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...

Ausführliche Beschreibung

Gespeichert in:
Bibliographische Detailangaben
Veröffentlicht in:BJU international 2015-01, Vol.115 (1), p.81-86
Hauptverfasser: Gondo, Tatsuo, Poon, Bing Ying, Matsumoto, Kazuhiro, Bernstein, Melanie, Sjoberg, Daniel D., Eastham, James A.
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 &amp; 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