Introduction: The aim of this study was to identify patients with low-volume Gleason score 3+4 (GS3+4) prostate cancer (PCa) who may be candidates for active surveillance (AS) by analyzing the incidence of upgrading and upstaging following radical prostatectomy (RP). Patients and Methods: Of 907 patients who underwent RP at our institute over the last 5 years, 66 men diagnosed with low-volume GS3+4 PCa at needle biopsy were identified. The incidence of upstaging and upgrading was assessed. Results: The overall rate of upgrading and upstaging was 31.8 and 25.6%, respectively. Preoperative PSA levels were significantly higher in patients who were upgraded (p = 0.015). The optimal preoperative PSA cutoff level for the prediction of upgrading was 4.73 ng/ml (sensitivity 85.7%, specificity 57.8%). Patients with <15% of maximum cores positive had significantly lower upstaging rate than those with >15% of maximum cores positive (p = 0.035). Clinical stage and number of positive cores had marginal association with upgrading and upstaging statistically (p = 0.061 and 0.081, respectively). Conclusions: In patients with low-volume GS3+4 PCa at biopsy, underestimation may be effectively avoided when we select patients with PSA <4.73 and % maximum cancer involvement on positive cores <15%.

Keywords:
Prostate cancer, Active surveillance, Gleason score 3+4, Radical prostatectomy
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 intermediate-risk 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.
© 2013 S. Karger AG, Basel
2013
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.