Gleason score 6 adenocarcinoma: should it be labeled as cancer?

Overtreatment of low-grade prostate cancer (Gleason score ≤ 6) is a recognized problem today, with systematic prostate gland sampling triggered by prostate-specific antigen (PSA) measurements.1 The extent to which overtreatment is caused by fear of death resulting from cancer, fear of litigation from undertreatment, and misaligned incentives that reimburse more for treating rather than monitoring when appropriate is not known. Nevertheless, fear of death resulting from cancer likely plays some role, and removing the label “cancer” could reduce unnecessary treatment of low-grade disease.2,3 On the other hand, undertreatment of prostate cancer and a missed opportunity for cure in those who could benefit is a real risk of relabeling a cancer as noncancer. We have decided on an alternative modification of the Gleason scoring system and herein present the arguments for and against removing the label of cancer from Gleason 6 tumors. We believe that our alternative approach may help: one, ensure that patients receive the proper counseling/treatment; two, reduce the risk of overtreatment and its associated harms; and three, improve shared decision making.

[1]  J. Epstein,et al.  Change in prostate cancer grade over time in men followed expectantly for stage T1c disease. , 2008, The Journal of urology.

[2]  Matthew R Cooperberg,et al.  Time trends and local variation in primary treatment of localized prostate cancer. , 2010, Journal of clinical oncology : official journal of the American Society of Clinical Oncology.

[3]  P. Corso,et al.  National Institutes of Health State-of-the-Science Conference: Role of Active Surveillance in the Management of Men With Localized Prostate Cancer , 2012, Annals of Internal Medicine.

[4]  M. Terris,et al.  Risk stratification of men with Gleason score 7 to 10 tumors by primary and secondary Gleason score: results from the SEARCH database. , 2007, Urology.

[5]  Bruce J Trock,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. , 2012, European urology.

[6]  H. Sandler,et al.  Gleason pattern 5 is the greatest risk factor for clinical failure and death from prostate cancer after dose-escalated radiation therapy and hormonal ablation. , 2011, International journal of radiation oncology, biology, physics.

[7]  L. Egevad,et al.  The 2005 International Society of Urological Pathology (ISUP) Consensus Conference on Gleason Grading of Prostatic Carcinoma , 2005, The American journal of surgical pathology.

[8]  M. Roobol,et al.  Radical prostatectomy for low-risk prostate cancer following initial active surveillance: results from a prospective observational study. , 2012, European urology.

[9]  B. Chabner,et al.  Call it cancer. , 2012, The oncologist.

[10]  M. Speakman,et al.  SHOULD WE REALLY CONSIDER GLEASON 6 PROSTATE CANCER? , 2012, BJU international.

[11]  T. Wilt,et al.  The Prostate cancer Intervention Versus Observation Trial:VA/NCI/AHRQ Cooperative Studies Program #407 (PIVOT): design and baseline results of a randomized controlled trial comparing radical prostatectomy to watchful waiting for men with clinically localized prostate cancer. , 2009, Contemporary clinical trials.

[12]  D. Kirk,et al.  Legal pitfalls in the diagnosis of prostate cancer , 2000, BJU international.

[13]  T. Gomes,et al.  National Institutes of Health State-of-the-Science Conference: role of active surveillance in the management of men with localized prostate cancer. , 2012 .

[14]  Pär Stattin,et al.  Outcomes in Localized Prostate Cancer: National Prostate Cancer Register of Sweden Follow-up Study , 2010, Journal of the National Cancer Institute.

[15]  D. Dearnaley,et al.  A model of the natural history of screen-detected prostate cancer, and the effect of radical treatment on overall survival , 2006, British Journal of Cancer.

[16]  M. Jordá,et al.  Pathologic prostate cancer characteristics in patients eligible for active surveillance: a head-to-head comparison of contemporary protocols. , 2012, European urology.

[17]  Chin-Lee Wu,et al.  Impact on the Clinical Outcome of Prostate Cancer by the 2005 International Society of Urological Pathology Modified Gleason Grading System , 2012, The American journal of surgical pathology.

[18]  Misop Han,et al.  Predicting 15-year prostate cancer specific mortality after radical prostatectomy. , 2011, The Journal of urology.

[19]  Hans Garmo,et al.  Radical prostatectomy versus watchful waiting in early prostate cancer. , 2005, The New England journal of medicine.

[20]  J. Epstein,et al.  Gleason score 2-4 adenocarcinoma of the prostate on needle biopsy: a diagnosis that should not be made. , 2000, The American journal of surgical pathology.

[21]  Alan W Partin,et al.  Gleason score 7 prostate cancer on needle biopsy: is the prognostic difference in Gleason scores 4 + 3 and 3 + 4 independent of the number of involved cores? , 2002, The Journal of urology.

[22]  G. Netto,et al.  Emerging critical role of molecular testing in diagnostic genitourinary pathology. , 2012, Archives of pathology & laboratory medicine.

[23]  Pierre Mongiat-Artus,et al.  Prostate Cancer and the Will Rogers Phenomenon , 2006 .

[24]  J. Epstein,et al.  A pathological reassessment of organ-confined, Gleason score 6 prostatic adenocarcinomas that progress after radical prostatectomy. , 2009, Human pathology.

[25]  D. Penson,et al.  Trends in the treatment of localized prostate cancer using supplemented cancer registry data , 2011, BJU international.

[26]  C. Gross,et al.  The relationship between clinical benefit and receipt of curative therapy for prostate cancer. , 2012, Archives of internal medicine.

[27]  J. Mohler The 2010 NCCN clinical practice guidelines in oncology on prostate cancer. , 2010, Journal of the National Comprehensive Cancer Network : JNCCN.

[28]  J. Ciezki,et al.  Comparison of biochemical relapse-free survival between primary Gleason score 3 and primary Gleason score 4 for biopsy Gleason score 7 prostate cancer. , 2009, International journal of radiation oncology, biology, physics.

[29]  T. Skolarus,et al.  Growth of high-cost intensity-modulated radiotherapy for prostate cancer raises concerns about overuse. , 2012, Health affairs.

[30]  Matthew R Cooperberg,et al.  Contemporary trends in low risk prostate cancer: risk assessment and treatment. , 2007, The Journal of urology.

[31]  Stacey A. Kenfield,et al.  Prospective study of determinants and outcomes of deferred treatment or watchful waiting among men with prostate cancer in a nationwide cohort. , 2009, Journal of clinical oncology : official journal of the American Society of Clinical Oncology.