BACKGROUND: Active surveillance (AS) is increasingly offered to patients with low risk prostate cancer.
FREE DAILY AND WEEKLY NEWSLETTERS OFFERED BY CONTENT OF INTEREST
Did you find this article relevant? Subscribe to UroToday-GUOncToday!
The fields of GU Oncology and Urology are advancing rapidly including new treatments, enrolling clinical trials, screening and surveillance recommendations along with updated guidelines. Join us as one of our subscribers who rely on UroToday as their must-read source for the latest news and data on drugs. Sign up today for blogs, video conversations, conference highlights and abstracts from peer-review publications by disease and condition delivered to your inbox and read on the go.
The present study was conducted to evaluate the risk of tumor under-grading and -staging for AS eligibility. Moreover, we analyzed possible biomarkers for predicting more unfavorable final tumor histology.
METHODS: 197 patients who underwent radical prostatectomy (RPE) but would have met the EAU (European Association of Urology) criteria for AS (PSA< 10 ng/ml, biopsy GS ≤ 6, ≤ 2 cancer-positive biopsy cores with ≤ 50% of tumor in any core and clinical stage ≤ T2a) were included in the study. These AS inclusion parameters were correlated to the final histology of the RPE specimens. The impact of preoperative PSA level (low PSA ≤ 4 ng/ml vs. intermediate PSA of >4-10 ng/ml), PSA density (< 15 vs. ≥ 15 ng/ml) and the number of positive biopsy cores (1 vs. 2 positive cores) on predicting upgrading and final adverse histology of the RPE specimens was analyzed in uni- and multivariate analyses. Moreover, clinical courses of undergraded patients were assessed.
RESULTS: In our patient cohort 41.1% were found under-graded in the biopsy (final histology 40.1% GS7, 1% GS8). Preoperative PSA levels, PSA density or the number of positive cores were not predictive for worse final pathological findings including GS >6, extraprostatic extension and positive resection margin (R1) or correlated significantly with up-grading and/or extraprostatic extension in a multivariate model. Only R1 resections were predictable by combining intermediate PSA levels with two positive biopsy cores (p = 0.004). Sub-analyses showed that the number of biopsy cores (10 vs. 15 biopsy cores) had no influence on above mentioned results on predicting biopsy under-grading. Clinical courses of patients showed that 19.9% of patients had a biochemical relapse after RPE, among all of them were under-graded in the initial biopsy.
CONCLUSION: In summary, this study shows that a multitude of patients fulfilling the criteria for AS are under-diagnosed. The use of preoperative PSA levels, PSA density and the number of positive cores were not predictable for under-grading in the present patient collective.
Heidegger I, Skradski V, Steiner E, Klocker H, Pichler R, Pircher A, Horninger W, Bektic J. Are you the author?
Medical University of Innsbruck, Department of Urology, Innsbruck, Austria; Medical University of Innsbruck, Department of Haematology and Oncology, Innsbruck, Austria.
Reference: PLoS One. 2015 Feb 6;10(2):e0115537.