Objective: To identify clinical factors associated with prostate cancer (PCA) upgrading to higher patterns of the surgical specimen in low-risk PCA. Materials and Methods: We evaluated the records of 438 patients. The multinomial logistic regression model was used. Results: Low-risk PCA included 170 cases (38.8%) and tumor upgrading was detected in 111 patients (65.3%) of whom 72 (42.4%) had pathological Gleason patterns (pGP) = 3 + 4 and 39 (22.9%) pGP >3 + 4. Prostate-specific antigen (PSA) and proportion of positive cores (P+) were independent predictors of tumor upgrading to higher patterns. The main difference between upgraded cancers related to PSA and to P+ >0.20. The population was stratified into risk classes by PSA ≤5 μg/l and P+ ≤0.20 (class A), PSA >5 μg/l and P+ ≤0.20 (class B), PSA ≤5 μg/l and P+ >0.20 (class C) and PSA >5 μg/l and P+ 0.20 (class D). Upgrading rates to pGP >3 + 4 were extremely low in class A (5.1%), extremely high in D (53.8%). Conclusions: Low-risk PCA is a heterogeneous population with significant rates of undetected high-grade disease. Significant clinical predictors of upgrading to higher patterns include PSA and P+, which identify a very high-risk class that needs repeat biopsies in order to reclassify tumor grade.

Keywords:
Low-risk, Tumor grade, Tumor upgrading , Prostate cancer, Gleason score system
1.
D'Amico AV, Whittington R, Malkowicz SB, Schultz D, Blank K, Broderick GA, Tomaszewski JE, Renshaw AA, Kaplan I, Beard CJ, Wein A: Biochemical outcome after radical prostatectomy, external beam radiation therapy, or interstitial radiation therapy for clinically localized prostate cancer. JAMA 1998;280:969-974.
2.
Dahabreh IJ, Chung M, Balk EM, Yu WW, Mathew P, Lau J, Ip S: Active surveillance in men with localized prostate cancer: a systematic review. Ann Intern Med 2012;156:582-590.
3.
Morash C, Tey R, Agbassi C, Klotz L, McGowan T, Srigley J, Evans A: Active surveillance for the management of localized prostate cancer: guideline recommendations. Can Urol Assoc J 2015;9:171-178.
4.
Moyer VA; U.S. Preventive Services Task Force: Screening for prostate cancer: U.S. preventive services task force recommendation statement. Ann Intern Med 2012;157:120-134.
5.
Romero-Otero J, García-Gómez B, Duarte-Ojeda JM, Rodríguez-Antolín A, Vilaseca A, Carlsson SV, Touijer KA: Active surveillance for prostate cancer. Int J Urol 2015, Epub ahead of print.
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.
Pierorazio PM, Walsh PC, Partin AW, Epstein JI: Prognostic Gleason grade grouping: data based on the modified Gleason scoring system. BJU Int 2013;111:753-760.
8.
Brimo F, Montironi R, Egevad L, Erbersdobler A, Lin DW, Nelson JB, Rubin MA, van der Kwast T, Amin M, Epstein JI: Contemporary grading for prostate cancer: implications for patient care. Eur Urol 2013;63:892-901.
9.
Epstein JI, Zelefsky MJ, Sjoberg DD, nelson JB, Egevad L, Magi-Galluzzi C, Vickers AJ, Parwani AV, Reuter VE, Fine SW, Eastham JA, Wiklund P, Han M, Reddy CA, Ciezki JP, Nyberg T, Klein EA: A contemporary prostate cancer grading system: a validated alternative to the Gleason score. Eur Urol 2016;69:428-435.
10.
Liu JJ, Lichtensztajn DY, Gomez SL, Sieh W, Chung BI, Cheng I, Brooks JD: Nationwide prevalence of lymph node metastases in Gleason score 3 + 3 = 6 prostate cancer. Pathology 2014;46:306-310.
11.
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;45:841-846.
12.
Fukagai T, Namiki T, namiki H, Carlile RG, Shimada M, Yoshida H: Discrepancies between Gleason scores of needle biopsy and radical prostatectomy specimens. Pathol Int 2001;51:364-370.
13.
Kulkarni GS, Lockwood G, Evans A, Toi A, Trachtenberg J, Jewett MA, Finelli A, Fleshner NE: Clinical predictors of Gleason score upgrading: implications for patients considering watchful waiting, active surveillance, or brachytherapy. Cancer 2007;109:2432-2438.
14.
Mitsuzuka K, Narita S, Koie T, Kaiho Y, Tsuchiya N, Yoneyama T, Kakoi N, Kawamura S, Tochigi T, Habuchi T, Ohyama C, Arai Y: Pathological and biochemical outcomes after radical prostatectomy in men with low-risk prostate cancer meeting the prostate cancer international: active surveillance criteria. BJU Int 2013;111:914-920.
15.
Filson CP, Marks LS, Litwin MS: Expectant management for men with early stage prostate cancer. CA Cancer J Clin 2015;65:265-282.
16.
Chun FK, Briganti A, Shariat SF, Graefen M, Montorsi F, Erbersdobler A, Steuber T, Salonia A, Currlin E, Scattoni V, Friedrich MG, Schlomm T, Haese A, Michl U, Colombo R, heinzer H, Valiquette L, Rigatti P, Roehrborn CG, Huland H, Karakiewicz PI: Significant upgrading affects a third of men diagnosed with prostate cancer: predictive nomogram and internal validation. BJU Int 2006;98:329-334.
17.
Isariyawongse BK, Sun L, Bañez LL, Robertson C, Polascik TJ, Maloney K, Donatucci C, Albala D, Mouraviev V, Madden JF, Moul JW: Significant discrepancies between diagnostic and pathologic Gleason sums in prostate cancer: the predictive role of age and prostate-specific antigen. Urology 2008;72:882-886.
18.
Tilki D, Schlenker B, John M, Buchner A, Stanislaus P, Gratzke C, Karl A, Tan GY, Ergün 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.
19.
Caster JM, Falchook AD, Hendrix LH, Chen RC: Risk of pathologic upgrading or locally advanced disease in early prostate cancer patients based on biopsy Gleason score and PSA: a population-based study of modern patients. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 2015;92:244-251.
20.
Schiffmann J, Wenzel p, Salomon G, Budäus l, Schlomm T, Minner S, Wittmer C, Kraft S, Krech T, Steurer S, Sauter G, Beyer B, Boehm K, Tilki D, Michl U, Huland H, Graefen M, karakiewicz PI: Heterogeneity in D'Amico classification-based low-risk prostate cancer: differences in upgrading and upstaging according to active surveillance eligibility. Urol oncol 2015;33:329.e13-e19.
21.
Porcaro AB, Monaco C, Romano M, Petrozziello A, Rubilotta E, lacola V, Sava T, Ghimenton C, Caruso B, Antoniolli SZ, Migliorini F, Comunale L: Investigative clinical study on prostate cancer part II: on the role of the pretreatment total PSA to free testosterone ratio as a marker assessing prostate cancer prognostic groups after radical retropubic prostatectomy. Urol Int 2010;85:152-158.
22.
Schoots IG, Petrides N, Giganti F, Bokhorst LP, Rannikko A, Klotz L, et al: Magnetic resonance imaging in active surveillance of prostate cancer: a systematic review. Eur Urol 2015;67:627-636.
23.
Mendhiratta N, Meng X, Taneja SS: Using multiparametric MRI to ‘personalize' biopsy for men. Curr Opin Urol 2015;25:498-503.
24.
Porcaro AB, Borsato A, Romano M, Sava T, Ghimenton C, Migliorini F, Monaco C, Rubilotta E, Antoniolli SZ, lacola V, Montemezzi S: Accuracy of preoperative endo-rectal coil magnetic resonance imaging in detecting clinical under-staging of localized prostate cancer. World J Urol 2013;31:1245-1251.
25.
Umbehr MH, Lüscher M, Hunziker R, Falkner F, Wild PJ, Poyet C, Seifert B, Müntener M: Influence of varying assessment parameters on the diagnostic accuracy of magnetic resonance imaging in the local staging of prostate cancer. Urol Int 2015, Epub ahead of print.
26.
Bütow Z, Schunk S, Janssen M, Gräber S, Saar M, Kamradt J, Siemer S, Stöckle M, Ohlmann CH: Quality of preoperative biopsy Is a risk factor for positive surgical margins in organ-confined prostate cancer treated with nerve-sparing robot-assisted radical prostatectomy. Urol Int 2015;95:465-471.
27.
Richters A, Derks J, Fossion LM, Kil PJ, Verhoeven RH, Aarts MJ: Presence and number of positive surgical margins after radical prostatectomy for prostate cancer: effect on oncological outcome in a population-based cohort. Urol Int 2015;95:472-477.
28.
Jain S, Loblaw A, Vesprini D, Zhang L, Kattan MW, Mamedov A, Jethava V, Sethukavalan P, Yu C, Klotz L: Gleason upgrading with time in a large prostate cancer active surveillance cohort. J Urol 2015;194:79-84.
29.
Berglund RK, Masterson TA, Vora KC, Eggener SE, Eastham JA, Guillonneau BD: Pathological upgrading and up staging with immediate repeat biopsy in patients eligible for active surveillance. J Urol 2008;180:1964-1967; discussion 1967-1968.
30.
Porcaro AB, Novella G, Molinari A, Terrin A, Minja A, De Marco V, Martignoni G, Brunelli M, Cerruto MA, Curti P, Cavalleri S, Artibani W: Prostate volume index and chronic inflammation of the prostate type IV with respect to the risk of prostate cancer. Urol Int 2015;94:270-285.
© 2016 S. Karger AG, Basel
2016
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.