Objectives: To evaluate clinical factors associated with tumour upgrading (UPG) in low-intermediate risk patients who progressed while under active surveillance (AS) and underwent delayed radical prostatectomy. Material and Methods: The evaluated factors included prostate specific antigen (PSA), prostate volume, PSA density and number of biopsy positive cores (BPC). Multivariate logistic regression by the forward step Wald procedure was used. Results: The study evaluated 24 patients who had UPG in 13 cases (54.2%). Independent factors associated with tumour UPG included PSA (OR 2.1; p = 0.047) and BPC (OR 2; p = 0.042). Conclusions: Clinical factors associated with UPG were identified in patients who were under AS for with low-intermediate risk disease. Preoperative PSA levels and number of BPC were independent factors associated with UPG in a contemporary cohort of patients who progressed under AS and underwent delayed active treatment.

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.
Augustin H, Mayerhofer K, Seles M, Pummer K: Is there a role for active surveillance in low-risk prostate cancer? Urol Int 2015;95:125-131.
6.
Romero-Otero J, Garcia-Gomez B, Duarte-Ojeda JM, Rodriguez-Antolin A, Vilaseca A, Carlsson SV, Touijer KA: Active surveillance for prostate cancer. Int J Urol 2016;23:211-218.
7.
Filson CP, Marks LS, Litwin MS: Expectant management for men with early stage prostate cancer. CA Cancer J Clin 2015;65:265-282.
8.
Thomsen FB, Brasso K, Klotz LH, Roder MA, Berg KD, Iversen P: Active surveillance for clinically localized prostate cancer - a systematic review. J Surg Oncol 2014;109:830-835.
9.
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.
10.
Schiffmann J, Wenzel P, Salomon G, Budaus 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.
11.
Porcaro AB, Siracusano S, De Luyk N, Corsi P, Sebben M, Tafuri A, Bizzotto L, Tamanini I, Inverardi D, Cerruto MA, Martignoni G, Brunelli M, Artibani W: Low-risk prostate cancer and tumor upgrading in the surgical specimen. Analysis of clinical factors predicitng tumor upgrading to higher Gleason patterns in a contemporary series of patients who have been evaluated according to the modified Gleason score grading system. Urol Int 2016;97:32-41.
12.
Briganti A, Larcher A, Abdollah F, Capitanio U, Gallina A, Suardi N, Bianchi M, Sun M, Freschi M, Salonia A, Karakiewicz PI, Rigatti P, Montorsi F: Updated nomogram predicting lymph node invasion in patients with prostate cancer undergoing extended pelvic lymph node dissection: the essential importance of percentage of positive cores. Eur Urol 2012;61:480-487.
13.
Heidenreich A, Ohlmann CH, Polyakov S: Anatomical extent of pelvic lymphadenectomy in patients undergoing radical prostatectomy. Eur Urol 2007;52:29-37.
14.
Srigley JR, Humphrey PA, Amin MB, Chang SS, Egevad L, Epstein JI, Grignon DJ, McKiernan JM, Montironi R, Renshaw AA, Reuter VE, Wheeler TM; Members of the Cancer Committee, College of American Pathologists: Protocol for the examination of specimens from patients with carcinoma of the prostate gland. Arch Pathol Lab Med 2009;133:1568-1576.
15.
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.
16.
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.
17.
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.
18.
Bruinsma SM, Bangma CH, Carroll PR, Leapman MS, Rannikko A, Petrides N, Weerakoon M, Bokhorst LP, Roobol MJ; Movember GAP3 Consortium: Active surveillance for prostate cancer: a narrative review of clinical guidelines. Nat Rev Urol 2016;13:151-167.
19.
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.
20.
Porcaro AB, Cavicchioli F, Mattevi D, De Luyk N, Corsi P, Sebben M, Tafuri A, Processali T, Cerasuolo M, Tamanini I, Cacciamani G, Cerruto MA, Brunelli M, Novella G, Siracusano S, Artibani W: Clinical factors of disease reclassification or progression in a contemporary cohort of prostate cancer patients elected to active surveillance. Urol Int 2017;98:32-39.
21.
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.
22.
Mendhiratta N, Meng X, Taneja SS: Using multiparametric MRI to ‘personalize' biopsy for men. Curr Opin Urol 2015;25:498-503.
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.