Redefining the Concept of Clinically Insignificant Prostate Cancer

Daisy E. Frankcombe, Jian Li, Ronald J. Cohen

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Abstract

Objective: To assess the risk of biochemical recurrence (BCR) in small low-grade prostate tumors following radical prostatectomy (RP), which are defined as clinically insignificant based on the existing criteria developed by Stamey and Epstein. Materials and Methods: We identified 3784 men who underwent RP in Western Australia from September 1998 to March 2019. These patients had a Gleason sum (GS) of ≤6 or 3+4, prostate confined and negative margins. Pathological data analysis was performed using logistic regression modeling. Results: Median follow-up was 96.8 months. BCR occurred in 110 men (2.91%). There was no statistical difference in the rates of failure for patients with a tumor volume <0.5 mL vs 0.5-2.0 mL when comparing (i) those with Gleason 6, or (ii) those with Gleason 3+4. Furthermore, there was no statistical difference in rates of failure when comparing patients with a tumor volume of ≤2 mL vs >2 mL when the percentage of Gleason pattern 4 was ≤20%. However, once the percentage of Gleason pattern 4 increased to 30%, there was a significant increase in BCR in the larger tumors (> 2 mL). Conclusion: This study did not support either Stamey's or Epstein's criteria of insignificant cancer based on volumes of less than 0.5 mL, GS <7 and confined margin negative disease. No risk free cancer was identified, as all groups demonstrated some risk of BCR. This study redefines the entity of insignificant cancer as rather “low risk” cancer and expands its scope to include smaller tumors with minor Gleason pattern 4 components.

Original languageEnglish
JournalUrology
DOIs
Publication statusE-pub ahead of print - 9 Nov 2019

Fingerprint

Prostatic Neoplasms
Neoplasms
Recurrence
Prostatectomy
Prostate
Western Australia
Tumor Burden
Logistic Models

Cite this

Frankcombe, Daisy E. ; Li, Jian ; Cohen, Ronald J. / Redefining the Concept of Clinically Insignificant Prostate Cancer. In: Urology. 2019.
@article{dc2580a3e0e9440194e39e760c4a24cd,
title = "Redefining the Concept of Clinically Insignificant Prostate Cancer",
abstract = "Objective: To assess the risk of biochemical recurrence (BCR) in small low-grade prostate tumors following radical prostatectomy (RP), which are defined as clinically insignificant based on the existing criteria developed by Stamey and Epstein. Materials and Methods: We identified 3784 men who underwent RP in Western Australia from September 1998 to March 2019. These patients had a Gleason sum (GS) of ≤6 or 3+4, prostate confined and negative margins. Pathological data analysis was performed using logistic regression modeling. Results: Median follow-up was 96.8 months. BCR occurred in 110 men (2.91{\%}). There was no statistical difference in the rates of failure for patients with a tumor volume <0.5 mL vs 0.5-2.0 mL when comparing (i) those with Gleason 6, or (ii) those with Gleason 3+4. Furthermore, there was no statistical difference in rates of failure when comparing patients with a tumor volume of ≤2 mL vs >2 mL when the percentage of Gleason pattern 4 was ≤20{\%}. However, once the percentage of Gleason pattern 4 increased to 30{\%}, there was a significant increase in BCR in the larger tumors (> 2 mL). Conclusion: This study did not support either Stamey's or Epstein's criteria of insignificant cancer based on volumes of less than 0.5 mL, GS <7 and confined margin negative disease. No risk free cancer was identified, as all groups demonstrated some risk of BCR. This study redefines the entity of insignificant cancer as rather “low risk” cancer and expands its scope to include smaller tumors with minor Gleason pattern 4 components.",
author = "Frankcombe, {Daisy E.} and Jian Li and Cohen, {Ronald J.}",
year = "2019",
month = "11",
day = "9",
doi = "10.1016/j.urology.2019.10.019",
language = "English",
journal = "Urology",
issn = "0090-4295",
publisher = "Elsevier",

}

Redefining the Concept of Clinically Insignificant Prostate Cancer. / Frankcombe, Daisy E.; Li, Jian; Cohen, Ronald J.

In: Urology, 09.11.2019.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

TY - JOUR

T1 - Redefining the Concept of Clinically Insignificant Prostate Cancer

AU - Frankcombe, Daisy E.

AU - Li, Jian

AU - Cohen, Ronald J.

PY - 2019/11/9

Y1 - 2019/11/9

N2 - Objective: To assess the risk of biochemical recurrence (BCR) in small low-grade prostate tumors following radical prostatectomy (RP), which are defined as clinically insignificant based on the existing criteria developed by Stamey and Epstein. Materials and Methods: We identified 3784 men who underwent RP in Western Australia from September 1998 to March 2019. These patients had a Gleason sum (GS) of ≤6 or 3+4, prostate confined and negative margins. Pathological data analysis was performed using logistic regression modeling. Results: Median follow-up was 96.8 months. BCR occurred in 110 men (2.91%). There was no statistical difference in the rates of failure for patients with a tumor volume <0.5 mL vs 0.5-2.0 mL when comparing (i) those with Gleason 6, or (ii) those with Gleason 3+4. Furthermore, there was no statistical difference in rates of failure when comparing patients with a tumor volume of ≤2 mL vs >2 mL when the percentage of Gleason pattern 4 was ≤20%. However, once the percentage of Gleason pattern 4 increased to 30%, there was a significant increase in BCR in the larger tumors (> 2 mL). Conclusion: This study did not support either Stamey's or Epstein's criteria of insignificant cancer based on volumes of less than 0.5 mL, GS <7 and confined margin negative disease. No risk free cancer was identified, as all groups demonstrated some risk of BCR. This study redefines the entity of insignificant cancer as rather “low risk” cancer and expands its scope to include smaller tumors with minor Gleason pattern 4 components.

AB - Objective: To assess the risk of biochemical recurrence (BCR) in small low-grade prostate tumors following radical prostatectomy (RP), which are defined as clinically insignificant based on the existing criteria developed by Stamey and Epstein. Materials and Methods: We identified 3784 men who underwent RP in Western Australia from September 1998 to March 2019. These patients had a Gleason sum (GS) of ≤6 or 3+4, prostate confined and negative margins. Pathological data analysis was performed using logistic regression modeling. Results: Median follow-up was 96.8 months. BCR occurred in 110 men (2.91%). There was no statistical difference in the rates of failure for patients with a tumor volume <0.5 mL vs 0.5-2.0 mL when comparing (i) those with Gleason 6, or (ii) those with Gleason 3+4. Furthermore, there was no statistical difference in rates of failure when comparing patients with a tumor volume of ≤2 mL vs >2 mL when the percentage of Gleason pattern 4 was ≤20%. However, once the percentage of Gleason pattern 4 increased to 30%, there was a significant increase in BCR in the larger tumors (> 2 mL). Conclusion: This study did not support either Stamey's or Epstein's criteria of insignificant cancer based on volumes of less than 0.5 mL, GS <7 and confined margin negative disease. No risk free cancer was identified, as all groups demonstrated some risk of BCR. This study redefines the entity of insignificant cancer as rather “low risk” cancer and expands its scope to include smaller tumors with minor Gleason pattern 4 components.

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85076593845&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1016/j.urology.2019.10.019

DO - 10.1016/j.urology.2019.10.019

M3 - Article

JO - Urology

JF - Urology

SN - 0090-4295

ER -