The Impact of Downgrading from Biopsy Gleason 7 to Prostatectomy Gleason 6 on Biochemical Recurrence and Prostate Cancer Specific Mortality

Clinical Factors Associated With Pathological Grade Group 1 Patients in D'Amico Intermediate-Risk Group Following Robot-Assisted Radical Prostatectomy: A Retrospective Multicenter Cohort Study in Japan (The MSUG94 Group)

INTRODUCTION

We aimed to examine the relationship between D'Amico intermediate-risk and pathological grade group 1 (pGG1) after robot-assisted radical prostatectomy (RARP).

PATIENTS AND METHODS

In this retrospective multicenter cohort study, D'Amico intermediate-risk prostate cancer patients who did not receive neoadjuvant therapy, and underwent RARP at 10 institutions in Japan were examined for preoperative factors associated with pGG1.

RESULTS

In total, we enrolled 1161 D'Amico intermediate-risk prostate cancer patients. The pGG1 and pGG ≥2 groups comprised 73 (6.3%), and 1088 (93.7%) cases, respectively. Biochemical recurrence-free survival (BCRFS) of the pGG1 group was equivalent to that of the D'Amico low-risk patients. Among the 3 D'Amico intermediate-risk factors (IRF), the pGG1-rate was 24% with prostate-specific antigen (PSA) of 10 to 20 ng/mL alone, and 30% with cT2b alone. Both groups had significantly higher pGG1-rates than other groups. Down-grading from biopsy GG ≥2 to pGG1 was relatively rare (3.9%). Patients with pGG1 were further stratified by prostate volume (PV) (cutoff, 40 cc) among patients with one IRF and PSA of 10 to 20 ng/mL. Patients with one IRF, PSA of 10 to 20 ng/mL, and PV >40 cc had a relatively good BCRFS similar to that of the D'Amico low-risk group.

CONCLUSION

Among intermediate-risk prostate cancer patients, those with pGG1 have a good prognosis. Downgrading from biopsy GG ≥2 is rare, and definitive treatment may be recommended for patients with biopsy GG ≥2. Patients with one IRF, PSA of 10 to 20 ng/mL, and PV >40 cc who are eligible for RARP may be candidates for active surveillance.

The impact of surgical downgrading on prostate cancer recurrence: systematic review and analysis of a multiethnic population

OBJECTIVE

To perform a systematic review and a retrospective cohort analysis evaluating the rates of surgical downgrading of prostate cancer (PCa) from biopsy (PBx) to radical prostatectomy (RP), and their association with biochemical recurrence (BCR) in a multiethnic population.

METHODS

A systematic review of PubMed and other databases was performed. We included retrospective studies evaluating the relationship between surgical downgrading and BCR-free survival. Data regarding Gleason score (GL) downgrading were abstracted from the articles and categorized as follows: GL8-10 to GL7, GL7 to GL6, and GL 7(4 + 3) to GL7(3 + 4). We also performed a retrospective cohort review of patients who underwent RP at our institution from 2005 through 2020. Kaplan-Meier survival analysis and Cox proportional hazards models were used to compare BCR among downgraded versus non-downgraded men.

RESULTS

Systematic review yielded 137 abstracts; of these, 36 full-texts were reviewed, 8 of which were included in our systematic review. Despite substantial variability, all showed that GL at RP is one of the most important factors of BCR-free survival. A total of 1,484 men with PCa were analyzed from our institution. On multivariate analysis, GL7 to GL6 downgrading (HR = 0.50, p = 0.022) and GL8-10 to GL7 downgrading (HR = 0.42, p = 0.011) were associated with reduced risk of BCR when compared to men with GL7 and GL8-10 concordance, respectively. However, GL7(4 + 3) to GL7(3 + 4) downgrading was not significantly associated with reduced BCR (HR = 0.56, p = 0.12), when compared to GL7(4 + 3) concordance, although HR was similar.

CONCLUSION

Surgical downgrading at RP was associated with a reduced risk of BCR compared to GL concordant disease, and these findings have been validated within our multiethnic population. Pathologic downgrading at the time of RP may be a more useful predictor of subsequent BCR in comparison to that associated with GL concordant pathology.

Diagnostic accuracy of [-2]proPSA versus Gleason score and Prostate Health Index versus Gleason score for the determination of aggressive prostate cancer: a systematic review

OBJECTIVE

The objective of this review was to determine the diagnostic accuracy of [-2]proPSA (p2PSA) and the Prostate Health Index compared to the Gleason score in determining the aggressiveness of prostate cancer.

INTRODUCTION

Prostate cancer is the most commonly diagnosed cancer in men. However, the utility of currently available biomarkers for determining the aggressive form of the disease remains unknown. This review sought to determine the diagnostic accuracy of two new biomarkers in determining the aggressive form of prostate cancer.

INCLUSION CRITERIA

Diagnostic accuracy studies that enrolled men of any age and any prostate specific antigen (PSA) level with histologically confirmed prostate cancer in which Prostate Health Index and p2PSA were assessed in comparison to Gleason score for the determination of aggressive prostate cancer were considered for inclusion. There was no time limitation on study inclusion.

METHODS

A three-step search strategy was utilized to identify both published and unpublished studies in the English language in the following sources: PubMed, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, CINAHL, Web of Science, Google Scholar, MedNar, and SIGLE. Databases were searched from inception to January 2019. Study selection, critical appraisal, data extraction, and data synthesis were done according to the approach recommended by JBI.

RESULTS

A total of 12 studies (n = 8462) that recruited men with aggressive prostate cancer were considered in this review. The majority of included subjects had a total PSA level of 2 to 10ng/mL. The sensitivity of the Prostate Health Index ranged from 67% to 97% while specificity ranged from 6% to 64%. At a Prostate Health Index threshold of 25 and below (three studies, n = 3222), pooled sensitivity was 97% (95% confidence interval [CI], 95% to 98%) and specificity was 10% (95% CI, 6% to 16%). At a Prostate Health Index threshold of between 26 and 35 (six studies, n = 6030), pooled sensitivity was 87% (95% CI, 8% to 91%) and specificity was 45% (95% CI, 39% to 50%). At a Prostate Health Index threshold of 36 and above (five studies, n = 1476), pooled sensitivity was 72% (95% CI, 64% to 79%) and specificity was 74% (95% CI, 68% to 80%). Only one study assessed p2PSA. Sensitivity ranged from 80% to 95%, and specificity ranged from 9.9% to 27.9% with increasing threshold values from 7.9 to 10.9ng/mL.

CONCLUSIONS

Overall, both Prostate Health Index and p2PSA have acceptable accuracy for the determination of the likelihood of aggressive prostate cancer. However, the inverse relationship between sensitivity and specificity makes it difficult to determine an optimum cut-off value for positivity. Further research is warranted to determine their utility in the management of prostate cancer.

How does a prebiopsy mri approach for prostate cancer diagnosis affect prostatectomy upgrade rates?

BACKGROUND

To compare the pathologic upgrade and downgrade rates after radical prostatectomy (RP) between patients diagnosed by prebiopsy prostate MRI followed by a combination of systematic and fusion biopsy (ComBx) versus patients undergoing systematic biopsy only (SBx).

METHODS

A retrospective review of men undergoing RP at our institution between Jan 2014 and Mar 2020 was performed. These patients were separated into two independent cohorts based on two approaches: Patients receiving prebiopsy prostate MRI during initial evaluation and those who did not receive MRI. Patients with positive MRI findings underwent subsequent ComBx to confirm diagnosis while those without MRI underwent standard trans-rectal ultrasound (TRUS) guided systematic 12-core biopsy (SBx). Primary outcomes were rates of pathological upgrade (prostatectomy grade higher than grade determined at time of biopsy) and downgrade (prostatectomy grade lower than biopsy grade).

RESULTS

A total of 213 patients undergoing radical prostatectomy, 91 diagnosed via a prebiopsy MRI and ComBx approach and 122 diagnosed by a traditional SBx approach, were included in the study. There was no significant difference between age, PSA, or positive family history between the two cohorts. Of the 91 patients who received prebiopsy MRI, 88 patients were determined to have a PIRADS 4 or 5 lesion. Patients who received MRI and subsequent ComBx had a lower rate of any pathological upgrade after RP (9.89% vs. 22.13%, P = 0.018) without a significant difference in pathologic downgrade rate (28.57% vs. 18.85%, P = 0.095). On multivariable logistic regression, receiving prebiopsy MRI during initial evaluation was the single negative independent predictor of pathologic upgrade (OR = 0.23, P = 0.017). A prebiopsy MRI approach was also the single predictor of pathologic downgrade (OR = 3.13, P = 0.041).

CONCLUSIONS

Patients receiving prebiopsy MRI during prostate cancer evaluation were less likely to have their PCa upgraded. Furthermore, although diagnosis via MRI and subsequent ComBx was associated with an increased rate of downgrades after RP, relatively few resulted in a downgrade from clinically significant to clinically insignificant cancer.

Phase I dose escalation trial of stereotactic radiotherapy prior to robotic prostatectomy in high risk prostate cancer

Background

The aim of the study was to investigate the safety of combining preoperative stereotactic body radiotherapy (SBRT) with robotic radical prostatectomy (RP) for high risk prostate cancer (HRCaP). Many patients with HRCaP will require adjuvant or salvage radiotherapy after RP. The addition of preoperative SBRT before RP may spare patients from subsequent prolonged courses of RT.

Materials and methods

Eligible patients had NCC N HRCaP and received a total of 25 Gy or 30 Gy in five daily fractions of SBRT to the prostate and seminal vesicles followed by robotic RP with pelvic lymphadenectomy 31-45 days later. The primary endpoint was prevalence of acute genitourinary (GU) and gastrointestinal (GI) toxicity. Secondary endpoints were patient-reported quality of life (QOL) and biochemical recurrence (BcR).

Results

Three patients received preoperative SBRT to 25 Gy and four received 30 Gy. Median follow-up was 18 months. Highest toxicity was grade 2 and 3 in six (85.7%) and one (14.3%) patients, respectively. All patients developed grade 2 erectile dysfunction and 4 of 7 (57%) developed grade 2 urinary incontinence (UI) within a month after surgery. One patient developed acute grade 3 UI, but there was no grade ≥ 4 toxicity. One patient experienced acute grade 2 hemorrhoidal bleeding. On QOL, acute GU complaints were common and peaked within 3 months. Bowel symptoms were mild. Two patients with pN+ experienced BcR.

Conclusions

Preoperative SBRT before robotic RP in HRCaP is feasible and safe. The severity of acute GU toxicity with preoperative SBRT may be worse than RP alone, while bowel toxicity was mild.

A pilot window-of-opportunity study of preoperative fluvastatin in localized prostate cancer

Background

Statins inhibit HMG-CoA reductase, the rate-limiting enzyme of the mevalonate pathway. Epidemiological and pre-clinical evidence support an association between statin use and delayed prostate cancer (PCa) progression. Here, we evaluated the effects of neoadjuvant fluvastatin treatment on markers of cell proliferation and apoptosis in men with localized PCa.

Methods

Thirty-three men were treated daily with 80 mg fluvastatin for 4–12 weeks in a single-arm window-of-opportunity study between diagnosis of localized PCa and radical prostatectomy (RP) (ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT01992042). Percent Ki67 and cleaved Caspase-3 (CC3)-positive cells in tumor tissues were evaluated in 23 patients by immunohistochemistry before and after treatment. Serum and intraprostatic fluvastatin concentrations were quantified by liquid chromatography-mass spectrometry.

Results

Baseline characteristics included a median prostate-specific antigen (PSA) level of 6.48 ng/mL (IQR: 4.21–10.33). The median duration of fluvastatin treatment was 49 days (range: 27–102). Median serum low-density lipoprotein levels decreased by 35% after treatment, indicating patient compliance. Median PSA decreased by 12%, but this was not statistically significant in our small cohort. The mean fluvastatin concentration measured in the serum was 0.2 μM (range: 0.0–1.1 μM), and in prostatic tissue was 8.5 nM (range: 0.0–77.0 nM). At these concentrations, fluvastatin induced PCa cell death in vitro in a dose- and time-dependent manner. In patients, fluvastatin treatment did not significantly alter intratumoral Ki67 positivity; however, a median 2.7-fold increase in CC3 positivity (95% CI: 1.9–5.0, p = 0.007) was observed in post-fluvastatin RP tissues compared with matched pre-treatment biopsy controls. In a subset analysis, this increase in CC3 was more pronounced in men on fluvastatin for >50 days.

Conclusions

Fluvastatin prior to RP achieves measurable drug concentrations in prostatic tissue and is associated with promising effects on tumor cell apoptosis. These data warrant further investigation into the anti-neoplastic effects of statins in prostate tissue.

The Impact of Prostate Cancer Upgrading and Upstaging on Biochemical Recurrence and Cancer-Specific Survival

Background and Objectives: Significant numbers of prostate cancer (PCa) patients experience tumour upgrading and upstaging between prostate biopsy and radical prostatectomy (RP) specimens. The aim of our study was to investigate the role of grade and stage increase on surgical and oncological outcomes. Materials and Methods: Upgrading and upstaging rates were analysed in 676 treatment-naïve PCa patients who underwent RP with subsequent follow-up. Positive surgical margin (PSM), biochemical recurrence (BCR), metastasis-free survival (MFS), overall (OS) and cancer specific survival (CSS) were analysed according to upgrading and upstaging. Results: Upgrading was observed in 29% and upstaging in 22% of PCa patients. Patients undergoing upgrading or upstaging were 1.5 times more likely to have a PSM on RP pathology. Both upgrading and upstaging were associated with increased risk for BCR: 1.8 and 2.1 times, respectively. Mean time to BCR after RP was 2.1 years in upgraded cases and 2.7 years in patients with no upgrading (p < 0.001), while mean time to BCR was 1.9 years in upstaged and 2.8 years in non-upstaged cases (p < 0.001). Grade and stage increase after RP were associated with inferior MFS rates and ten-year CSS: 89% vs. 98% for upgrading (p = 0.039) and 87% vs. 98% for upstaging (p = 0.008). Conclusions: Currently used risk stratification models are associated with substantial misdiagnosis. Pathological upgrading and upstaging have been associated with inferior surgical results, substantial higher risk of BCR and inferior rates of important oncological outcomes, which should be considered when counselling PCa patients at the time of diagnosis or after definitive therapy.

The prognostic impact of downgrading and upgrading from biopsy to radical prostatectomy among men with Gleason score 7 prostate cancer

BACKGROUND

Recently, a new prostate cancer (PC) grading system was introduced, where Gleason score (GS) 7 was divided into 3 + 4 = 7 and 4 + 3 = 7 due to the different prognoses associated with each tumor type. However, whether downgrading or upgrading from needle biopsy (NB) to radical prostatectomy (RP) affects oncologic outcomes is currently unknown. Herein, we investigated the prognostic impact of downgrading and upgrading from NB to RP among men with GS 7 PC.

METHODS

We retrospectively reviewed the medical records of 3003 patients with localized PC who underwent RP between 2005 and 2014. We included 692 patients with GS 7 PC on both NB and RP specimens. We analyzed the data using Kaplan-Meier methods and Cox proportional hazard models.

RESULTS

Of the 692 patients enrolled in this study, 389 (56.2%) and 303 (43.8%) patients had RP GS 3 + 4 = 7 and RP GS 4 + 3 = 7 PC, respectively. On the basis of NB and RP GS, 264 (38.1%), 125 (18.1%), 142 (20.5%), and 161 (23.3%) patients were classified as 3 + 4/3 + 4, 4 + 3/3 + 4, 3 + 4/4 + 3, and 4 + 3/4 + 3, respectively. Kaplan-Meier curves showed significant differences in biochemical recurrence (BCR)-free survival across the groups (P < .001). In the multivariate analyses, these groups were significantly associated with BCR (4 + 3/3 + 4: hazard ratio [HR], 1.675; 3 + 4/4 + 3: HR, 1.908; and 4 + 3/4 + 3: HR, 2.699).

CONCLUSIONS

Downgrading and upgrading from NB to RP was an independent predictor of BCR in men with GS 7 PC, which could be due to the amount of Gleason pattern 4.

Predictive Factors and Oncologic Outcome of Downgrade to Pathologic Gleason Score 6⁻7 after Radical Prostatectomy in Patients with Biopsy Gleason Score 8⁻10

Gleason score (GS) 8⁻10 is associated with adverse outcomes in prostate cancer (PCa). However, biopsy GS (bGS) may be upgraded or downgraded post-radical prostatectomy (RP). We aimed to investigate predictive factors and oncologic outcomes of downgrade to pathologic GS (pGS) 6⁻7 after RP in PCa patients with bGSs 8⁻10. We retrospectively reviewed clinical data of patients with bGS ≥ 8 undergoing RP. pGS downgrade was defined as a pGS ≤ 7 from bGS ≥ 8 post-RP. Univariate and multivariate cox regression analysis, logistic regression analysis, and Kaplan⁻Meier curves were used to analyze pGS downgrade and biochemical recurrence (BCR). Of 860 patients, 623 and 237 had bGS 8 and bGS ≥ 9, respectively. Post-RP, 332 patients were downgraded to pGS ≤ 7; of these, 284 and 48 had bGS 8 and bGS ≥ 9, respectively. Prostate-specific antigen (PSA) levels; clinical stage; and adverse pathologic features such as extracapsular extension, seminal vesicle invasion and positive surgical margin were significantly different between patients with pGS ≤ 7 and pGS ≥ 8. Furthermore, bGS 8 (odds ratio (OR): 0.349, p < 0.001), PSA level < 10 ng/mL (OR: 0.634, p = 0.004), and ≤cT3a (OR: 0.400, p < 0.001) were identified as significant predictors of pGS downgrade. pGS downgrade was a significant positive predictor of BCR following RP in patients with high bGS (vs. pGS 8, hazard radio (HR): 1.699, p < 0.001; vs. pGS ≥ 9, HR: 1.765, p < 0.001). In addition, the 5-year BCR-free survival rate in patients with pGS downgrade significantly differed from that in patients with bGS 8 and ≥ 9 (52.9% vs. 40.7%, p < 0.001). Among patients with bGS ≥ 8, those with bGS 8, PSA level < 10 ng/mL, and ≤cT3a may achieve pGS downgrade after RP. These patients may have fewer adverse pathologic features and show a favorable prognosis; thus we suggest that active treatment is needed in these patients. In addition, patients with high-grade bGS should be managed aggressively, even if they show pGS downgrade.

Diagnostic accuracy of the [-2]Pro-PSA and Prostate Health Index versus the Gleason score for determining the aggressiveness of prostate cancer: a systematic review protocol

REVIEW QUESTIONS.