PUPOSE OF REVIEW: The review covers arguments for and against removing the label of 'cancer' in Gleason score 6 prostate tumors.
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.
RECENT FINDINGS: While there are a number of factors that determine whether men elect active surveillance, the most powerful predictor remains the Gleason score. Gleason grading remains a robust and powerful predictor of outcome in patients with prostate cancer. A pure Gleason score 6 (GS6) tumor is exceedingly unlikely to cause harm in the near term, and there have been discussions regarding whether the term cancer should still be applied. In this review, we update the largely clinico-pathological arguments that have led to the suggestion to remove the cancer label from GS6 tumors, and we provide counter arguments on the basis of practical matters of needle biopsy sampling, classical histopathology, and molecular biology findings.
SUMMARY: The implications are that by retaining the label of cancer and implementing the recently proposed concept of prognostic groups, with patients harboring GS6 tumors placed into the lowest category, there is still a strong rationale in support of the choice of active surveillance or watchful waiting for most patients with GS6 lesions.
Kulac I, Haffner MC, Yegnasubramanian S, Epstein JI, De Marzo AM. Are you the author?
Department of Pathology, Department of Urology, Department of Oncology, The Sidney Kimmel Comprehensive Cancer Center at Johns Hopkins; The Brady Urological Research Institute.
Reference: Curr Opin Urol. 2015 May;25(3):238-45.