Changes in prostate cancer grade on serial biopsy in men undergoing active surveillance.

PURPOSE Active surveillance is now considered a viable treatment option for men with low-risk prostate cancer. However, little is known regarding changes in Gleason grade on serial biopsies over an extended period of time. PATIENTS AND METHODS Men diagnosed with prostate cancer between 1998 and 2009 who elected active surveillance as initial treatment, with 6 or more months of follow-up and a minimum of six cores at biopsy, were included in analysis. Upgrading and downgrading were defined as an increase or decrease in primary or secondary Gleason score. Means and frequency tables were used to describe patient characteristics, and treatment-free survival rates were determined by life-table product limit estimates. RESULTS Three hundred seventy-seven men met inclusion criteria. Mean age at diagnosis was 61.9 years. Fifty-three percent of men had prostate-specific antigen of 6 ng/mL or less, and 94% had Gleason score of 6 or less. A majority of men were cT1 (62%), had less than 33% of biopsy cores involved (80%), and were low risk (77%) at diagnosis. Median number of cores taken at diagnostic biopsy was 13, mean time to follow-up was 18.5 months, and 29% of men had three or more repeat biopsies. Overall, 34% (129 men) were found to have an increase in Gleason grade. The majority of men who experienced an upgrade (81%) did so by their second repeat biopsy. CONCLUSION A proportion of men experience an upgrade in Gleason score while undergoing active surveillance. Men who experience early upgrading likely represent initial sampling error, whereas later upgrading may reflect tumor dedifferentiation.

[1]  J. Adolfsson,et al.  Evaluation of tumor progression by repeated fine needle biopsies in prostate adenocarcinoma: modal deoxyribonucleic acid value and cytological differentiation. , 1990, The Journal of urology.

[2]  A. Whittemore,et al.  Low-grade, latent prostate cancer volume: predictor of clinical cancer incidence? , 1991, Journal of the National Cancer Institute.

[3]  V. Pansadoro,et al.  Increased accuracy of biopsy Gleason score obtained by extended needle biopsy. , 2004, The Journal of urology.

[4]  Jing Ma,et al.  Gleason score and lethal prostate cancer: does 3 + 4 = 4 + 3? , 2009, Journal of clinical oncology : official journal of the American Society of Clinical Oncology.

[5]  M. Terris,et al.  Upgrading and downgrading of prostate needle biopsy specimens: risk factors and clinical implications. , 2006, Urology.

[6]  Steven J. M. Jones,et al.  A multi-institutional evaluation of active surveillance for low risk prostate cancer. , 2013, The Journal of urology.

[7]  Laurence H Klotz,et al.  Active surveillance with selective delayed intervention for favorable risk prostate cancer: clinical experience and a 'number needed to treat' analysis. , 2006, The Canadian journal of urology.

[8]  B. Trock,et al.  Risk stratification of men choosing surveillance for low risk prostate cancer. , 2009, The Journal of urology.

[9]  Donald E Bailey,et al.  Active surveillance for early‐stage prostate cancer , 2008, Cancer.

[10]  A. Billis Radical prostatectomy findings in patients in whom active surveillance of prostate cancer fails , 2009 .

[11]  M. Cooperberg,et al.  Risk assessment for prostate cancer metastasis and mortality at the time of diagnosis. , 2009, Journal of the National Cancer Institute.

[12]  G. Andriole Active Surveillance for the Management of Prostate Cancer in a Contemporary Cohort: Dall'Era MA, Konety BR, Cowan JE, et al (Univ of California at San Francisco; et al) Cancer 112:2664-2670, 2008 § , 2012 .

[13]  P. Walsh,et al.  Expectant management of nonpalpable prostate cancer with curative intent: preliminary results. , 2002, The Journal of urology.

[14]  J. Hanley,et al.  Competing risk analysis of men aged 55 to 74 years at diagnosis managed conservatively for clinically localized prostate cancer. , 1999, JAMA.

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

[16]  Kirsten L. Greene,et al.  Surgical management after active surveillance for low‐risk prostate cancer: pathological outcomes compared with men undergoing immediate treatment , 2011, BJU international.

[17]  J. Epstein,et al.  Interobserver reproducibility of Gleason grading of prostatic carcinoma: general pathologist. , 2001, Human pathology.

[18]  James A Eastham,et al.  Pathological upgrading and up staging with immediate repeat biopsy in patients eligible for active surveillance. , 2008, The Journal of urology.

[19]  L. Klotz,et al.  Active surveillance versus radical treatment for favorable-risk localized prostate cancer , 2006, Current treatment options in oncology.

[20]  M. Cooperberg,et al.  Active surveillance for the management of prostate cancer in a contemporary cohort , 2008, Cancer.

[21]  J. Wheeler,et al.  Dedifferentiation of locally recurrent prostate cancer after radiation therapy. Evidence for tumor progression , 1993, Cancer.

[22]  H. D. de Koning,et al.  Gleason score, age and screening: Modeling dedifferentiation in prostate cancer , 2006, International journal of cancer.

[23]  J. Brooks,et al.  Genomic profiling reveals alternative genetic pathways of prostate tumorigenesis. , 2007, Cancer research.

[24]  P. Troncoso,et al.  Radical prostatectomy findings in patients predicted to have low‐volume/low‐grade prostate cancer diagnosed by extended‐core biopsies: an analysis of volume and zonal distribution of tumour foci , 2009, BJU international.

[25]  B. Trock,et al.  Delayed versus immediate surgical intervention and prostate cancer outcome. , 2006, Journal of the National Cancer Institute.

[26]  H. G. van der Poel,et al.  Short‐term outcomes of the prospective multicentre ‘Prostate Cancer Research International: Active Surveillance’ study , 2010, BJU international.