Advertisement

Clinical Factors Associated With Pathological Grade Group 1 Patients in D'Amico Intermediate-Risk Group Following Robot-Assisted Radical Prostatectomy: A Retrospective Multicenter Cohort Study in Japan (The MSUG94 Group)

      Highlights

      • The association of D'Amico intermediate-risk and pathological grade group 1 was studied.
      • Among intermediate-risk prostate cancer patients, those with pathological grade group 1 have a good biochemical reccurence-free survival.
      • Downgrading from biopsy grade group ≥2 is rare; thus, radical treatment is recommended for patients with biopsy grade group ≥2.
      • It provides guidelines to identify patients eligible for active surveillance in D'Amico intermediate-risk group.

      Abstract

      Introduction

      We aimed to examine the relationship between D'Amico intermediate-risk and pathological grade group 1 (pGG1) after robot-assisted radical prostatectomy (RARP).

      Patients and Methods

      In this retrospective multicenter cohort study, D'Amico intermediate-risk prostate cancer patients who did not receive neoadjuvant therapy, and underwent RARP at 10 institutions in Japan were examined for preoperative factors associated with pGG1.

      Results

      In total, we enrolled 1161 D'Amico intermediate-risk prostate cancer patients. The pGG1 and pGG ≥2 groups comprised 73 (6.3%), and 1088 (93.7%) cases, respectively. Biochemical recurrence-free survival (BCRFS) of the pGG1 group was equivalent to that of the D'Amico low-risk patients. Among the 3 D'Amico intermediate-risk factors (IRF), the pGG1-rate was 24% with prostate-specific antigen (PSA) of 10 to 20 ng/mL alone, and 30% with cT2b alone. Both groups had significantly higher pGG1-rates than other groups. Down-grading from biopsy GG ≥2 to pGG1 was relatively rare (3.9%). Patients with pGG1 were further stratified by prostate volume (PV) (cutoff, 40 cc) among patients with one IRF and PSA of 10 to 20 ng/mL. Patients with one IRF, PSA of 10 to 20 ng/mL, and PV >40 cc had a relatively good BCRFS similar to that of the D'Amico low-risk group.

      Conclusion

      Among intermediate-risk prostate cancer patients, those with pGG1 have a good prognosis. Downgrading from biopsy GG ≥2 is rare, and definitive treatment may be recommended for patients with biopsy GG ≥2. Patients with one IRF, PSA of 10 to 20 ng/mL, and PV >40 cc who are eligible for RARP may be candidates for active surveillance.

      Keywords

      To read this article in full you will need to make a payment

      Purchase one-time access:

      Academic & Personal: 24 hour online accessCorporate R&D Professionals: 24 hour online access
      One-time access price info
      • For academic or personal research use, select 'Academic and Personal'
      • For corporate R&D use, select 'Corporate R&D Professionals'

      Subscribe:

      Subscribe to Clinical Genitourinary Cancer
      Already a print subscriber? Claim online access
      Already an online subscriber? Sign in
      Institutional Access: Sign in to ScienceDirect

      References

        • Gleason DF
        • Mellinger GT.
        Prediction of prognosis for prostatic adenocarcinoma by combined histological grading and clinical staging.
        J Urol. 1974; 111: 58-64https://doi.org/10.1016/s0022-5347(17)59889-4
        • Epstein JI
        • Egevad L
        • Amin MB
        • et al.
        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: 244-252https://doi.org/10.1097/PAS.0000000000000530
        • De Nunzio C
        • Pastore AL
        • Lombardo R
        • et al.
        The new Epstein Gleason score classification significantly reduces upgrading in prostate cancer patients.
        Eur J Surg Oncol. 2018; 44: 835-839https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejso.2017.12.003
        • Yeong J
        • Sultana R
        • Teo J
        • et al.
        Gleason grade grouping of prostate cancer is of prognostic value in Asian men.
        J Clin Pathol. 2017; 70: 745-753https://doi.org/10.1136/jclinpath-2016-204276
        • Mathieu R
        • Moschini M
        • Beyer B
        • et al.
        Prognostic value of the new grade groups in prostate cancer: a multi-institutional European validation study.
        Prostate Cancer Prostatic Dis. 2017; 20: 197-202https://doi.org/10.1038/pcan.2016.66
        • D'Amico AV
        • Whittington R
        • Malkowicz SB
        • et al.
        Biochemical outcome after radical prostatectomy, external beam radiation therapy, or interstitial radiation therapy for clinically localized prostate cancer.
        JAMA. 1998; 280: 969-974https://doi.org/10.1001/jama.280.11.969
        • Berney DM
        • Beltran L
        • Fisher G
        • et al.
        Validation of a contemporary prostate cancer grading system using prostate cancer death as outcome.
        Br J Cancer. 2016; 114: 1078-1083https://doi.org/10.1038/bjc.2016.86
        • Mohler JL
        • Antonarakis ES
        • Armstrong AJ
        • et al.
        Prostate cancer, version 2.2019, NCCN clinical practice guidelines in oncology.
        J Natl Compr Canc Netw. 2019; 17 (version 2.2019): 479-505https://doi.org/10.6004/jnccn.2019.0023
        • Gondo T
        • Poon BY
        • Matsumoto K
        • Bernstein M
        • Sjoberg DD
        • Eastham JA
        Clinical role of pathological downgrading after radical prostatectomy in patients with biopsy confirmed Gleason score 3 + 4 prostate cancer.
        BJU Int. 2015; 115: 81-86https://doi.org/10.1111/bju.12769
        • 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: 1019-1024https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eururo.2012.01.050
        • Whitson JM
        • Porten SP
        • Cowan JE
        • Simko JP
        • Cooperberg MR
        • Carroll PR
        Factors associated with downgrading in patients with high grade prostate cancer.
        Urol Oncol. 2013; 31: 442-447https://doi.org/10.1016/j.urolonc.2011.02.010
        • Tohi Y
        • Matsuda I
        • Fujiwara K
        • et al.
        The predictive factor for pathological downgrading after prostatectomy in patients with biopsy Gleason score 4+3 or 4+4 prostate cancer.
        Mol Clin Oncol. 2021; 14: 56https://doi.org/10.3892/mco.2021.2218
        • Bakavičius A
        • Drevinskaitė M
        • Daniūnaitė K
        • Barisienė M
        • Jarmalaitė S
        • Jankevičius F
        The impact of prostate cancer upgrading and upstaging on biochemical recurrence and cancer-specific survival.
        Medicina (Kaunas). 2020; 56https://doi.org/10.3390/medicina56020061
        • Ham WS
        • Chalfin HJ
        • Feng Z
        • et al.
        The impact of downgrading from biopsy Gleason 7 to prostatectomy Gleason 6 on biochemical recurrence and prostate cancer specific mortality.
        J Urol. 2017; 197: 1060-1067https://doi.org/10.1016/j.juro.2016.11.079
        • Bullock N
        • Simpkin A
        • Fowler S
        • Varma M
        • Kynaston H
        • Narahari K
        Pathological upgrading in prostate cancer treated with surgery in the United Kingdom: trends and risk factors from the British association of urological surgeons radical prostatectomy registry.
        BMC Urol. 2019; 19: 94https://doi.org/10.1186/s12894-019-0526-9
        • Corcoran NM
        • Hong MK
        • Casey RG
        • et al.
        Upgrade in Gleason score between prostate biopsies and pathology following radical prostatectomy significantly impacts upon the risk of biochemical recurrence.
        BJU Int. 2011; 108: E202-E210https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1464-410X.2011.10119.x
        • Takeshima Y
        • Yamada Y
        • Teshima T
        • et al.
        Clinical significance and risk factors of international society of urological pathology (ISUP) grade upgrading in prostate cancer patients undergoing robot-assisted radical prostatectomy.
        BMC Cancer. 2021; 21: 501https://doi.org/10.1186/s12885-021-08248-y
        • Park J
        • Yoo S
        • Cho MC
        • et al.
        The impact of pathologic upgrading of Gleason score 7 prostate cancer on the risk of the biochemical recurrence after radical prostatectomy.
        BioMed Res Int. 2018; (2018)4510149https://doi.org/10.1155/2018/4510149
        • Altok M
        • Troncoso P
        • Achim MF
        • Matin SF
        • Gonzalez GN
        • Davis JW
        Prostate cancer upgrading or downgrading of biopsy Gleason scores at radical prostatectomy: prediction of “regression to the mean” using routine clinical features with correlating biochemical relapse rates.
        Asian J Androl. 2019; 21: 598-604https://doi.org/10.4103/aja.aja_29_19
        • Buyyounouski MK
        • Choyke PL
        • McKenney JK
        • et al.
        Prostate cancer—major changes in the American joint committee on cancer eighth edition cancer staging manual.
        CA Cancer J Clin. 2017; 67: 245-253https://doi.org/10.3322/caac.21391
        • Epstein JI
        • Allsbrook Jr, WC
        • 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: 1228-1242https://doi.org/10.1097/01.pas.0000173646.99337.b1
        • Kanda Y.
        Investigation of the freely available easy-to-use software “EZR” for medical statistics.
        Bone Marrow Transplant. 2013; 48: 452-458https://doi.org/10.1038/bmt.2012.244
        • Grivas N
        • van der Roest R
        • Tillier C
        • et al.
        Patterns of benign prostate hyperplasia based on magnetic resonance imaging are correlated with lower urinary tract symptoms and continence in men undergoing a robot-assisted radical prostatectomy for prostate cancer.
        Urology. 2017; 107: 196-201https://doi.org/10.1016/j.urology.2017.05.047
        • Loeb S
        • Folkvaljon Y
        • Makarov DV
        • Bratt O
        • Bill-Axelson A
        • Stattin P
        Five-year nationwide follow-up study of active surveillance for prostate cancer.
        Eur Urol. 2015; 67: 233-238https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eururo.2014.06.010
        • Klotz L
        • Vesprini D
        • Sethukavalan P
        • et al.
        Long-term follow-up of a large active surveillance cohort of patients with prostate cancer.
        J Clin Oncol. 2015; 33: 272-277https://doi.org/10.1200/JCO.2014.55.1192
        • Zumsteg ZS
        • Spratt DE
        • Pei I
        • et al.
        A new risk classification system for therapeutic decision making with intermediate-risk prostate cancer patients undergoing dose-escalated external-beam radiation therapy.
        Eur Urol. 2013; 64: 895-902https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eururo.2013.03.033
        • Alqahtani S
        • Wei C
        • Zhang Y
        • et al.
        Prediction of prostate cancer Gleason score upgrading from biopsy to radical prostatectomy using pre-biopsy multiparametric MRI PIRADS scoring system.
        Sci Rep. 2020; 10: 7722https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-020-64693-y
        • Pham DM
        • Kim JK
        • Lee S
        • Hong SK
        • Byun SS
        • Lee SE
        Prediction of pathologic upgrading in Gleason score 3+4 prostate cancer: who is a candidate for active surveillance?.
        Investig Clin Urol. 2020; 61: 405-410https://doi.org/10.4111/icu.2020.61.4.405