Quantification of Gleason Pattern 4 at MRI-Guided Biopsy to Predict Adverse Pathology at Radical Prostatectomy in Intermediate-Risk Prostate Cancer Patients

Overview

Journal Cancers (Basel)

Publisher MDPI

Specialty Oncology

Date 2023 Nov 25

PMID 38001723

Authors

Hubert Kamecki

Lukasz Mielczarek

Stanislaw Szemplinski

Malgorzata Debowska

Pawel Rajwa

Michael Baboudjian

Jakob Klemm

Juan Gomez Rivas

Elza Modzelewska

Omar Tayara

Wojciech Malewski

Przemyslaw Szostek

Slawomir Poletajew

Piotr Kryst

Roman Sosnowski

Lukasz Nyk

Affiliations

Soon will be listed here.

Abstract

Background: Data on Gleason pattern 4 (GP4) amount in biopsy tissue is important for prostate cancer (PC) risk assessment. We aim to investigate which GP4 quantification method predicts adverse pathology (AP) at radical prostatectomy (RP) the best in men diagnosed with intermediate-risk (IR) PC at magnetic resonance imaging (MRI)-guided biopsy.

Methods: We retrospectively included 123 patients diagnosed with IR PC (prostate-specific antigen <20 ng/mL, grade group (GG) 2 or 3, no iT3 on MRI) at MRI-guided biopsy, who underwent RP. Twelve GP4 amount-related parameters were developed, based on GP4 quantification method (absolute, relative to core, or cancer length) and site (overall, targeted, systematic biopsy, or worst specimen). Additionally, we calculated PV×GP4 (prostate volume × GP4 relative to core length in overall biopsy), aiming to represent the total GP4 volume in the prostate. The associations of GP4 with AP (GG ≥ 4, ≥pT3a, or pN1) were investigated.

Results: AP was reported in 39 (31.7%) of patients. GP4 relative to cancer length was not associated with AP. Of the 12 parameters, the highest ROC AUC value was seen for GP4 relative to core length in overall biopsy (0.65). an even higher AUC value was noted for PV × GP4 (0.67), with a negative predictive value of 82.8% at the optimal threshold.

Conclusions: The lack of an association of GP4 relative to cancer length with AP, contrasted with the better performance of other parameters, indicates directions for future research on PC risk stratification to accurately identify patients who may not require immediate treatment. Incorporating formulas aimed at GP4 volume assessment may lead to obtaining models with the best discrimination ability.

References

Sato S, Kimura T, Yorozu T, Onuma H, Iwatani K, Egawa S . Cases Having a Gleason Score 3+4=7 With <5% of Gleason Pattern 4 in Prostate Needle Biopsy Show Similar Failure-free Survival and Adverse Pathology Prevalence to Gleason Score 6 Cases in a Radical Prostatectomy Cohort. Am J Surg Pathol. 2019; 43(11):1560-1565. DOI: 10.1097/PAS.0000000000001345. View

Anderson B, Oberlin D, Razmaria A, Choy B, Zagaja G, Shalhav A . Extraprostatic Extension Is Extremely Rare for Contemporary Gleason Score 6 Prostate Cancer. Eur Urol. 2016; 72(3):455-460. DOI: 10.1016/j.eururo.2016.11.028. View

van Leenders G, van der Kwast T, Grignon D, Evans A, Kristiansen G, Kweldam C . The 2019 International Society of Urological Pathology (ISUP) Consensus Conference on Grading of Prostatic Carcinoma. Am J Surg Pathol. 2020; 44(8):e87-e99. PMC: 7382533. DOI: 10.1097/PAS.0000000000001497. View

Jiang W, Zhang L, Wu B, Zha Z, Zhao H, Jun Y . The impact of lymphovascular invasion in patients with prostate cancer following radical prostatectomy and its association with their clinicopathological features: An updated PRISMA-compliant systematic review and meta-analysis. Medicine (Baltimore). 2018; 97(49):e13537. PMC: 6310490. DOI: 10.1097/MD.0000000000013537. View

Chen Z, Pham H, Abreu A, Amin M, Sherrod A, Xiao G . Prognostic value of cribriform size, percentage, and intraductal carcinoma in Gleason score 7 prostate cancer with cribriform Gleason pattern 4. Hum Pathol. 2021; 118:18-29. DOI: 10.1016/j.humpath.2021.09.005. View

Varma M, Berney D, Oxley J, Trpkov K . Gleason score assignment is the sole responsibility of the pathologist. Histopathology. 2018; 73(1):5-7. DOI: 10.1111/his.13472. View

Ordner J, Flaifel A, Serrano A, Graziano R, Melamed J, Deng F . Significance of the Percentage of Gleason Pattern 4 at Prostate Biopsy in Predicting Adverse Pathology on Radical Prostatectomy: Application in Active Surveillance. Am J Clin Pathol. 2023; 160(1):35-40. DOI: 10.1093/ajcp/aqad005. View

Huang C, Kong M, Zhou M, Rosenkrantz A, Taneja S, Melamed J . Gleason score 3 + 4=7 prostate cancer with minimal quantity of gleason pattern 4 on needle biopsy is associated with low-risk tumor in radical prostatectomy specimen. Am J Surg Pathol. 2014; 38(8):1096-101. DOI: 10.1097/PAS.0000000000000235. View

Perera M, Assel M, Benfante N, Vickers A, Reuter V, Carlsson S . Oncologic Outcomes of Total Length Gleason Pattern 4 on Biopsy in Men with Grade Group 2 Prostate Cancer. J Urol. 2022; 208(2):309-316. PMC: 9283280. DOI: 10.1097/JU.0000000000002685. View

10.

Glicksman R, Kishan A, Quon H, Shabsovich D, Juarez J, Jiang T . Absolute Percentage of Pattern 4 Disease as a Prognostic Measure for Intermediate-risk Prostate Cancer Treated with Stereotactic Body Radiotherapy. Clin Oncol (R Coll Radiol). 2022; 34(9):581-588. DOI: 10.1016/j.clon.2022.05.002. View

11.

Dean L, Assel M, Sjoberg D, Vickers A, Al-Ahmadie H, Chen Y . Clinical Usefulness of Total Length of Gleason Pattern 4 on Biopsy in Men with Grade Group 2 Prostate Cancer. J Urol. 2018; 201(1):77-82. PMC: 6786261. DOI: 10.1016/j.juro.2018.07.062. View

12.

Sharma M, Miyamoto H . Percent Gleason pattern 4 in stratifying the prognosis of patients with intermediate-risk prostate cancer. Transl Androl Urol. 2018; 7(Suppl 4):S484-S489. PMC: 6178316. DOI: 10.21037/tau.2018.03.20. View

13.

Wenger H, Weiner A, Razmaria A, Paner G, Eggener S . Risk of lymph node metastases in pathological gleason score≤6 prostate adenocarcinoma: Analysis of institutional and population-based databases. Urol Oncol. 2016; 35(1):31.e1-31.e6. DOI: 10.1016/j.urolonc.2016.08.004. View

14.

Flood T, Schieda N, Keefe D, Breau R, Morash C, Hogan K . Utility of Gleason pattern 4 morphologies detected on transrectal ultrasound (TRUS)-guided biopsies for prediction of upgrading or upstaging in Gleason score 3 + 4 = 7 prostate cancer. Virchows Arch. 2016; 469(3):313-9. DOI: 10.1007/s00428-016-1981-2. View

15.

Chan T, Partin A, Walsh P, Epstein J . Prognostic significance of Gleason score 3+4 versus Gleason score 4+3 tumor at radical prostatectomy. Urology. 2000; 56(5):823-7. DOI: 10.1016/s0090-4295(00)00753-6. View

16.

Iakymenko O, Lugo I, Briski L, Nemov I, Punnen S, Kwon D . Percentage of Gleason pattern 4 and tumor volume predict adverse pathological stage and margin status at radical prostatectomy in grade Group 2 and grade Group 3 prostate cancers. Prostate. 2021; 81(12):866-873. DOI: 10.1002/pros.24183. View

17.

Klotz L . Contemporary approach to active surveillance for favorable risk prostate cancer. Asian J Urol. 2019; 6(2):146-152. PMC: 6488691. DOI: 10.1016/j.ajur.2018.12.003. View

18.

Sauter G, Steurer S, Clauditz T, Krech T, Wittmer C, Lutz F . Clinical Utility of Quantitative Gleason Grading in Prostate Biopsies and Prostatectomy Specimens. Eur Urol. 2015; 69(4):592-598. DOI: 10.1016/j.eururo.2015.10.029. View

19.

Martell K, Mendez L, Chung H, Tseng C, Zhang L, Alayed Y . Absolute percentage of biopsied tissue positive for Gleason pattern 4 disease (APP4) appears predictive of disease control after high dose rate brachytherapy and external beam radiotherapy in intermediate risk prostate cancer. Radiother Oncol. 2019; 135:170-177. DOI: 10.1016/j.radonc.2019.03.007. View

20.

Reese A, Cowan J, Brajtbord J, Harris C, Carroll P, Cooperberg M . The quantitative Gleason score improves prostate cancer risk assessment. Cancer. 2012; 118(24):6046-54. DOI: 10.1002/cncr.27670. View