How to Pick Out the “Unreal” Gleason 3 + 3 Patients: A Nomogram for More Precise Active Surveillance Protocol in Low-Risk Prostate Cancer in a Chinese Population

References

• Siegel RL, Miller KD, Jemal A. Cancer statistics, 2018. CA Cancer J Clin. 2018;68(1):7–30. doi:10.3322/caac.21442.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Osses DF, van Asten JJ, Kieft GJ, et al. Prostate cancer detection rates of magnetic resonance imaging-guided prostate biopsy related to Prostate Imaging Reporting and Data System score. World J Urol. 2017;35(2):207–212. doi:10.1007/s00345-016-1874-7.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Mertan FV, Greer MD, Shih JH, et al. Prospective evaluation of the prostate imaging reporting and data system version 2 for prostate cancer detection. J Urol. 2016;196(3):690–696. doi:10.1016/j.juro.2016.04.057.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Dall'Era MA, Albertsen PC, Bangma C, et al. Active surveillance for prostate cancer: a systematic review of the literature. Eur Urol. 2012;62(6):976–983. doi:10.1016/j.eururo.2012.05.072.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Loeb S, Berglund A, Stattin P. Population based study of use and determinants of active surveillance and watchful waiting for low and intermediate risk prostate cancer. J Urol. 2013;190(5):1742–1749. doi:10.1016/j.juro.2013.05.054.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Klotz L, Vesprini D, Sethukavalan P, et al. Long-term follow-up of a large active surveillance cohort of patients with prostate cancer. J Clin Oncol. 2015;33(3):272–277. doi:10.1200/JCO.2014.55.1192.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Tosoian JJ, Mamawala M, Epstein JI, et al. Intermediate and longer-term outcomes from a prospective active-surveillance program for favorable-risk prostate cancer. J Clin Oncol. 2015;33(30):3379–3385. doi:10.1200/JCO.2015.62.5764.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ploussard G, Isbarn H, Briganti A, et al. Can we expand active surveillance criteria to include biopsy Gleason 3 + 4 prostate cancer? A multi-institutional study of 2,323 patients. Urol Oncol. 2015;33(2):71 e1–9. doi:10.1016/j.urolonc.2014.07.007.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Epstein JI, Feng Z, Trock BJ, et al. Upgrading and downgrading of prostate cancer from biopsy to radical prostatectomy: incidence and predictive factors using the modified Gleason grading system and factoring in tertiary grades. Eur Urol. 2012;61(5):1019–1024. doi:10.1016/j.eururo.2012.01.050.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• 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):1098–1106. doi:10.1111/his.13179.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Thomas C, Pfirrmann K, Pieles F, et al. Predictors for clinically relevant Gleason score upgrade in patients undergoing radical prostatectomy. BJU Int. 2012;109(2):214–219. doi:10.1111/j.1464-410X.2011.10187.x.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Magi-Galluzzi C, Evans AJ, Delahunt B, et al. International Society of Urological Pathology (ISUP) Consensus Conference on Handling and Staging of Radical Prostatectomy Specimens. Working group 3: extraprostatic extension, lymphovascular invasion and locally advanced disease. Mod Pathol. 2011;24(1):26–38. doi:10.1038/modpathol.2010.158.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Noguchi M, Stamey TA, McNeal JE, et al. Assessment of morphometric measurements of prostate carcinoma volume. Cancer. 2000;89(5):1056–1064. doi:doi:10.1002/1097-0142(20000901)89:5<1056::AID-CNCR15>3.0.CO;2-U.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kulac I, Haffner MC, Yegnasubramanian S, et al. Should Gleason 6 be labeled as cancer? Curr Opin Urol. 2015;25(3):238–245. doi:10.1097/MOU.0000000000000165.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Nickel JC, Speakman M. Should we really consider Gleason 6 prostate cancer?. BJU Int. 2012;109(5):645–646. doi:10.1111/j.1464-410X.2011.10854.x.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Vellekoop A, Loeb S, Folkvaljon Y, et al. Population based study of predictors of adverse pathology among candidates for active surveillance with Gleason 6 prostate cancer. J Urol. 2014;191(2):350–357. doi:10.1016/j.juro.2013.09.034.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Freedland SJ, Isaacs WB, Platz EA, et al. Prostate size and risk of high-grade, advanced prostate cancer and biochemical progression after radical prostatectomy: a search database study. J Clin Oncol. 2005;23(30):7546–7554. doi:10.1200/JCO.2005.05.525.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Gershman B, Dahl DM, Olumi AF, et al. Smaller prostate gland size and older age predict Gleason score upgrading. Urol Oncol. 2013;31(7):1033–1037. doi:10.1016/j.urolonc.2011.11.032.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wong LM, Neal DE, Johnston RB, et al. International multicentre study examining selection criteria for active surveillance in men undergoing radical prostatectomy. Br J Cancer. 2012;107(9):1467–1473. doi:10.1038/bjc.2012.400.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Moschini M, Gandaglia G, Suardi N, et al. Importance of prostate volume in the stratification of patients with intermediate-risk prostate cancer. Int J Urol. 2015;22(6):555–561. doi:10.1111/iju.12748.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Tseng KS, Landis P, Epstein JI, et al. Risk stratification of men choosing surveillance for low risk prostate cancer. J Urol. 2010;183(5):1779–1785. doi:10.1016/j.juro.2010.01.001.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• D'Amico AV, Whittington R, Malkowicz SB, et al. Investigating the clinical utility of the percent of positive prostate biopsies in predicting PSA outcome following local therapy for patients with clinically localized prostate cancer. Prostate Cancer Prostatic Dis. 2000;3(4):259–264. doi:10.1038/sj.pcan.4500413.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Valette TN, Antunes AA, Leite KM, et al. Probability of extraprostatic disease according to the percentage of positive biopsy cores in clinically localized prostate cancer. Int Braz J Urol. 2015;41(3):449–454. doi:10.1590/S1677-5538.IBJU.2014.0223.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Faiena I, Salmasi A, Mendhiratta N, et al. PI-RADS Version 2 Category on 3 Tesla Multiparametric prostate magnetic resonance imaging predicts oncologic outcomes in Gleason 3 + 4 Prostate Cancer on Biopsy. J Urol. 2019;201(1):91–97. doi:10.1016/j.juro.2018.08.043.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Epstein JI, Walsh PC, Carmichael M, et al. Pathologic and clinical findings to predict tumor extent of nonpalpable (stage T1c) prostate cancer. JAMA. 1994;271(5):368–374. doi:
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Soloway MS, Soloway CT, Williams S, et al. Active surveillance; a reasonable management alternative for patients with prostate cancer: the Miami experience. BJU Int. 2008;101(2):165–9. doi:10.1111/j.1464-410X.2007.07190.x.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Welty CJ, Cowan JE, Nguyen H, et al. Extended followup and risk factors for disease reclassification in a large active surveillance cohort for localized prostate cancer. J Urol. 2015;193(3):807–811. doi:10.1016/j.juro.2014.09.094.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Barentsz JO, Richenberg J, Clements R, et al. ESUR prostate MR guidelines 2012. Eur Radiol. 2012;22(4):746–757. doi:10.1007/s00330-011-2377-y.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Tan N, Shen L, Khoshnoodi P, et al. Pathological and 3 Tesla volumetric magnetic resonance imaging predictors of biochemical recurrence after robotic assisted radical prostatectomy: correlation with whole mount histopathology. J Urol. 2018;199(5):1218–1223. doi:10.1016/j.juro.2017.10.042.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kim TH, Jeon HG, Jeong BC, et al. Development of a new nomogram to predict insignificant prostate cancer in patients undergoing radical prostatectomy. Scand J Urol. 2017;51(1):27–32. doi:10.1080/21681805.2016.1266384.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kundu SD, Roehl KA, Yu X, et al. Prostate specific antigen density correlates with features of prostate cancer aggressiveness. J Urol. 2007;177(2):505–509. doi:10.1016/j.juro.2006.09.039.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Corcoran NM, Casey RG, Hong MK, et al. The ability of prostate-specific antigen (PSA) density to predict an upgrade in Gleason score between initial prostate biopsy and prostatectomy diminishes with increasing tumour grade due to reduced PSA secretion per unit tumour volume. BJU Int. 2012;110(1):36–42. doi:10.1111/j.1464-410X.2011.10681.x.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kristiansen A, Wiklund F, Wiklund P, et al. Prognostic significance of patterns of seminal vesicle invasion in prostate cancer. Histopathology. 2013;62(7):1049–1056. doi:10.1111/his.12104.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Adams J, Cheng L. Lymph node-positive prostate cancer: current issues, emerging technology and impact on clinical outcome. Expert Rev Anticancer Ther. 2011;11(9):1457–1469. doi:10.1586/era.11.104.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Chaux A, Fajardo DA, Gonzalez-Roibon N, et al. High-grade prostatic adenocarcinoma present in a single biopsy core is associated with increased extraprostatic extension, seminal vesicle invasion, and positive surgical margins at prostatectomy. Urology. 2012;79(4):863–868. doi:10.1016/j.urology.2011.10.012.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Dell'Atti L. Prognostic significance of perineural invasion in patients who underwent radical prostatectomy for localized prostate cancer. J BUON. 2016;21(5):1219–1223.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar