalpable (stage T1c) prostate cancer. Jama 1994; 271: 368–374.
8.
Cooperberg MR, Carroll PR, Klotz L: Active surveillance for prostate cancer: progress and promise. J Clin Oncol 2011; 29: 3669–3676.
9.
Suardi N, Capitanio U, Chun FK, Graefen M, Perrotte P, Schlomm T, Haese A, Huland H, Erbersdobler A, Montorsi F, Karakiewicz PI: Currently used criteria for active surveillance in men with low-risk prostate cancer: an analysis of pathologic features. Cancer 2008; 113: 2068–2072.
10.
Wong LM, Tang V, Peters J, Costello A, Corcoran N: Feasibility for active surveillance in biopsy Gleason 3 + 4 prostate cancer: an Australian radical prostatectomy cohort. BJU Int 2016; 117(suppl 4):82–87.
11.
Suardi N, Gallina A, Capitanio U, Salonia A, Lughezzani G, Freschi M, Mottrie A, Rigatti P, Montorsi F, Briganti A: Age-adjusted validation of the most stringent criteria for active surveillance in low-risk prostate cancer patients. Cancer 2012; 118: 973–980.
12.
Center MM, Jemal A, Lortet-Tieulent J, Ward E, Ferlay J, Brawley O, Bray F: International variation in prostate cancer incidence and mortality rates. Eur Urol 2012; 61: 1079–1092.
13.
Tewari A, Horninger W, Pelzer AE, Demers R, Crawford ED, Gamito EJ, Divine G, Johnson CC, Bartsch G, Menon M: Factors contributing to the racial differences in prostate cancer mortality. BJU Int 2005; 96: 1247–1252.
14.
Choo SH, Jeon HG, Jeong BC, Seo SI, Jeon SS, Choi HY, Lee HM: Predictive factors of unfavorable prostate cancer in patients who underwent prostatectomy but eligible for active surveillance. Prostate Int 2014; 2: 70–75.
15.
Vellekoop A, Loeb S, Folkvaljon Y, Stattin P: Population based study of predictors of adverse pathology among candidates for active surveillance with Gleason 6 prostate cancer. J Urol 2014; 191: 350–357.
16.
Wong LM, Neal DE, Johnston RB, Shah N, Sharma N, Warren AY, Hovens CM, Larry Goldenberg S, Gleave ME, Costello AJ, Corcoran NM: International multicentre study examining selection criteria for active surveillance in men undergoing radical prostatectomy. Br J Cancer 2012; 107: 1467–1473.
17.
Hamdy FC, Donovan JL, Lane JA, Mason M, Metcalfe C, Holding P, Davis M, Peters TJ, Turner EL, Martin RM, Oxley J, Robinson M, Staffurth J, Walsh E, Bollina P, Catto J, Doble A, Doherty A, Gillatt D, Kockelbergh R, Kynaston H, Paul A, Powell P, Prescott S, Rosario DJ, Rowe E, Neal DE; ProtecT Study Group: 10-year outcomes after monitoring, surgery, or radiotherapy for localized prostate cancer. N Engl J Med 2016; 375: 1415–1424.
18.
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.
19.
Warlick C, Trock BJ, Landis P, Epstein JI, Carter HB: Delayed versus immediate surgical intervention and prostate cancer outcome. J Natl Cancer Inst 2006; 98: 355–357.
20.
Adamy A, Yee DS, Matsushita K, Maschino A, Cronin A, Vickers A, Guillonneau B, Scardino PT, Eastham JA: Role of prostate specific antigen and immediate confirmatory biopsy in predicting progression during active surveillance for low risk prostate cancer. J Urol 2011; 185: 477–482.
21.
van den Bergh RC, Roemeling S, Roobol MJ, Roobol W, Schroder FH, Bangma CH: Prospective validation of active surveillance in prostate cancer: the PRIAS study. Eur Urol 2007; 52: 1560–1563.
22.
van As NJ, Norman AR, Thomas K, Khoo VS, Thompson A, Huddart RA, Horwich A, Dearnaley DP, Parker CC: Predicting the probability of deferred radical treatment for localised prostate cancer managed by active surveillance. Eur Urol 2008; 54: 1297–1305.
23.
Epstein JI, Feng Z, Trock BJ, Pierorazio PM: Upgrading and downgrading of prostate cancer from biopsy to radical prostatectomy: incidence and predictive factors using the modified Gleason grading system and factoring in tertiary grades. Eur Urol 2012; 61: 1019–1024.
24.
Villa L, Salonia A, Capitanio U, Scattoni V, Abdollah F, Suardi N, Dell’Oglio P, Freschi M, Montorsi F, Briganti A: 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.
25.
Thompson JE, Hayen A, Landau A, Haynes AM, Kalapara A, Ischia J, Matthews J, Frydenberg M, Stricker PD: Medium-term oncological outcomes for extended vs saturation biopsy and transrectal vs transperineal biopsy in active surveillance for prostate cancer. BJU Int 2015; 115: 884–891.
26.
Da Rosa MR, Milot L, Sugar L, Vesprini D, Chung H, Loblaw A, Pond GR, Klotz L, Haider MA: A prospective comparison of MRI-US fused targeted biopsy versus systematic ultrasound-guided biopsy for detecting clinically significant prostate cancer in patients on active surveillance. J Magn Reson Imaging JMRI 2015; 41: 220–225.
27.
Schoots IG, Petrides N, Giganti F, Bokhorst LP, Rannikko A, Klotz L, Villers A, Hugosson J, Moore CM: Magnetic resonance imaging in active surveillance of prostate cancer: a systematic review. Eur Urol 2015; 67: 627–636.
28.
Montironi R, Hammond EH, Lin DW, Gore JL, Srigley JR, Samaratunga H, Egevad L, Rubin MA, Nacey J, Klotz L, Sandler H, Zietman AL, Holden S, Humphrey PA, Evans AJ, Delahunt B, McKenney JK, Berney D, Wheeler TM, Chinnaiyan A, True L, Knudsen B, Epstein JI, Amin MB: Consensus statement with recommendations on active surveillance inclusion criteria and definition of progression in men with localized prostate cancer: the critical role of the pathologist. Virchows Arch 2014; 465: 623–628.
© 2017 S. Karger AG, Basel
2017
Copyright / Drug Dosage / Disclaimer
Copyright: All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be translated into other languages, reproduced or utilized in any form or by any means, electronic or mechanical, including photocopying, recording, microcopying, or by any information storage and retrieval system, without permission in writing from the publisher.
Drug Dosage: The authors and the publisher have exerted every effort to ensure that drug selection and dosage set forth in this text are in accord with current recommendations and practice at the time of publication. However, in view of ongoing research, changes in government regulations, and the constant flow of information relating to drug therapy and drug reactions, the reader is urged to check the package insert for each drug for any changes in indications and dosage and for added warnings and precautions. This is particularly important when the recommended agent is a new and/or infrequently employed drug.
Disclaimer: The statements, opinions and data contained in this publication are solely those of the individual authors and contributors and not of the publishers and the editor(s). The appearance of advertisements or/and product references in the publication is not a warranty, endorsement, or approval of the products or services advertised or of their effectiveness, quality or safety. The publisher and the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to persons or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content or advertisements.
You do not currently have access to this content.