Risk of Cancer-related Death for Men with Biopsy Grade Group 1 Prostate Cancer and High-risk Features: A European Multi-institutional Study

Overview

Journal Eur Urol Open Sci

Date 2024 Jul 23

PMID 39040619

Authors

Daimantas Milonas

Alexander Giesen

Tim Muilwijk

Charlotte Soenens

Gaetan Devos

Zilvinas Venclovas

Alberto Briganti

Paolo Gontero

R Jeffrey Karnes

Piotr Chlosta

Frank Claessens

Gert De Meerleer

Wouter Everaerts

Markus Graefen

Giansilvio Marchioro

Rafael Sanchez-Salas

Bertrand Tombal

Henk van der Poel

Hendrik van Poppel

Martin Spahn

Steven Joniau

Affiliations

Soon will be listed here.

Abstract

Patient Summary: We assessed outcomes for patients diagnosed with low-grade prostate cancer on biopsy who also had one or two factors associated with high risk disease. Men with both of those risk factors had a higher risk of dying from their prostate cancer. Active treatment should be discussed for this subgroup of patients.

References

Joniau S, Briganti A, Gontero P, Gandaglia G, Tosco L, Fieuws S . Stratification of high-risk prostate cancer into prognostic categories: a European multi-institutional study. Eur Urol. 2014; 67(1):157-164. DOI: 10.1016/j.eururo.2014.01.020. View

Epstein J, Kibel A . Renaming Gleason Score 6 Prostate to Noncancer: A Flawed Idea Scientifically and for Patient Care. J Clin Oncol. 2022; 40(27):3106-3109. DOI: 10.1200/JCO.22.00926. View

Eggener S, Berlin A, Vickers A, Paner G, Wolinsky H, Cooperberg M . Low-Grade Prostate Cancer: Time to Stop Calling It Cancer. J Clin Oncol. 2022; 40(27):3110-3114. DOI: 10.1200/JCO.22.00123. View

Epstein J . An update of the Gleason grading system. J Urol. 2009; 183(2):433-40. DOI: 10.1016/j.juro.2009.10.046. View

Baboudjian M, Roupret M, Ploussard G . Redefining Gleason 6 Prostate Cancer Nomenclature: The Surgeon's Perspective. J Clin Oncol. 2022; 41(7):1492-1493. DOI: 10.1200/JCO.22.01621. View

Ploussard G, Rouviere O, Roupret M, van den Bergh R, Renard-Penna R . The current role of MRI for guiding active surveillance in prostate cancer. Nat Rev Urol. 2022; 19(6):357-365. DOI: 10.1038/s41585-022-00587-0. View

Bokhorst L, Valdagni R, Rannikko A, Kakehi Y, Pickles T, Bangma C . A Decade of Active Surveillance in the PRIAS Study: An Update and Evaluation of the Criteria Used to Recommend a Switch to Active Treatment. Eur Urol. 2016; 70(6):954-960. DOI: 10.1016/j.eururo.2016.06.007. View

Epstein J, Feng Z, Trock B, Pierorazio P . 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(5):1019-24. PMC: 4659370. DOI: 10.1016/j.eururo.2012.01.050. View

Mateo J, Seed G, Bertan C, Rescigno P, Dolling D, Figueiredo I . Genomics of lethal prostate cancer at diagnosis and castration resistance. J Clin Invest. 2019; 130(4):1743-1751. PMC: 7108902. DOI: 10.1172/JCI132031. View

10.

Nunez Bragayrac L, Murekeyisoni C, Vacchio M, Attwood K, Mehedint D, Mohler J . Blinded review of archival radical prostatectomy specimens supports that contemporary Gleason score 6 prostate cancer lacks metastatic potential. Prostate. 2017; 77(10):1076-1081. DOI: 10.1002/pros.23364. View

11.

Goel S, Shoag J, Gross M, Al Hussein Al Awamlh B, Robinson B, Khani F . Concordance Between Biopsy and Radical Prostatectomy Pathology in the Era of Targeted Biopsy: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis. Eur Urol Oncol. 2019; 3(1):10-20. DOI: 10.1016/j.euo.2019.08.001. View

12.

Mottet N, van den Bergh R, Briers E, Van den Broeck T, Cumberbatch M, De Santis M . EAU-EANM-ESTRO-ESUR-SIOG Guidelines on Prostate Cancer-2020 Update. Part 1: Screening, Diagnosis, and Local Treatment with Curative Intent. Eur Urol. 2020; 79(2):243-262. DOI: 10.1016/j.eururo.2020.09.042. View

13.

Eggener S, Badani K, Barocas D, Barrisford G, Cheng J, Chin A . Gleason 6 Prostate Cancer: Translating Biology into Population Health. J Urol. 2015; 194(3):626-34. PMC: 4551510. DOI: 10.1016/j.juro.2015.01.126. View