Objective: To evaluate the factors to predict Gleason score upgrading in prostate cancer patients who are suitable for active surveillance (AS) and the role of prostate-specific antigen (PSA) density in the management of these patients. Material and Methods: Seventy seven prostate cancer patients who had active surveillance criteria but preferred radical prostatectomy as the treatment instead of active surveillance protocol were included in the study. In our study, Gleason 3+3≤6 adenocarcinoma, positivity in maximum 2 biopsy cores in ≥12 core transrectal ultrasound guided systematic biopsy, PSA<10 ng/mL, and Clinical T Stage ≤2a were used as active follow-up criteria. Tumor grade in the radical prostate and prostate biopsy specimens were compared. Predictive factors of pathological upgrading after radical prostatectomy have been investigated. Results: There is statistically significant correlation between PSA density (p=0.042), prostate volume (p=0.010), maximum tumor length in a core (p=0.001), maximum percentage of tumor in a core (p=0.002), bladder neck involvement (p=0.023) and postoperative Gleason score upgrading in univariate analysis. The optimal cut-off values of PSA density and prostate volume were 0.12 ng/mL2 and 48 cc, respectively. There isn't statistically significant correlation between PSA, free PSA, free/total PSA, the length of biopsy core, perineural invasion, apical involment and postoperative Gleason score upgrading in univariate analysis. Maximum tumor length in a core and prostate volume were independent predictors of pathological Gleason score upgrading on multivariate regression. Conclusion: Prostate volume and maximum tumor length in a core are independent predictors of pathological Gleason score upgrading in our study. These factors should also be included in current AS criterias in addition to PSA density and tumor percentage.
Keywords: Prostate specific antigen density; active surveillance; Gleason score upgrading; low risk prostate cancer; radical prostatectomy
Amaç: Bu çalışmanın amacı, aktif izlem için uygun prostat kanseri hastalarında Gleason skor yükselmesini öngören faktörler ve bu hastaların yönetiminde prostat spesifik antijen (PSA) yoğunluğunun rolünü değerlendirilmektir. Gereç ve Yöntemler: Çalışmaya aktif izlem kriterlerine sahip olan ancak tedavi olarak aktif izlem yerine radikal prostatektomiyi tercih eden 77 prostat kanseri hastası dâhil edildi. Çalışmamızda, aktif izlem kriterleri olarak Gleason 3+3≤6 adenokarsinom, ≥12 kor transrektal ultrason kılavuzluğunda sistematik biyopside en fazla 2 biyopsi korunda pozitiflik, PSA<10 ng/mL ve Klinik T Evre ≤2a değerleri kullanılmıştır. Radikal prostatektomi piyesleri ve prostat biyopsi örneklerindeki tümör dereceleri birbiriyle karşılaştırılmıştır. Radikal prostatektomi sonrası patolojik evre yükselmesi ile ilgili prediktif faktörler araştırılmıştır. Bulgular: PSA yoğunluğu (p=0,042), prostat hacmi (p=0,010), bir kordaki maksimum tümör uzunluğu (p=0,001), bir kordaki maksimum tümör yüzdesi (p=0,002), mesane boynu tutulumu (p=0.023) ile Gleason skor yükselmesi arasında tek değişkenli analizde istatistiki olarak anlamlı fark bulundu. PSA yoğunluğu ve prostat hacminin optimal 'kesme' değeri sırasıyla 0,12 ng/mL2 ve 48 cc idi. Tek değişkenli analizde PSA, serbest PSA, serbest/total PSA, biyopsi kor uzunluğu, perinöral invazyon, apikal tutulum ile postoperatif Gleason skor yükselmesi arasında istatistiksel olarak anlamlı bir ilişki yoktur. Bir kordaki maksimum tümör uzunluğu ve prostat hacmi çok değişkenli regresyon analizinde Gleason skor yükselmesinde bağımsız prediktif faktör olarak tespit edilmiştir. Sonuç: Çalışmamızda prostat hacmi ve bir kordaki maksimum tümör uzunluğu, Gleason skor yükselmesinde bağımsız prediktör olarak tespit edilmiştir. Bu faktörler, PSA yoğunluğu ve tümör yüzdesine ek olarak mevcut aktif izlem kriterlerine de dâhil edilmelidir.
Anahtar Kelimeler: Prostat spesifik antijen dansitesi; aktif izlem; Gleason skor yükselmesi; düşük riskli prostat kanseri; radikal prostatektomi
- Ferlay J, Soerjomataram I, Dikshit R, Eser S, Mathers C, Rebelo M, et al. Cancer incidence and mortality worldwide: sources, methods and major patterns in GLOBOCAN 2012. Int J Cancer. 2015;136(5):E359-86. [Crossref] [PubMed]
- European Association of Urology [Internet]. © Copyright 2021 Uroweb. Individual guidelines.(Erişim tarihi: 23.12.2021) Available from: [Link]
- Belimunt MN, Briers EJ. EAU Guidelines Edn. presented at the EAU Annual Congress Copenhagen. 2018:978-94-92671-02-8. [Link]
- Bokhorst LP, Valdagni R, Rannikko A, Kakehi Y, Pickles T, Bangma CH, et al; PRIAS study group. A decade of active surveillance in the PRIAS Study: an update and evaluation of the criteria used to recommend a switch to active treatment. Eur Urol. 2016;70(6):954-60. [Crossref] [PubMed]
- Komisarenko M, Martin LJ, Finelli A. Active surveillance review: contemporary selection criteria, follow-up, compliance and outcomes. Transl Androl Urol. 2018;7(2):243-55. [Crossref] [PubMed] [PMC]
- Porcaro AB, Siracusano S, de Luyk N, Corsi P, Sebben M, Tafuri A, et al. Low-risk prostate cancer and tumor upgrading in the surgical specimen: analysis of clinical factors predicting tumor upgrading in a contemporary series of patients who were evaluated according to the modified gleason score grading system. Curr Urol. 2017; 10(3):118-25. [Crossref] [PubMed] [PMC]
- Thaxton CS, Loeb S, Roehl KA, Kan D, Catalona WJ. Treatment outcomes of radical prostatectomy in potential candidates for 3 published active surveillance protocols. Urology. 2010;75(2): 414-8. [Crossref] [PubMed] [PMC]
- Magheli A, Hinz S, Hege C, Stephan C, Jung K, Miller K, et al. Prostate specific antigen density to predict prostate cancer upgrading in a contemporary radical prostatectomy series: a single center experience. J Urol. 2010;183(1):126-31. [Crossref] [PubMed]
- Epstein JI, Egevad L, Amin MB, Delahunt B, Srigley JR, Humphrey PA; Grading Committee. The 2014 International Society of Urological Pathology (ISUP) Consensus Conference on Gleason Grading of Prostatic Carcinoma: definition of grading patterns and proposal for a new grading system. Am J Surg Pathol. 2016;40(2): 244-52. [Crossref] [PubMed]
- 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(9):1228-42. [Crossref] [PubMed]
- Cohen MS, Hanley RS, Kurteva T, Ruthazer R, Silverman ML, Sorcini A, et al. Comparing the Gleason prostate biopsy and Gleason prostatectomy grading system: the Lahey Clinic Medical Center experience and an international meta-analysis. Eur Urol. 2008;54(2):371-81. [Crossref] [PubMed]
- Jin BS, Kang SH, Kim DY, Oh HG, Kim CI, Moon GH, et al. Pathological upgrading in prostate cancer patients eligible for active surveillance: Does prostate-specific antigen density matter? Korean J Urol. 2015;56(9):624-9. [Crossref] [PubMed] [PMC]
- Verep S, Erdem S, Ozluk Y, Kilicaslan I, Sanli O, Ozcan F. The pathological upgrading after radical prostatectomy in low-risk prostate cancer patients who are eligible for active surveillance: How safe is it to depend on bioptic pathology? Prostate. 2019;79(13):1523-9. [Crossref] [PubMed]
- Grasso AA, Cozzi G, DE Lorenzis E, Ceruti C, Crivellaro S, Falsaperla M, et al. Multicenter analysis of pathological outcomes of patients eligible for active surveillance according to PRIAS criteria. Minerva Urol Nefrol. 2016;68(3):237-41. [PubMed]
- De Nunzio C, Brassetti A, Simone G, Lombardo R, Mastroianni R, Collura D, et al. Metabolic syndrome increases the risk of upgrading and upstaging in patients with prostate cancer on biopsy: a radical prostatectomy multicenter cohort study. Prostate Cancer Prostatic Dis. 2018;21(3):438-45. Erratum in: Prostate Cancer Prostatic Dis. 2019;22(3):491. [Crossref] [PubMed]
- Kaye DR, Qi J, Morgan TM, Linsell S, Ginsburg KB, Lane BR, et al; Michigan Urological Surgery Improvement Collaborative. Pathological upgrading at radical prostatectomy for patients with Grade Group 1 prostate cancer: implications of confirmatory testing for patients considering active surveillance. BJU Int. 2019;123(5):846-53. [Crossref] [PubMed] [PMC]
- Calio BP, Sidana A, Sugano D, Gaur S, Maruf M, Jain AL, et al. Risk of upgrading from prostate biopsy to radical prostatectomy pathology-does saturation biopsy of index lesion during multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging-transrectal ultrasound fusion biopsy help? J Urol. 2018;199(4):976-82. [Crossref] [PubMed] [PMC]
- Capitanio U, Karakiewicz PI, Valiquette L, Perrotte P, Jeldres C, Briganti A, et al. Biopsy core number represents one of foremost predictors of clinically significant gleason sum upgrading in patients with low-risk prostate cancer. Urology. 2009;73(5):1087-91. [Crossref] [PubMed]
- Turley RS, Terris MK, Kane CJ, Aronson WJ, Presti JC Jr, Amling CL, et al; SEARCH Database Study Group. The association between prostate size and Gleason score upgrading depends on the number of biopsy cores obtained: results from the Shared Equal Access Regional Cancer Hospital Database. BJU Int. 2008;102(9):1074-9. [Crossref] [PubMed] [PMC]
- Mian BM, Lehr DJ, Moore CK, Fisher HA, Kaufman RP Jr, Ross JS, et al. Role of prostate biopsy schemes in accurate prediction of Gleason scores. Urology. 2006;67(2):379-83. [Crossref] [PubMed]
- 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(1):43-8. [Crossref] [PubMed]
- Oh JJ, Hong SK, Lee JK, Lee BK, Lee S, Kwon OS, et al. Prostate-specific antigen vs prostate-specific antigen density as a predictor of upgrading in men diagnosed with Gleason 6 prostate cancer by contemporary multicore prostate biopsy. BJU Int. 2012;110(11 Pt B):E494-9. [Crossref] [PubMed]
- Gershman B, Dahl DM, Olumi AF, Young RH, McDougal WS, Wu CL. Smaller prostate gland size and older age predict Gleason score upgrading. Urol Oncol. 2013;31(7):1033-7. [Crossref] [PubMed]
- Freedland SJ, Isaacs WB, Platz EA, Terris MK, Aronson WJ, Amling CL, et al. Prostate size and risk of high-grade, advanced prostate cancer and biochemical progression after radical prostatectomy: a search database study. J Clin Oncol. 2005;23(30):7546-54. [Crossref] [PubMed]
- Sfoungaristos S, Katafigiotis I, Perimenis P. The role of PSA density to predict a pathological tumour upgrade between needle biopsy and radical prostatectomy for low risk clinical prostate cancer in the modified Gleason system era. Can Urol Assoc J. 2013;7(11-12):E722-7. [Crossref] [PubMed] [PMC]
- Sebastianelli A, Morselli S, Vitelli FD, Gabellini L, Tasso G, Venturini S, et al. The role of prostate-specific antigen density in men with low-risk prostate cancer suitable for active surveillance: results of a prospective observational study. Pros tate Int. 2019;7(4):139-42. [Crossref] [PubMed] [PMC]
- Gandaglia G, Ploussard G, Isbarn H, Suardi N, De Visschere PJ, Futterer JJ, et al; Prostate Cancer Working Group of Young Academic Urologists Working Party of European Association of Urology. What is the optimal definition of misclassification in patients with very low-risk prostate cancer eligible for active surveillance? Results from a multi-institutional series. Urol Oncol. 2015; 33(4):164.e1-9. [Crossref] [PubMed]
- Bul M, Zhu X, Valdagni R, Pickles T, Kakehi Y, Rannikko A, et al. Active surveillance for low-risk prostate cancer worldwide: the PRIAS study. Eur Urol. 2013;63(4):597-603. [Crossref] [PubMed]
- Fiorentino V, Martini M, Dell'Aquila M, Musarra T, Orticelli E, Larocca LM, et al. Histopathological ratios to predict Gleason score agreement between biopsy and radical prostatectomy. Diagnostics (Basel). 2020;11(1):10. [Crossref] [PubMed] [PMC]
.: Process List