Should Grade Group 1 (GG1) be called cancer?

UQCRB and LBH are correlated with Gleason score progression in prostate cancer: Spatial transcriptomics and experimental validation

Prostate cancer (PCa) is a multifocal disease characterized by genomic and phenotypic heterogeneity within a single gland. In this study, Visium spatial transcriptomics (ST) analysis was applied to PCa tissues with different histological structures to infer the molecular events involved in Gleason score (GS) progression. The spots in tissue sections were classified into various groups using Principal Component Analysis (PCA) and Louvain clustering analysis based on transcriptome data. Anotation of the spots according to GS revealed notable similarities between transcriptomic profiles and histologically identifiable structures. The accuracy of macroscopic GS determination was bioinformatically verified through malignancy-related feature analysis, specifically inferred copy number variation (inferCNV), as well as developmental trajectory analyses, such as diffusion pseudotime (DPT) and partition-based graph abstraction (PAGA). Genes related to GS progression were identified from the differentially expressed genes (DEGs) through pairwise comparisons of groups along a GS gradient. The proteins encoded by the representative oncogenes UQCRB and LBH were found to be highly expressed in advanced-stage PCa tissues. Knockdown of their mRNAs significantly suppressed PCa cell proliferation and invasion. These findings were validated using The Cancer Genome Atlas Prostate Adenocarcinoma (TCGA-PRAD) dataset, as well as through histological and cytological experiments. The results presented here establish a foundation for ST-based evaluation of GS progression and provide valuable insights into the GS progression-related genes UQCRB and LBH.

PSA screening for prostate cancer in the United States: 30 years of controversy

In 1994, the United States approved the Prostate-Specific Antigen (PSA) test as a screening tool for prostate cancer. It did so despite the test's inherent weakness: not being prostate cancer specific. Subsequent randomized trials yielded conflicting results as to its benefits. Medical guideline organizations are concerned that PSA screening results in the diagnosis and treatment of clinically indolent prostate cancer. Nevertheless, PSA screening is prevalent in North America and Europe with PSA screening increasing in other regions. We provide a critical review of the major factors that led to the prevalence of PSA screening in the United States despite the debate about its benefits. Public advocacy in favor of the test and failure of the medical community to appreciate its inherent weakness led to widespread adoption. These factors persist today. Other countries need to carefully analyze the utility of the PSA test before adopting it.

A noninvasive method for predicting clinically significant prostate cancer using magnetic resonance imaging combined with PRKY promoter methylation level: a machine learning study

BACKGROUND

Traditional process for clinically significant prostate cancer (csPCA) diagnosis relies on invasive biopsy and may bring pain and complications. Radiomic features of magnetic resonance imaging MRI and methylation of the PRKY promoter were found to be associated with prostate cancer.

METHODS

Fifty-four Patients who underwent prostate biopsy or photoselective vaporization of the prostate (PVP) from 2022 to 2023 were selected for this study, and their clinical data, blood samples and MRI images were obtained before the operation. Methylation level of two PRKY promoter sites, cg05618150 and cg05163709, were tested through bisulfite sequencing PCR (BSP). The PI-RADS score of each patient was estimated and the region of interest (ROI) was delineated by 2 experienced radiologists. After being extracted by a plug-in of 3D-slicer, radiomic features were selected through LASSCO regression and t-test. Selected radiomic features, methylation levels and clinical data were used for model construction through the random forest (RF) algorithm, and the predictive efficiency was analyzed by the area under the receiver operation characteristic (ROC) curve (AUC).

RESULTS

Methylation level of the site, cg05618150, was observed to be associated with prostate cancer, for which the AUC was 0.74. The AUC of T2WI in csPCA prediction was 0.84, which was higher than that of the apparent diffusion coefficient ADC (AUC = 0.81). The model combined with T2WI and clinical data reached an AUC of 0.94. The AUC of the T2WI-clinic-methylation-combined model was 0.97, which was greater than that of the model combined with the PI-RADS score, clinical data and PRKY promoter methylation levels (AUC = 0.86).

CONCLUSIONS

The model combining with radiomic features, clinical data and PRKY promoter methylation levels based on machine learning had high predictive efficiency in csPCA diagnosis.

Clinical and economic impact of the introduction of pre-biopsy MRI-based assessment on a large prostate cancer centre diagnostic population and activity: 10 years on

INTRODUCTION

Prostate mpMRI was introduced in 2011 as a secondary test and subsequently integrated into a prostate cancer (PCa) diagnostics unit representing a population of approximately 550,000 people. The following represents an audit of its step-wise introduction between 2 index years, 2009 and 2018, focusing on the activity, patient outcomes and economic benefits. PATIENTS AND METHODS: The 2 distinct years were selected for relying on a transrectal ultrasound biopsy pathway in 2009 to an mpMRI-based pathway in 2018. All referrals were retrospectively screened and compared for age, PSA levels, DRE findings, biopsy history, biopsy and mpMRI allocation data. Cost analysis was determined using local unit procedure costs.

RESULTS

Patients referred included 648 in 2009 and 714 in 2018. mpMRI seldomly informed decision to biopsy in 2009 (9.8%), while in 2018 it was performed in the pre-biopsy setting in 87.9% cases and enabled biopsy avoidance in 137 patients. In 2018, there was a 31.8% decrease in the number of biopsies in patients without previous PCa diagnosis, coupled with an increase in diagnostic rates of csPCa, from 28.6 to 49.0% (p < 0.0001) and a reduction in negative biopsy rates from 52.3 to 33.8%. mpMRI had a positive impact on the system with reduced patient morbidity and post-procedural complications. The estimated overall cost savings amount to approximately £75,000/year for PCa diagnosis and £11,000/year due to reduced complications.

CONCLUSION

Our evaluation shows the mpMRI-based pathway has improved early detection of csPCa and reduction of repeat biopsies, resulting in significant financial benefits for the local healthcare system.

Gleason score 3+3=6 prostatic adenocarcinoma is not benign and the current debate is unhelpful to clinicians and patients

Prostate adenocarcinoma is a common malignancy associated with a significant morbidity and mortality. In both prostate biopsies and radical prostatectomy specimens Gleason scoring informs both treatment and outcome prediction. The current convention is that in needle biopsies, Gleason patterns 3, 4 and 5 are considered to be malignant. Despite this there is debate as to whether or not Gleason score (GS) 3+3=6 should be diagnosed as cancer due to potential over-treatment and the psychological impact on patients. It is apparent that GS 3+3=6 is indolent disease with a low risk of metastasis. However, it does have the histological features of malignancy and is capable of infiltrating the prostate gland, extraprostatic extension, and metastatic spread. Furthermore GS 3+3=6 carcinoma has immunohistochemical and molecular genetic features similar to those of higher grade prostatic carcinoma. If GS 3+3=6 tumour is considered benign, the question arises should a benign label be given to the Gleason pattern 3 component of tumour that includes Gleason patterns of higher grade? This would seem a logical step as GS 3+3=6 cancers and the pattern 3 component in cancers with multiple patterns are morphologically identical. If pattern 3 is considered to be benign, then Gleason scoring would be limited to 4+4=8, 4+5=9, 5+4=9 and 5+5=10 which is clearly inappropriate. The correct strategy to address potential over-treatment of patients with low-grade cancer is clinician and patient education, not the recalibration of Gleason grading to reclassify malignant tumours as benign.

Physician Perception of Grade Group 1 Prostate Cancer

BACKGROUND

Despite its low-risk nature, grade group 1 (GG 1) prostate cancer (PCa) remains overtreated. This suggests a disconnect between daily physician practice and the standard of care. We hypothesized that GG 1 disease is overtreated because of common misconceptions regarding its true natural history.

OBJECTIVE

To survey physicians worldwide to better understand their approach to management of GG 1 PCa.

DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS

A 17-question survey was sent to urology, radiation oncology, and pathology societies on six continents, and was posted on Twitter. Responses were collected and analyzed.

OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS AND STATISTICAL ANALYSIS

Pearson's χ2 test was used to assess correlation between physician-related variables and the perception of active surveillance (AS) for GG 1 PCa. Logistic regression was used for multivariable analysis. Statistical analysis was performed using SPSS version 21.

RESULTS AND LIMITATIONS

Among 1303 participants, 55% were urologists, 47% had completed fellowship, and 49% practice in an academic setting. Among the clinicians, 724 (83%) routinely recommend AS for GG 1 PCa and have never/rarely regretted it, while 18 (2%) "often" regretted it. Routine AS was more common among physicians aged <40 yr, those in practice for <10 yr, and those living in North America, Europe, or Australia/New Zealand. More than one-third of the respondents practicing in nonacademic settings reported 15-yr PCa mortality in low-risk PCa of >3%. Regarding reclassification of GG 1 to a precancerous lesion, 428 (39%) felt that this is a good idea, 340 (31%) disagreed, and 323 (30%) were uncertain. Those in support were more likely to be aged <40 yr (p = 0.001), in practice for <5 yr (p = 0.005), urologists (p < 0.001), and fellows trained in urologic oncology (p < 0.001). Opposition was common among pathologists (61%). Among terminologies proposed to replace "cancer" for GG 1 are neoplasm of low malignant potential (51% approval), indolent neoplasm rarely requiring treatment (23%), and indolent lesion of epithelial origin (8%).

CONCLUSIONS

AS is more commonly recommended by physicians who are younger, are fellowship-trained in urologic oncology, practice in academic settings, and are based in North America, Europe, or Australia/New Zealand. Misconceptions regarding AS outcomes may hinder its adoption. Frequent use of AS is associated with support for changing the "cancer" nomenclature.

PATIENT SUMMARY

In this study, we found that active surveillance remains underused in the management of low-risk prostate cancer because of incorrect perceptions regarding cancer outcomes. Omitting the word "cancer" for low-risk lesions is a challenging but promising effort that is favored by many clinicians, particularly by those who advocate for active surveillance.

Raman spectroscopy system for real-time diagnosis of clinically significant prostate cancer tissue

Prostate cancer (PCa) is a significant healthcare problem worldwide. Current diagnosis and treatment methods are limited by a lack of precise in vivo tissue analysis methods. Real-time cancer identification and grading could dramatically improve current protocols. Here, we report the testing of a thin optical probe using Raman spectroscopy (RS) and classification methods to detect and grade PCa accurately in real-time. We present the first clinical trial on fresh ex vivo biopsy cores from an 84 patient cohort. Findings from 2395 spectra measured on 599 biopsy cores show high accuracy for diagnosing and grading PCa. We can detect clinically significant PCa from benign and clinically insignificant PCa with 90% sensitivity and 80.2% specificity. We also demonstrate the ability to differentiate cancer grades with 90% sensitivity and specificity ≥82.8%. This work demonstrates the utility of RS for real-time PCa detection and grading during routine transrectal biopsy appointments.

Prostate Adenocarcinoma Grade Group 1: Rationale for Retaining a Cancer Label in the 2022 World Health Organization Classification

We present the rationale for keeping the "cancer" label for grade group 1 (GG1) prostate cancer. Maintaining GG1 as the lowest grade outweighs the potential benefits that a benign designation may bring. Patient and surgeon education on the vital role of active surveillance for GG1 cancers and avoidance of overtreatment should be the focus rather than such a drastic change in nomenclature.

Should grade group 1 prostate cancer be reclassified as "non-cancer"? A pathology community perspective

Overdiagnosis and overtreatment of Grade Group 1 (GG 1) prostate cancer remains a significant health care problem despite of its improved risk assessment and uptake in conservative management. Removing the cancer label from these non-lethal cancers has been proposed as an expedient way to reduce potential physical, psychological and financial harm to patients. Such a nomenclatural change necessitates a multidisciplinary team effort by clinicians and pathologists. Genitourinary Pathology Society recently conducted a survey of its members, gauging their awareness of this controversy and their position on whether GG 1 prostate cancer should be reclassified. Most respondents (196, 81.7%) opposed removing the cancer label from GG 1 cancer, 33 (13.8%) supported a change in nomenclature, while 11 (4.6%) responded that they were uncertain. Of those who supported the reclassification, 17 (51.5%) supported the change for radical prostatectomy only, 4 (12.1%) for biopsy only, and 12 (36.4%) for both biopsy and radical prostatectomy. This survey results highlight the gap between pathologists and clinicians in whether GG 1 prostate cancer should be labeled as "non-cancer," and calls for continued debates and conversations between pathologists and clinicians, and further studies on the biology, diagnostic reproducibility, and ideal management of GG 1 prostate cancer in order to make a more evidence-based decision for patients.