Grade group 1 prostate cancer on biopsy: are we still missing aggressive disease in the era of image-directed therapy?
Gleason 6
Low-grade
Overtreatment
Precancerous lesion
Prostate cancer
Journal
World journal of urology
ISSN: 1433-8726
Titre abrégé: World J Urol
Pays: Germany
ID NLM: 8307716
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
Oct 2022
Oct 2022
Historique:
received:
22
07
2022
accepted:
06
08
2022
pubmed:
19
8
2022
medline:
28
9
2022
entrez:
18
8
2022
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
Recently, Eggener et al. reignited a debate consisting to redefine Gleason Grade Group (GGG) 1 prostate cancer (PCa) as a precancerous lesion to reduce overdiagnosis and overtreatment. However, historical cohorts showed that some GGG1-labeled disease at biopsy may be underestimated by the standard PCa diagnostic workup. The aim was to assess whether the risk of adverse features at radical prostatectomy (RP) in selected GGG1 patients still exists in the era of pre-biopsy mpMRI and image-guided biopsies. We retrospectively reviewed our data from a European RP dataset to assess in contemporary patients with GGG1 at mpMRI-targeted biopsy the rate of adverse features at final pathology, defined as ≥ pT3a and/or pN+ and/or GGG ≥ 3. A total of 419 patients with cT1-T2 cN0 GGG1-PCa were included. At final pathology, 143 (34.1%) patients had adverse features. In multivariate analysis, only unfavorable intermediate-risk/high-risk disease (defined on PSA or stage) was predictive of adverse features (OR 2.45, 95% CI 1.11-5.39, p = 0.02). A significant difference was observed in the 3-year biochemical recurrence-free survival between patients with and without adverse features (93.4 vs 87.8%, p = 0.026). In sensitivity analysis restricted low- and favorable intermediate-risk PCa, 122/383 patients (31.8%) had adverse features and no preoperative factors were statistically associated with this risk. In this European study, we showed that there is still a risk of underestimating GGG1 disease at biopsy despite the routine use of image-guided biopsies. Future studies are warranted to improve the detection of aggressive disease in GGG1-labeled patients by incorporating the latest tools such as genomic testing or radiomics.
Identifiants
pubmed: 35980449
doi: 10.1007/s00345-022-04130-z
pii: 10.1007/s00345-022-04130-z
doi:
Substances chimiques
Prostate-Specific Antigen
EC 3.4.21.77
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
2423-2429Informations de copyright
© 2022. The Author(s), under exclusive licence to Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany, part of Springer Nature.
Références
Drost FH, Osses DF, Nieboer D et al (2019) Prostate MRI, with or without MRI-targeted biopsy, and systematic biopsy for detecting prostate cancer. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 4(4):CD012663
pubmed: 31022301
Kasivisvanathan V, Rannikko AS, Borghi M et al (2018) MRI-targeted or standard biopsy for prostate-cancer diagnosis. N Engl J Med 378(19):1767–1777
doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa1801993
van der Leest M, Cornel E, Israël B et al (2019) Head-to-head comparison of transrectal ultrasound-guided prostate biopsy versus multiparametric prostate resonance imaging with subsequent magnetic resonance-guided biopsy in biopsy-naïve men with elevated prostate-specific antigen: a large prospective multicenter clinical study. Eur Urol 75(4):570–578
doi: 10.1016/j.eururo.2018.11.023
Mottet N, van den Bergh RCN, Briers E et al (2021) EAU-EANM-ESTRO-ESUR-SIOG guidelines on prostate cancer-2020 update part 1 screening, diagnosis and local treatment with curative intent. Eur Urol 79(2):243–262
doi: 10.1016/j.eururo.2020.09.042
Tosoian JJ, Mamawala M, Epstein JI, Landis P, Macura KJ, Simopoulos DN, Carter HB, Gorin MA (2020) Active surveillance of grade group 1 prostate cancer: long-term outcomes from a large prospective cohort. Eur Urol 77(6):675–682
doi: 10.1016/j.eururo.2019.12.017
Vince RA Jr, Sun Y, Mahal B et al (2022) The impact of a statewide active surveillance initiative: a roadmap for increasing active surveillance utilization nationwide. Eur Urol S0302–2838(22):02405–02408
Eggener SE, Berlin A, Vickers AJ, Paner GP, Wolinsky H, Cooperberg MR (2022) Low-grade prostate cancer time to stop calling it cancer. J Clin Oncol 18:2200123
Epstein JI, Feng Z, Trock BJ, Pierorazio PM (2012) 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 61(5):1019–1024
doi: 10.1016/j.eururo.2012.01.050
Weinreb JC, Barentsz JO, Choyke PL et al (2016) PI-RADS prostate imaging—reporting and data system: 2015, version 2. Eur Urol 69(1):16–40
doi: 10.1016/j.eururo.2015.08.052
Barentsz JO, Richenberg J, Clements R et al (2012) ESUR prostate MR guidelines 2012. Eur Radiol 22(4):746–757
doi: 10.1007/s00330-011-2377-y
Thaxton CS, Loeb S, Roehl KA, Kan D, Catalona WJ (2010) Treatment outcomes of radical prostatectomy in potential candidates for 3 published active surveillance protocols. Urology 75(2):414–418
doi: 10.1016/j.urology.2009.07.1353
Kovac E, Vertosick EA, Sjoberg DD, Vickers AJ, Stephenson AJ (2018) Effects of pathological upstaging or upgrading on metastasis and cancer-specific mortality in men with clinical low-risk prostate cancer. BJU Int 122(6):1003–1009
doi: 10.1111/bju.14418
Lantz A, Falagario UG, Ratnani P et al (2022) Expanding active surveillance inclusion criteria: a novel nomogram including preoperative clinical parameters and magnetic resonance imaging findings. Eur Urol Oncol 5(2):187–194
doi: 10.1016/j.euo.2020.08.001
Sanda MG, Dunn RL, Michalski J et al (2008) Quality of life and satisfaction with outcome among prostate-cancer survivors. N Engl J Med 358(12):1250–1261
doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa074311
Press BH, Jones T, Olawoyin O et al (2022) Association between a 22-feature genomic classifier and biopsy gleason upgrade during active surveillance for prostate cancer. Eur Urol Open Sci 11(37):113–119
doi: 10.1016/j.euros.2022.01.008
Jairath NK, Dal Pra A, Vince R Jr et al (2021) A systematic review of the evidence for the decipher genomic classifier in prostate cancer. Eur Urol 79(3):374–383
doi: 10.1016/j.eururo.2020.11.021
Banerjee PS (2022) A review on the role of tissue-based molecular biomarkers for active surveillance. World J Urol 40(1):27–34
doi: 10.1007/s00345-021-03610-y
Eggener SE, Rumble RB, Armstrong AJ et al (2020) Molecular biomarkers in localized prostate cancer ASCO guideline. J Clin Oncol 38(13):1474–1494
doi: 10.1200/JCO.19.02768
Carter HB, Partin AW, Walsh PC et al (2012) Gleason score 6 adenocarcinoma: should it be labeled as cancer? J Clin Oncol 30(35):4294–4296
doi: 10.1200/JCO.2012.44.0586
Tzeng M, Basourakos SP, Davuluri M, Nagar H, Ramaswamy A, Cheng E, DeMeo G, Jim CHU (2022) Evolving trends in the management of low-risk prostate cancer. Clin Genitourin Cancer. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.clgc.2022.05.004
doi: 10.1016/j.clgc.2022.05.004
pubmed: 35701333
Epstein JI (2022) Is grade group 1 (Gleason score 3 + 3 = 6) adenocarcinoma of the prostate really cancer? Curr Opin Urol 32(1):91–95
doi: 10.1097/MOU.0000000000000945
Desai MM, Cacciamani GE, Gill K et al (2022) Trends in incidence of metastatic prostate cancer in the US. JAMA Netw Open 5(3):e222246
doi: 10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2022.2246