Pathological upgrading at radical prostatectomy for patients with Grade Group 1 prostate cancer: implications of confirmatory testing for patients considering active surveillance

Deborah R Kaye, Ji Qi, Todd M Morgan, Susan Linsell, Kevin B Ginsburg, Brian R Lane, James E Montie, Michael L Cher, David C Miller, Michigan Urological Surgery Improvement Collaborative, Deborah R Kaye, Ji Qi, Todd M Morgan, Susan Linsell, Kevin B Ginsburg, Brian R Lane, James E Montie, Michael L Cher, David C Miller, Michigan Urological Surgery Improvement Collaborative

Abstract

Objective: To examine the association between National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN) risk, number of positive biopsy cores, age, and early confirmatory test results on pathological upgrading at radical prostatectomy (RP), in order to better understand whether early confirmatory testing and better risk stratification are necessary for all men with Grade Group (GG) 1 cancers who are considering active surveillance (AS).

Patients and methods: We identified men in Michigan initially diagnosed with GG1 prostate cancer, from January 2012 to November 2017, who had a RP within 1 year of diagnosis. Our endpoints were: (i) ≥GG2 cancer at RP and (ii) adverse pathology (≥GG3 and/or ≥pT3a). We compared upgrading according to NCCN risk, number of positive biopsy cores, and age. Last, we examined if confirmatory test results were associated with upgrading or adverse pathology at RP.

Results: Amongst 1966 patients with GG1 cancer at diagnosis, the rates of upgrading to ≥GG2 and adverse pathology were 40% and 59% (P < 0.001), and 10% and 17% (P = 0.003) for patients with very-low- and low-risk cancers, respectively. Upgrading by volume ranged from 49% to 67% for ≥GG2, and 16% to 23% for adverse pathology. Generally, more patients aged ≥70 vs <70 years had adverse pathology. Unreassuring confirmatory test results had a higher likelihood of adverse pathology than reassuring tests (35% vs 18%, P = 0.017).

Conclusions: Upgrading and adverse pathology are common amongst patients initially diagnosed with GG1 prostate cancer. Early use of confirmatory testing may facilitate the identification of patients with more aggressive disease ensuring improved risk classification and safer selection of patients for AS.

Keywords: #PCSM; #UroOnc; active surveillance; confirmatory testing; prostate cancer.

Conflict of interest statement

Conflict of Interests

© 2018 The Authors BJU International © 2018 BJU International Published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd.

Figures

Fig. 1
Fig. 1
Frequency of pathological upgrading or adverse pathology by (A) NCCN defined very-low- and low-risk disease and (B) Number of biopsy cores positive for GG1 cancer. *Adverse pathology: ≥ GG3, ≥ pT3a
Fig. 2
Fig. 2
Proportion of patients with (A) Pathological upgrading or (B) Adverse pathology according to the number of biopsy cores positive for GG1 cancer and age, and (C) Pathological upgrading and adverse pathology by NCCN defined very-low-risk criteria and age.
Fig. 3
Fig. 3
Proportion of patients with upgrading or adverse features at the time of RP, according to confirmatory test result

References

    1. 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: 1019–24
    1. Patel HD, Tosoian JJ, Carter HB, Epstein JI. Adverse pathologic findings for men electing immediate radical prostatectomy: defining a favorable intermediate-risk group. JAMA Oncol 2018; 4: 89–92
    1. Auffenberg GB, Lane BR, Linsell S et al. A roadmap for improving the management of favorable risk prostate cancer. J Urol 2017; 198: 1220–2
    1. Tosoian JJ, Mamawala M, Epstein JI et al. Intermediate and longer-term outcomes from a prospective active-surveillance program for favorablerisk prostate cancer. J Clin Oncol 2015; 33: 3379–85
    1. Wilt TJ, Jones KM, Barry MJ et al. Follow-up of prostatectomy versus observation for early prostate cancer. N Engl J Med 2017; 377: 132–42
    1. Bill-Axelson A, Holmberg L, Ruutu M et al. Radical prostatectomy versus watchful waiting in early prostate cancer. N Engl J Med 2005; 352: 1977–84
    1. National Comprehensive Cancer Network. NCCN Clinical Practice Guidelines in Oncology: Prostate Cancer Version 3, 2016. Available at: Accessed January 2018
    1. Latifoltojar A, Dikaios N, Ridout A et al. Evolution of multi-parametric MRI quantitative parameters following transrectal ultrasound-guided biopsy of the prostate. Prostate Cancer Prostatic Dis 2015; 18: 343–51
    1. Prolaris. Understanding the Prolaris Score. Available at: Accessed December 2017
    1. Decipher. Providing Treatment Information for Prostate Cancer Patients. Available at: Accessed December 2017
    1. OncotypeDx. Healthcare Professionals: Oncotype Dx Genomic Prostate Score. Available at: Accessed December 2017
    1. Reese AC, Feng Z, Landis P, Trock BJ, Epstein JI, Carter HB. Predictors of adverse pathology in men undergoing radical prostatectomy following initial active surveillance. Urology 2015; 86: 991–5
    1. Swanson GP, Basler JW. Prognostic factors for failure after prostatectomy. J Cancer 2011; 2: 1–19
    1. Kozminski MA, Tomlins S, Cole A et al. Standardizing the definition of adverse pathology for lower risk men undergoing radical prostatectomy. Urol Oncol 2016; 34: 415 e1–6
    1. 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: 350–7
    1. Nyame YA, Grimberg DC, Greene DJ et al. Genomic scores are independent of disease volume in men with favorable risk prostate cancer: implications for choosing men for active surveillance. J Urol 2018; 199: 438–44
    1. Spratt DE, Zhang J, Santiago-Jimenez M et al. Development and validation of a novel integrated clinical-genomic risk group classification for localized prostate cancer. J Clin Oncol 2018; 36: 581–90
    1. Cooperberg MR, Pasta DJ, Elkin EP et al. The University of California, San Francisco Cancer of the Prostate Risk Assessment score: a straightforward and reliable preoperative predictor of disease recurrence after radical prostatectomy. J Urol 2005; 173: 1938–42

Source: PubMed

3
Sottoscrivi