Prognostic factors for identification of unfavorable pathomorphological signs and upgrade in patients with clinically localized prostate cancer and low or favorable intermediate risk

Cover Page

Cite item

Full Text

Open Access Open Access
Restricted Access Access granted
Restricted Access Subscription or Fee Access

Abstract

Background. Prostate cancer is one of the most common oncological diseases in men and remains an important problem of modern oncological urology. One of the approaches to management of patients with clinically localized prostate cancer and low or favorable intermediate risk is active surveillance. Currently, there is a risk of underestimating tumor aggressiveness. The scale of this risk is unknown, and the factors affecting its significance are not sufficiently understood.

Aim. To evaluate frequency and identification of prognostic factors of unfavorable pathomorphological signs through analysis of prostatectomy material from patients with clinically localized prostate cancer and low or favorable intermediate risk.

Materials and methods. The retrospective study included 353 patients with clinically localized prostate cancer and low or favorable intermediate oncological risk who underwent radical prostatectomy in our center in 2016–2020. Primary endpoints were presence and frequency of unfavorable pathomorphological signs, upgrade. Additionally, frequency of upgrade of ISUP GG (International Society of Urological Pathology Grade Group) was evaluated depending on a number of prognostic factors. To determine independent effect of these factors, multivariable logistic regression was used with development of prognostic models.

Results. Upgrade was reported in 35.4 % of patients. Evaluation of the factors associated with unfavorable pathomorphological signs showed that the following characteristics had statistical significance: ISUP GG per biopsy (p = 0.044), percentage of positive cores (p = 0.017), maximal tumor fraction in positive cores (p = 0.009). For predicting upgrade, 2 key factors were identified: maximal tumor fraction in positive cores (p = 0.033), tumor ISUP GG (p = 0.037). The proposed prognostic classifications confirmed their efficacy and reproducibility in this patient sample.

Conclusion. Data analysis allowed to identify significant factors increasing probability of upgrade: presence of ISUP GG 2 and maximal tumor percentage in positive biopsy cores above 15 %. The main predictors associated with disease stage increase were ISUP GG 2 per biopsy, percentage of positive cores above 50 % and maximal tumor fraction in a core above 15 %. If any 2 of the factors are present, active surveillance should be performed with great care and be accompanied by scrutinous control.

About the authors

Yuriy A. Poddubny

N.N. Alexandrov Republican Scientific and Practical Center of Oncology and Medical Radiology

Author for correspondence.
Email: y.poddubny@gmail.com
ORCID iD: 0009-0009-2761-3281
Belarus, 2 Lesnoy Minsk District 223040

A. I. Rolevich

N.N. Alexandrov Republican Scientific and Practical Center of Oncology and Medical Radiology

Email: y.poddubny@gmail.com
ORCID iD: 0000-0002-9811-6591
Belarus, 2 Lesnoy Minsk District 223040

A. M. Pozharytski

N.N. Alexandrov Republican Scientific and Practical Center of Oncology and Medical Radiology

Email: y.poddubny@gmail.com
ORCID iD: 0009-0006-6620-2088
Belarus, 2 Lesnoy Minsk District 223040

S. A. Krasny

N.N. Alexandrov Republican Scientific and Practical Center of Oncology and Medical Radiology

Email: y.poddubny@gmail.com
ORCID iD: 0000-0003-3244-5664
Belarus, 2 Lesnoy Minsk District 223040

S. L. Polyakov

N.N. Alexandrov Republican Scientific and Practical Center of Oncology and Medical Radiology

Email: y.poddubny@gmail.com
ORCID iD: 0000-0003-1591-6313
Belarus, 2 Lesnoy Minsk District 223040

T. A. Liatkouskaya

Belarusian State Medical University

Email: y.poddubny@gmail.com
ORCID iD: 0000-0002-9381-2985
Belarus, 83 Dzerzhinskogo Prospekt, Minsk 220083

References

  1. Bray F., Ferlay J., Soerjomataram I. et al. Global cancer statistics 2018: GLOBOCAN estimates of incidence and mortality worldwide for 36 cancers in 185 countries. CA Cancer J Clin 68(6):394–424. doi: 10.3322/caac.21492.
  2. Okeanov A.E., Moiseev P.I., Levin L.F. et al. Cancer in Belarus: facts and figures. Analysis of Belarusian cancer registry data for 2010–2019. Ed.: S.L. Polyakov. Minsk: RNPTs OMR im N.N. Aleksandrova, 2020. Pp. 12, 17–18, 27, 41–42, 82. (In Russ.).
  3. Minicozzi P. Survival of cancer patient in Europe, 1999–2007. Eur J Cancer 2015;51(15):2099–268.
  4. Trama A., Foschi R., Larrañaga N. et al. Survival of male genital cancers (prostate, testis and penis) in Europe 1999–2007: results from the EUROCARE-5 study. Eur J Cancer 2015;51(15):2206–16. doi: 10.1016/j.ejca.2015.07.027
  5. Draisma G., Boer R., Otto S.J. et al. Lead times and overdetection due to prostate-specific antigen screening: estimates from the European randomized study of screening for prostate cancer. J Natl Cancer Inst 2003;95(12):868–78. doi: 10.1093/jnci/95.12.868
  6. Klotz L. Active surveillance for low-risk prostate cancer. Curr Opin Urol 2017;27(3):225–30. doi: 10.1097/MOU.0000000000000393
  7. Hamilton A., Stanford J.L., Gilliland F.D. et al. Health outcomes after external-beam radiation therapy for clinically localized prostate cancer: results from the prostate cancer outcomes study. J Clin Oncol 2001;19(9):2517–26. doi: 10.1200/JCO.2001.19.9.2517
  8. Chou R., Croswell J.M., Dan T. et al. Screening for prostate cancer: a review of the evidence for the U.S. preventive services task force. Ann Intern Med 2011;155(11):762–71. doi: 10.7326/0003-4819-155-11-201112060-00375
  9. Merriel S., Hetherington L., Seggie A. et al. Best practice in active surveillance for men with prostate cancer: a prostate cancer UK consensus statement. BJU Int 2019;124(1):47–54. doi: 10.1111/bju.14707
  10. Bul M., Zhu X., Valdagni R. et al. Active surveillance for low-risk prostate cancer worldwide: the PRIAS study. Eur Urol 2013;63(4):597–603. doi: 10.1016/j.eururo.2012.11.005
  11. Carroll P. Guidelines should be assessed based on the underlying evidence. CMAJ 2019;191(31):871–81.
  12. Dariy E.V., Bedretdinova D.A., Garmanova T.N. Clinically insignificant prostate cancer: modern treatment strategy. Eksperimentalnaya i klinicheskaya urologiya = Experimental and Clinical Urology 2012;(1):51–6. (In Russ.).
  13. Donovan J., Hamdy F.C., Lane J.A. et al. Patient-reported outcomes after monitoring, surgery, or radiotherapy for prostate cancer. N Engl J Med 2016;375(15):1425–37. doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa1606221
  14. Mohler J., Antonarakis E.S. NCCN Guidelines updates: management of prostate cancer. J Natl Compr Canc Netw 2019;17(5):583–6. doi: 10.6004/jnccn.2019.5011
  15. Mottet N., van den Bergh R.C.N., Briers E. et al. 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):243–62. doi: 10.1016/j.eururo.2020.09.042
  16. Fan Y., Pan P.H., Lin T.P. et al. Prostate health index outperforms other PSA derivatives in predicting a positive biopsy in men with tPSA <10 ng/mL: largest prospective cohort in Taiwan. J Chin Med Assoc 2019;82(10):772–7. doi: 10.1097/JCMA.0000000000000160
  17. Suardi N., Capitanio U., Chun F.K.H. et al. Currently used criteria for active surveillance in men with low-risk prostate cancer: an analysis of pathologic features. Cancer 2008;113(8):2068–72. doi: 10.1002/cncr.23827
  18. Sarici H., Telli O., Yigitbasi O. et al. Predictors of Gleason score upgrading in patients with prostate biopsy Gleason score ≤6. Can Urol Assoc J 2014;8:E342–6. doi: 10.5489/cuaj.1499
  19. Jo J.K., Hong S.K., Byun S.S. et al. Prognostic significance of the disparity between biopsy and pathologic Gleason score after radical prostatectomy in clinical candidates for active surveillance according to the royal marsden criteria. Clin Genitourin Cancer 2016;14(4):329–33. doi: 10.1016/j.clgc.2016.01.001
  20. Seisen T., Roudot-Thoraval F., Bosset P.O. et al. Predicting the risk of harboring high-grade disease for patients diagnosed with prostate cancer scored as Gleason ≤6 on biopsy cores. World J Urol 2015;33:787–92. doi: 10.1007/s00345-014-1348-8
  21. Tosoian J., Mamawala M., Epstein J.I. et al. Intermediate and longer-term outcomes from a prospective active-surveillance program for favorable-risk prostate cancer. J Clin Oncol 2015;33(30):3379–85. doi: 10.1200/JCO.2015.62.5764
  22. Lam T., MacLennan S., Willemse P.P.M. et al. EAU-EANM-ESTRO-ESUR-SIOG prostate cancer guideline panel consensus statements for deferred treatment with curative intent for localised prostate cancer from an International Collaborative Study (DETECTIVE Study). Eur Urol 2019;76(6):790–13. doi: 10.1016/j.eururo.2019.09.020
  23. Newcomb L., Laviana A.A., Penson D.F. et al. Prostate cancer mortality and metastasis under different biopsy frequencies in North American active surveillance cohorts. Cancer 2019;126(3):583–93. doi: 10.1002/cncr.32557
  24. Alchin D.R., Murphy D., Lawrentschuk N. Risk factors for Gleason Score upgrading following radical prostatectomy. Minerva Urol Nefrol 2017;69(5):459–65. doi: 10.23736/S0393-2249.16.02684-9
  25. Athanazio D., Gotto G., Shea-Budgell M. et al. Global Gleason grade groups in prostate cancer: concordance of biopsy and radical prostatectomy grades and predictors of upgrade and downgrade. Histopathology 2017;70(7):1098–106. doi: 10.1111/his.13179

Supplementary files

Supplementary Files
Action
1. JATS XML
Download

Copyright (c) 2026 ABV-Press

License URL: https://oncourology.abvpress.ru/oncur/about/editorialPolicies
СМИ зарегистрировано Федеральной службой по надзору в сфере связи, информационных технологий и массовых коммуникаций (Роскомнадзор).
Регистрационный номер и дата принятия решения о регистрации СМИ: серия ПИ № ФС 77-36986 от  21.07.2009.