Department of Urology, UCSF Helen Diller Family Comprehensive Cancer Center, San Francisco, CA, USA.
Department of Urology, UCSF Helen Diller Family Comprehensive Cancer Center, San Francisco, CA, USA.
Eur Urol Oncol. 2018 Oct;1(5):386-394. doi: 10.1016/j.euo.2018.04.018. Epub 2018 May 24.
Whether men with Gleason 3+4 prostate cancer are appropriate active surveillance (AS) candidates remains a matter of debate.
to evaluate the effects of initial Gleason grade 3+3 or 3+4 on clinical outcomes during AS.
DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: We retrospectively reviewed outcomes for men on AS between 1990 and 2016 with Gleason 3+3 or 3+4 who had two or more biopsies.
We evaluated associations of diagnostic grade with reclassification (upgrade ≥ 3+4), treatment, metastasis, adverse surgical pathology, and biochemical recurrence (BCR) after deferred radical prostatectomy (RP), with a sensitivity analysis for the amount of pattern 4 disease.
Of 1243 men, 1119 (90%) had Gleason 3+3 and 124 (10%) 3+4 on initial biopsy. The 5-yr unadjusted reclassification-free survival was 49% regardless of grade, while patients with Gleason 3+4 had lower treatment-free survival (49% vs 64%; p<0.01). On multivariate Cox analysis, grade was associated with lower risk of reclassification (hazard ratio [HR] 0.66, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.46-0.95) and higher risk of treatment (HR 1.37, 95% CI 1.01-1.85). After RP, patients starting with Gleason 3+4 had lower unadjusted 2-yr BCR-free survival (69% vs 93%; p=0.01) and a higher risk of recurrence (HR 3.67, 95% CI 1.30-10.36). Grade was not associated with metastasis (<1% at 5 yr) or adverse pathology. In sensitivity analyses, a single high-grade core was associated with lower risk of reclassification and multiple high-grade cores were associated with a higher risk of treatment. The number of high-grade cores was not independently associated with BCR. Limitations include selection bias, a limited number of intermediate-risk patients, and length of follow-up.
Gleason 3+4 at diagnosis was associated with risk of reclassification, treatment, and BCR. The number of high-grade cores may help in stratifying men with Gleason 3+4 disease.
Some men with Gleason 3+4 prostate cancer may be appropriate surveillance candidates, but longer follow-up and evaluation of more patients are necessary.
格里森评分 3+4 的前列腺癌患者是否适合主动监测(AS)仍存在争议。
评估初始格里森评分 3+3 或 3+4 对 AS 期间临床结果的影响。
设计、地点和参与者:我们回顾性分析了 1990 年至 2016 年间接受 AS 治疗的格里森评分 3+3 或 3+4 且有两次或更多次活检的男性的结果。
我们评估了诊断分级与再分类(升级≥3+4)、治疗、转移、不良手术病理和延迟根治性前列腺切除术后生化复发(BCR)之间的关系,对模式 4 疾病的数量进行了敏感性分析。
在 1243 名男性中,1119 名(90%)初次活检时为格里森 3+3,124 名(10%)为 3+4。无论分级如何,5 年未调整的再分类无进展生存率均为 49%,而格里森 3+4 患者的无治疗无进展生存率较低(49% vs 64%;p<0.01)。多变量 Cox 分析显示,分级与较低的再分类风险相关(风险比[HR]0.66,95%置信区间[CI]0.46-0.95)和较高的治疗风险相关(HR 1.37,95%CI 1.01-1.85)。在接受 RP 后,起始时格里森评分为 3+4 的患者无调整的 2 年 BCR 无进展生存率较低(69% vs 93%;p=0.01),复发风险较高(HR 3.67,95%CI 1.30-10.36)。分级与转移(5 年内<1%)或不良病理无关。在敏感性分析中,单个高级别核心与较低的再分类风险相关,多个高级别核心与较高的治疗风险相关。高级别核心的数量与 BCR 无独立相关性。局限性包括选择偏倚、中间风险患者数量有限和随访时间。
诊断时的格里森评分 3+4 与再分类、治疗和 BCR 的风险相关。高级别核心的数量可能有助于对格里森 3+4 疾病患者进行分层。
一些格里森评分 3+4 的前列腺癌患者可能适合作为监测候选者,但需要进行更长时间的随访和评估更多患者。