Clinical role of pathological downgrading after radical prostatectomy in patients with biopsy confirmed Gleason score 3 + 4 prostate cancer
Objective To identify preoperative factors predicting Gleason score downgrading after radical prostatectomy (RP) in patients with biopsy Gleason score 3+4 prostate cancer and to determine if prediction of downgrading can identify potential candidates for active surveillance (AS). Patients and Method...
Gespeichert in:
Veröffentlicht in: | BJU international 2015-01, Vol.115 (1), p.81-86 |
---|---|
Hauptverfasser: | , , , , , |
Format: | Artikel |
Sprache: | eng |
Schlagworte: | |
Online-Zugang: | Volltext |
Tags: |
Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
|
container_end_page | 86 |
---|---|
container_issue | 1 |
container_start_page | 81 |
container_title | BJU international |
container_volume | 115 |
creator | Gondo, Tatsuo Poon, Bing Ying Matsumoto, Kazuhiro Bernstein, Melanie Sjoberg, Daniel D. Eastham, James A. |
description | Objective
To identify preoperative factors predicting Gleason score downgrading after radical prostatectomy (RP) in patients with biopsy Gleason score 3+4 prostate cancer and to determine if prediction of downgrading can identify potential candidates for active surveillance (AS).
Patients and Methods
We identified 1317 patients with biopsy Gleason score 3+4 prostate cancers who underwent RP at the Memorial Sloan‐Kettering Cancer Center between 2005 and 2013. Several preoperative and biopsy characteristics were evaluated by forward selection regression, and selected predictors of downgrading were analysed by multivariable logistic regression. Decision curve analysis was used to evaluate the clinical utility of the multivariate model.
Results
Gleason score was downgraded after RP in 115 patients (9%). We developed a multivariable model using age, prostate‐specific antigen density, percentage of positive cores with Gleason pattern 4 cancer out of all cores taken, and maximum percentage of cancer involvement within a positive core with Gleason pattern 4 cancer. The area under the curve for this model was 0.75 after 10‐fold cross validation. However, decision curve analysis revealed that the model was not clinically helpful in identifying patients who will downgrade at RP for the purpose of reassigning them to AS.
Conclusion
While patients with pathological Gleason score 3 + 3 with tertiary Gleason pattern ≤4 at RP in patients with biopsy Gleason score 3 + 4 prostate cancer may be potential candidates for AS, decision curve analysis showed limited utility of our model to identify such men. Future study is needed to identify new predictors to help identify potential candidates for AS among patients with biopsy confirmed Gleason score 3 + 4 prostate cancer. |
doi_str_mv | 10.1111/bju.12769 |
format | Article |
fullrecord | <record><control><sourceid>proquest_pubme</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_1637572058</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><sourcerecordid>3527023051</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-c4249-556f62c9b1213e8894d2af0cab68f587f80e82a3e6fe31c9c3c4bdf706e79b2b3</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNpdkUtP4zAQxy3ECljgwBdAlrggoVK_4iRHqJburirtBSRukeOMiyvXLnaiqp9hvzROeRyYi-fxm7E9f4QuKLml2abtarilrJT1ATqhQoqJoOT58NMntTxGP1NaEZITsjhCx0yUrCglOUH_Z856q5XDMTjAweCN6l-CC8t9sgtbv4yqs36Jlekh4jEYK5sYUq960H1Y77D1Y58F3ye8tf0Lbm3YpB3WwRsb19DhuQOVgsdJhwiY4xssvmZgrbyGeIZ-GOUSnH-cp-jp4dfj7Pdk8W_-Z3a3mGjBRD0pCmkk03VLGeVQVbXomDJEq1ZWpqhKUxGomOIgDXCqa821aDtTEgll3bKWn6Lr97n5_tcBUt-sbdLgnPIQhtRQycuiZKSoMnr1DV2FIfr8upGSnNOayExdflBDm__abKJdq7hrPtecgek7sLUOdl91SppRvybr1-z1a-7_Pu0d_gafRo5_</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Aggregation Database</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>1636331906</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>Clinical role of pathological downgrading after radical prostatectomy in patients with biopsy confirmed Gleason score 3 + 4 prostate cancer</title><source>MEDLINE</source><source>Wiley Online Library Journals Frontfile Complete</source><creator>Gondo, Tatsuo ; Poon, Bing Ying ; Matsumoto, Kazuhiro ; Bernstein, Melanie ; Sjoberg, Daniel D. ; Eastham, James A.</creator><creatorcontrib>Gondo, Tatsuo ; Poon, Bing Ying ; Matsumoto, Kazuhiro ; Bernstein, Melanie ; Sjoberg, Daniel D. ; Eastham, James A.</creatorcontrib><description>Objective
To identify preoperative factors predicting Gleason score downgrading after radical prostatectomy (RP) in patients with biopsy Gleason score 3+4 prostate cancer and to determine if prediction of downgrading can identify potential candidates for active surveillance (AS).
Patients and Methods
We identified 1317 patients with biopsy Gleason score 3+4 prostate cancers who underwent RP at the Memorial Sloan‐Kettering Cancer Center between 2005 and 2013. Several preoperative and biopsy characteristics were evaluated by forward selection regression, and selected predictors of downgrading were analysed by multivariable logistic regression. Decision curve analysis was used to evaluate the clinical utility of the multivariate model.
Results
Gleason score was downgraded after RP in 115 patients (9%). We developed a multivariable model using age, prostate‐specific antigen density, percentage of positive cores with Gleason pattern 4 cancer out of all cores taken, and maximum percentage of cancer involvement within a positive core with Gleason pattern 4 cancer. The area under the curve for this model was 0.75 after 10‐fold cross validation. However, decision curve analysis revealed that the model was not clinically helpful in identifying patients who will downgrade at RP for the purpose of reassigning them to AS.
Conclusion
While patients with pathological Gleason score 3 + 3 with tertiary Gleason pattern ≤4 at RP in patients with biopsy Gleason score 3 + 4 prostate cancer may be potential candidates for AS, decision curve analysis showed limited utility of our model to identify such men. Future study is needed to identify new predictors to help identify potential candidates for AS among patients with biopsy confirmed Gleason score 3 + 4 prostate cancer.</description><identifier>ISSN: 1464-4096</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 1464-410X</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.1111/bju.12769</identifier><identifier>PMID: 24725760</identifier><identifier>CODEN: BJINFO</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>England: Wiley Subscription Services, Inc</publisher><subject>active surveillance ; Aged ; Biopsy ; decision curve analysis ; downgrading ; Humans ; Kaplan-Meier Estimate ; Logistic Models ; Male ; Medical research ; Men ; Middle Aged ; Multivariate Analysis ; Neoplasm Grading ; Predictive Value of Tests ; prostate ; Prostate cancer ; Prostatectomy ; prostatic neoplasms ; Prostatic Neoplasms - classification ; Prostatic Neoplasms - pathology ; Prostatic Neoplasms - surgery ; Retrospective Studies</subject><ispartof>BJU international, 2015-01, Vol.115 (1), p.81-86</ispartof><rights>2014 The Authors. BJU International © 2014 BJU International</rights><rights>2014 The Authors. BJU International © 2014 BJU International.</rights><rights>BJUI © 2015 BJU International</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><oa>free_for_read</oa><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><citedby>FETCH-LOGICAL-c4249-556f62c9b1213e8894d2af0cab68f587f80e82a3e6fe31c9c3c4bdf706e79b2b3</citedby></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><linktopdf>$$Uhttps://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/pdf/10.1111%2Fbju.12769$$EPDF$$P50$$Gwiley$$H</linktopdf><linktohtml>$$Uhttps://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1111%2Fbju.12769$$EHTML$$P50$$Gwiley$$H</linktohtml><link.rule.ids>314,776,780,1411,27901,27902,45550,45551</link.rule.ids><backlink>$$Uhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24725760$$D View this record in MEDLINE/PubMed$$Hfree_for_read</backlink></links><search><creatorcontrib>Gondo, Tatsuo</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Poon, Bing Ying</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Matsumoto, Kazuhiro</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Bernstein, Melanie</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Sjoberg, Daniel D.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Eastham, James A.</creatorcontrib><title>Clinical role of pathological downgrading after radical prostatectomy in patients with biopsy confirmed Gleason score 3 + 4 prostate cancer</title><title>BJU international</title><addtitle>BJU Int</addtitle><description>Objective
To identify preoperative factors predicting Gleason score downgrading after radical prostatectomy (RP) in patients with biopsy Gleason score 3+4 prostate cancer and to determine if prediction of downgrading can identify potential candidates for active surveillance (AS).
Patients and Methods
We identified 1317 patients with biopsy Gleason score 3+4 prostate cancers who underwent RP at the Memorial Sloan‐Kettering Cancer Center between 2005 and 2013. Several preoperative and biopsy characteristics were evaluated by forward selection regression, and selected predictors of downgrading were analysed by multivariable logistic regression. Decision curve analysis was used to evaluate the clinical utility of the multivariate model.
Results
Gleason score was downgraded after RP in 115 patients (9%). We developed a multivariable model using age, prostate‐specific antigen density, percentage of positive cores with Gleason pattern 4 cancer out of all cores taken, and maximum percentage of cancer involvement within a positive core with Gleason pattern 4 cancer. The area under the curve for this model was 0.75 after 10‐fold cross validation. However, decision curve analysis revealed that the model was not clinically helpful in identifying patients who will downgrade at RP for the purpose of reassigning them to AS.
Conclusion
While patients with pathological Gleason score 3 + 3 with tertiary Gleason pattern ≤4 at RP in patients with biopsy Gleason score 3 + 4 prostate cancer may be potential candidates for AS, decision curve analysis showed limited utility of our model to identify such men. Future study is needed to identify new predictors to help identify potential candidates for AS among patients with biopsy confirmed Gleason score 3 + 4 prostate cancer.</description><subject>active surveillance</subject><subject>Aged</subject><subject>Biopsy</subject><subject>decision curve analysis</subject><subject>downgrading</subject><subject>Humans</subject><subject>Kaplan-Meier Estimate</subject><subject>Logistic Models</subject><subject>Male</subject><subject>Medical research</subject><subject>Men</subject><subject>Middle Aged</subject><subject>Multivariate Analysis</subject><subject>Neoplasm Grading</subject><subject>Predictive Value of Tests</subject><subject>prostate</subject><subject>Prostate cancer</subject><subject>Prostatectomy</subject><subject>prostatic neoplasms</subject><subject>Prostatic Neoplasms - classification</subject><subject>Prostatic Neoplasms - pathology</subject><subject>Prostatic Neoplasms - surgery</subject><subject>Retrospective Studies</subject><issn>1464-4096</issn><issn>1464-410X</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2015</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><sourceid>EIF</sourceid><recordid>eNpdkUtP4zAQxy3ECljgwBdAlrggoVK_4iRHqJburirtBSRukeOMiyvXLnaiqp9hvzROeRyYi-fxm7E9f4QuKLml2abtarilrJT1ATqhQoqJoOT58NMntTxGP1NaEZITsjhCx0yUrCglOUH_Z856q5XDMTjAweCN6l-CC8t9sgtbv4yqs36Jlekh4jEYK5sYUq960H1Y77D1Y58F3ye8tf0Lbm3YpB3WwRsb19DhuQOVgsdJhwiY4xssvmZgrbyGeIZ-GOUSnH-cp-jp4dfj7Pdk8W_-Z3a3mGjBRD0pCmkk03VLGeVQVbXomDJEq1ZWpqhKUxGomOIgDXCqa821aDtTEgll3bKWn6Lr97n5_tcBUt-sbdLgnPIQhtRQycuiZKSoMnr1DV2FIfr8upGSnNOayExdflBDm__abKJdq7hrPtecgek7sLUOdl91SppRvybr1-z1a-7_Pu0d_gafRo5_</recordid><startdate>201501</startdate><enddate>201501</enddate><creator>Gondo, Tatsuo</creator><creator>Poon, Bing Ying</creator><creator>Matsumoto, Kazuhiro</creator><creator>Bernstein, Melanie</creator><creator>Sjoberg, Daniel D.</creator><creator>Eastham, James A.</creator><general>Wiley Subscription Services, Inc</general><scope>CGR</scope><scope>CUY</scope><scope>CVF</scope><scope>ECM</scope><scope>EIF</scope><scope>NPM</scope><scope>7QP</scope><scope>7X8</scope></search><sort><creationdate>201501</creationdate><title>Clinical role of pathological downgrading after radical prostatectomy in patients with biopsy confirmed Gleason score 3 + 4 prostate cancer</title><author>Gondo, Tatsuo ; Poon, Bing Ying ; Matsumoto, Kazuhiro ; Bernstein, Melanie ; Sjoberg, Daniel D. ; Eastham, James A.</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c4249-556f62c9b1213e8894d2af0cab68f587f80e82a3e6fe31c9c3c4bdf706e79b2b3</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2015</creationdate><topic>active surveillance</topic><topic>Aged</topic><topic>Biopsy</topic><topic>decision curve analysis</topic><topic>downgrading</topic><topic>Humans</topic><topic>Kaplan-Meier Estimate</topic><topic>Logistic Models</topic><topic>Male</topic><topic>Medical research</topic><topic>Men</topic><topic>Middle Aged</topic><topic>Multivariate Analysis</topic><topic>Neoplasm Grading</topic><topic>Predictive Value of Tests</topic><topic>prostate</topic><topic>Prostate cancer</topic><topic>Prostatectomy</topic><topic>prostatic neoplasms</topic><topic>Prostatic Neoplasms - classification</topic><topic>Prostatic Neoplasms - pathology</topic><topic>Prostatic Neoplasms - surgery</topic><topic>Retrospective Studies</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Gondo, Tatsuo</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Poon, Bing Ying</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Matsumoto, Kazuhiro</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Bernstein, Melanie</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Sjoberg, Daniel D.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Eastham, James A.</creatorcontrib><collection>Medline</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE (Ovid)</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>PubMed</collection><collection>Calcium & Calcified Tissue Abstracts</collection><collection>MEDLINE - Academic</collection><jtitle>BJU international</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Gondo, Tatsuo</au><au>Poon, Bing Ying</au><au>Matsumoto, Kazuhiro</au><au>Bernstein, Melanie</au><au>Sjoberg, Daniel D.</au><au>Eastham, James A.</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>Clinical role of pathological downgrading after radical prostatectomy in patients with biopsy confirmed Gleason score 3 + 4 prostate cancer</atitle><jtitle>BJU international</jtitle><addtitle>BJU Int</addtitle><date>2015-01</date><risdate>2015</risdate><volume>115</volume><issue>1</issue><spage>81</spage><epage>86</epage><pages>81-86</pages><issn>1464-4096</issn><eissn>1464-410X</eissn><coden>BJINFO</coden><abstract>Objective
To identify preoperative factors predicting Gleason score downgrading after radical prostatectomy (RP) in patients with biopsy Gleason score 3+4 prostate cancer and to determine if prediction of downgrading can identify potential candidates for active surveillance (AS).
Patients and Methods
We identified 1317 patients with biopsy Gleason score 3+4 prostate cancers who underwent RP at the Memorial Sloan‐Kettering Cancer Center between 2005 and 2013. Several preoperative and biopsy characteristics were evaluated by forward selection regression, and selected predictors of downgrading were analysed by multivariable logistic regression. Decision curve analysis was used to evaluate the clinical utility of the multivariate model.
Results
Gleason score was downgraded after RP in 115 patients (9%). We developed a multivariable model using age, prostate‐specific antigen density, percentage of positive cores with Gleason pattern 4 cancer out of all cores taken, and maximum percentage of cancer involvement within a positive core with Gleason pattern 4 cancer. The area under the curve for this model was 0.75 after 10‐fold cross validation. However, decision curve analysis revealed that the model was not clinically helpful in identifying patients who will downgrade at RP for the purpose of reassigning them to AS.
Conclusion
While patients with pathological Gleason score 3 + 3 with tertiary Gleason pattern ≤4 at RP in patients with biopsy Gleason score 3 + 4 prostate cancer may be potential candidates for AS, decision curve analysis showed limited utility of our model to identify such men. Future study is needed to identify new predictors to help identify potential candidates for AS among patients with biopsy confirmed Gleason score 3 + 4 prostate cancer.</abstract><cop>England</cop><pub>Wiley Subscription Services, Inc</pub><pmid>24725760</pmid><doi>10.1111/bju.12769</doi><tpages>6</tpages><oa>free_for_read</oa></addata></record> |
fulltext | fulltext |
identifier | ISSN: 1464-4096 |
ispartof | BJU international, 2015-01, Vol.115 (1), p.81-86 |
issn | 1464-4096 1464-410X |
language | eng |
recordid | cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_1637572058 |
source | MEDLINE; Wiley Online Library Journals Frontfile Complete |
subjects | active surveillance Aged Biopsy decision curve analysis downgrading Humans Kaplan-Meier Estimate Logistic Models Male Medical research Men Middle Aged Multivariate Analysis Neoplasm Grading Predictive Value of Tests prostate Prostate cancer Prostatectomy prostatic neoplasms Prostatic Neoplasms - classification Prostatic Neoplasms - pathology Prostatic Neoplasms - surgery Retrospective Studies |
title | Clinical role of pathological downgrading after radical prostatectomy in patients with biopsy confirmed Gleason score 3 + 4 prostate cancer |
url | https://sfx.bib-bvb.de/sfx_tum?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2025-02-13T06%3A41%3A55IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-proquest_pubme&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=Clinical%20role%20of%20pathological%20downgrading%20after%20radical%20prostatectomy%20in%20patients%20with%20biopsy%20confirmed%20Gleason%20score%203%20+%204%20prostate%20cancer&rft.jtitle=BJU%20international&rft.au=Gondo,%20Tatsuo&rft.date=2015-01&rft.volume=115&rft.issue=1&rft.spage=81&rft.epage=86&rft.pages=81-86&rft.issn=1464-4096&rft.eissn=1464-410X&rft.coden=BJINFO&rft_id=info:doi/10.1111/bju.12769&rft_dat=%3Cproquest_pubme%3E3527023051%3C/proquest_pubme%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&disable_directlink=true&sfx.directlink=off&sfx.report_link=0&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=1636331906&rft_id=info:pmid/24725760&rfr_iscdi=true |