Definition of Insignificant Tumor Volume of Gleason Score 3 + 3 = 6 (Grade Group 1) Prostate Cancer at Radical Prostatectomy—Is it Time to Increase the Threshold?

Validation of Epstein criteria and development of a nomogram for active surveillance in a contemporary Chinese population

PURPOSE

To evaluate the Epstein criteria for insignificant prostate cancer (CaP) prediction in a contemporary Chinese population, and to develop a risk model with combined clinical and systematic biopsy and targeted biopsy parameters for active surveillance.

METHODS

A total of 249 CaP patients with biopsy Gleason score (GS) of 6 were included. One hundred and one patients were eligible for insignificant CaP on final pathology (GS ≤6 and organ-confined). Diagnostic tests were used to validate the ability of the 2 Epstein criteria. Univariate and multivariate regression analyses were performed to identify predictors of insignificant CaP for the development of predictive models. Receiver operating characteristics analysis was used to select the best model, followed by risk nomogram construction and internal validation.

RESULTS

There were 47 patients met EC1 and 61 met EC2, with pathological upgrading rates of 36% and 41%, respectively, and 70% (71/101) and 64% (65/101) were missed, with areas under the curve of 0.591 and 0.594, respectively. Four prediction models were developed using regression analysis, and model 2 incorporating age, prostate-specific antigen density, maximum percentage of core involvement at systematic biopsy, and percentage of positive cores at targeted biopsy showed the best diagnostic value (area under the curve = 0.731, sensitivity 62.4%, specificity 77.0%) and was used to construct the nomogram. Calibration curves and decision curve analysis demonstrated favorable calibration (mean absolute error 0.048) and clinical benefits of the novel nomogram.

CONCLUSION

The Epstein criteria need to be revised by incorporating targeted biopsy parameters to improve diagnostic performance, and a novel nomogram was developed with better prediction of insignificant CaP.

Detection of intraductal carcinoma in prostate cancer patients with small tumor volume

OBJECTIVES

The purpose of this study was to investigate intraductal carcinoma of the prostate (intraductal carcinoma) and significant cancer (SC) in patients with small tumor volume (<0.5 cm³ ) in prostatectomy specimens.

METHODS

Data from 639 patients undergoing radical prostatectomy between April 2006 and December 2017 at Chiba University Hospital and 2 affiliated institutions were retrospectively reviewed. Tumor volume in prostatectomy specimens was measured, and with a tumor volume of less than 0.5 cm³ , the presence of intraductal carcinoma and SC was examined. SC was defined as one that did not meet the definition of pathological insignificant cancer (organ-confined cancer, Grade Group 1, tumor volume < 0.5 cm³ ). The number of patients who met four active surveillance (AS) protocols was also examined.

RESULTS

A total of 83 patients with tumor volume < 0.5 cm³ were identified in this study population (SC: 43 patients [52%], intraductal carcinoma: 5 patients [6%]). The median follow-up was 34.6 months (range: 18-57 months). Four (5%) developed biochemical recurrence. The number of positive biopsy cores ≥ 2 was an independent predictor of SC in patients with tumor volume < 0.5 cm³ (hazard ratio: 4.39; 95% confidence interval: 1.67-11.56; p = 0.003). In tumor volume < 0.5 cm³ , tumor volume was significantly correlated with the International Society of Urological Pathology Grade Group (1 vs. 4-5, p = 0.002) and the presence of intraductal carcinoma (p = 0.004). In intraductal carcinoma-positive cases, four of five patients (80%) had the predictor of SC, which was two or more positive biopsy cores. Of the four AS protocols, the criteria for Prostate Cancer Research International: Active Surveillance were met most frequently in 46 cases (55%) of tumor volume less than 0.5 cm³ if targeted biopsy by magnetic resonance imaging was available.

CONCLUSION

The results of the present study suggest that intraductal carcinoma was present even in cases with small tumor volumes. Grade Group and intraductal carcinoma showed a positive correlation with tumor volume.

MRI-detectability and histological factors of prostate cancer including intraductal carcinoma and cribriform pattern

BACKGROUND

Histopathological characteristics affecting the detectability of clinically significant prostate cancer (csPCa) on magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) remain unclear. This study aimed to compare the histopathology between MRI-detectable and MRI-undetectable cancers, emphasizing intraductal carcinoma of the prostate (IDC-P) and predominant Gleason pattern 4 subtype.

METHODS

This single-center retrospective study enrolled 153 consecutive patients with 191 lesions who underwent preoperative multiparametric MRI and subsequent radical prostatectomy. MRI/histopathological findings and area fractions of histological components (cancer cells, stroma, and luminal spaces) of MRI-detectable and MRI-undetectable cancers were compared. Data were analyzed using Fisher's exact, independent t, or Mann-Whitney U tests.

RESULTS

Overall, 148 (77%) and 43 (23%) cancers were MRI-detectable and MRI-undetectable, respectively. MRI-detectable cancers were significantly larger than MRI-undetectable cancers (p = 0.03). The percentage of lesions in Grade Group 3 or higher was significantly higher among MRI-detectable cancers than among MRI-undetectable cancers (p = 0.02). MRI detectability of csPCa was associated with increases in relative area fractions of cancer cells (p < 0.001) and decreases in those of stroma (p < 0.001) and luminal spaces (p < 0.001) in prostate cancer (PCa) than the percentage of Gleason pattern 4 (p = 0.09). The percentage of lesions containing IDC-P was similar for MRI-detectable and MRI-undetectable cancers (40% vs. 33%; p = 0.48). The distribution of cribriform gland subtypes was not significantly different between MRI-detectable and MRI-undetectable Gleason pattern 4 subtype cancers (p > 0.99). Contrarily, the ratio of fused gland subtype was significantly higher in MRI-detectable than in MRI-undetectable cancers (p = 0.03). Furthermore, the ratio of poorly-formed gland subtype was significantly higher in MRI-undetectable than in MRI-detectable cancers (p = 0.01).

CONCLUSIONS

MRI detectability of csPCa is strongly associated with the relative area fractions of cancer cells, stroma, and luminal spaces in PCa rather than conventional histopathological parameters. Neither the presence nor the percentage of IDC-P affected MRI detectability.

Variance of Tumor Grade at Radical Prostatectomy With Assessment of Each Tumor Nodule Versus Global Grading

CONTEXT.—

Multifocal prostate cancer at radical prostatectomy (RP) may be graded with assessment of each individual tumor nodule (TN) or global grading of all TNs in aggregate.

OBJECTIVE.—

To assess case-level grade variability between these 2 grading approaches.

DESIGN.—

We reviewed 776 RPs with multifocal prostate cancer with 2 or more separate TNs of different Grade Groups (GGs). Two separate grades were assigned to each RP: one based on the TN with the highest grade and a global grade based on the Gleason pattern volumes for all TNs. We then compared the results of these 2 methods.

RESULTS.—

The case-level grade changed by 1 or more GGs between the 2 grading methods in 35% (132 of 374) of GG3 through GG5 cases. Twelve percent (37 of 309) of GG2 cases with Gleason pattern 4 more than 5% based on individual TN grading decreased their Gleason pattern 4 to less than 5% based on the global approach. Minor tertiary pattern 5 (Gleason pattern 5 <5%) was observed in 6.8% (11 of 161) of GG4 (Gleason score 3 + 5 = 8 and 5 + 3 = 8) and GG5 cases with global grading. The risk of grade discrepancy between the 2 methods was associated with the highest-grade TN volume (inverse relationship), patient age, and number of TNs (P < .001, P = .003, and P < .001, respectively).

CONCLUSIONS.—

The global grading approach resulted in a lower grade in 35% of GG3 through GG5 cases compared with grading based on the highest-grade TN. Two significant risk factors for this discrepancy with a global grading approach occur when the highest-grade TN has a relatively small tumor volume and with the higher number of TNs per RP. The observed grade variability between the 2 grading schemes most likely limits the interchangeability of post-RP multi-institutional databases if those institutions use different grading approaches.

Optimization of training and measurement protocol for eNose analysis of urine headspace aimed at prostate cancer diagnosis

More than one million new cases of prostate cancer (PCa) were reported worldwide in 2020, and a significant increase of PCa incidence up to 2040 is estimated. Despite potential treatability in early stages, PCa diagnosis is challenging because of late symptoms' onset and limits of current screening procedures. It has been now accepted that cell transformation leads to release of volatile organic compounds in biologic fluids, including urine. Thus, several studies proposed the possibility to develop new diagnostic tools based on urine analysis. Among these, electronic noses (eNoses) represent one of the most promising devices, because of their potential to provide a non-invasive diagnosis. Here we describe the approach aimed at defining the experimental protocol for eNose application for PCa diagnosis. Our research investigates effects of sample preparation and analysis on eNose responses and repeatability. The dependence of eNose diagnostic performance on urine portion analysed, techniques involved for extracting urine volatiles and conditioning temperature were analysed. 192 subjects (132 PCa patients and 60 controls) were involved. The developed experimental protocol has resulted in accuracy, sensitivity and specificity of 83% (CI_95% 77-89), 82% (CI_95% 73-88) and 87% (CI_95% 75-94), respectively. Our findings define eNoses as valuable diagnostic tool allowing rapid and non-invasive PCa diagnosis.

Anterior or Posterior Prostate Cancer Tumor Nodule Location Predicts Likelihood of Certain Adverse Outcomes at Radical Prostatectomy

CONTEXT.—

Effect of tumor nodule (TN) location in the prostate on adverse radical prostatectomy (RP) outcomes is not well studied in contemporary cohort.

OBJECTIVE.—

To investigate the significance of TN location with respect to extraprostatic extension (EPE), seminal vesicle invasion (SV+), and positive margin status (SM+) in 1388 RPs.

DESIGN.—

Each TN at RP was independently graded, staged, and volumetrically assessed. TNs with at least 80% of their volume occupying either the anterior or posterior part of the prostate were categorized accordingly and included in our study, while all other TNs were excluded.

RESULTS.—

A total of 3570 separate TNs (median = 3 per RP; range = 1-7 per RP) were scored. There were 1320 of 3570 (37%) anterior TNs and 2250 of 3570 (63%) posterior TNs. Posterior TNs were more likely to be higher grade, and exhibit EPE (18% versus 9.4%) and SV+ (4% versus 0.15%), all P < .001. Anterior TNs with EPE were more likely to exhibit SM+ than posterior TNs with EPE (62% versus 30.8%, P < .001). TN location, grade, and volume were significant factors associated with adverse RP outcomes in our univariable analysis. When we controlled for grade and tumor volume in a multivariable analysis using anterior TN location as a reference, posterior TN location was an independent predictor of EPE and SV+ and was less likely to be associated with SM+ (odds ratio = 3.1, 81.5, and 0.7, respectively).

CONCLUSIONS.—

These associations may be useful in preoperative surgical planning, particularly with respect to improving radiographic analysis of prostate cancer.

Percentage of Gleason pattern 4 and tumor volume predict adverse pathological stage and margin status at radical prostatectomy in grade Group 2 and grade Group 3 prostate cancers

BACKGROUND

Increasing percentages of Gleason pattern 4 (GP4%) in radical prostatectomy (RP) correlate with an increased likelihood of nonorgan-confined disease and earlier biochemical recurrence (BCR). However, there are no detailed RP studies assessing the impact of GP4% and corresponding tumor volume (TV) on extraprostatic extension (EPE), seminal vesicle (SV) invasion (SV+), and positive surgical margin (SM) status (SM+).

METHODS

In 1301 consecutive RPs, we analyzed each tumor nodule (TN) for TV, Grade Group (GG), presence of focal versus nonfocal EPE, SV+ , and SM+. Using GG1 (GP4% = 0) TNs as a reference, we recorded GP4% for all GG2 or GG3 TNs. We performed a multivariable analysis (MVA) using a mixed effects logistic regression that tested significant variables for risk of EPE, SV+, and SM+, as well as a multinomial logistic regression model that tested significant variables for risks of nonorgan-confined disease (pT2+, pT3a, and pT3b) versus organ-confined disease (pT2).

RESULTS

We identified 3231 discrete TNs ranging from 1 to 7 (median: 2.5) per RP. These included GG1 (n = 2115), GG2 (n = 818), GG3 (n = 274), and GG4 (n = 24) TNs. Increasing GP4% weakly paralleled increasing TV (tau = 0.07, p < .001). In MVA, increasing GP4% and TV predicted a greater likelihood of EPE (odds ratio [OR]: 1.03 and 4.41), SV+ (OR: 1.03 and 3.83), and SM+ (1.01, p = .01 and 2.83), all p < .001. Our multinomial logistic regression model demonstrated an association between GP4% and the risk of EPE (i.e., pT3a and pT3b disease), as well as an association between TV and risk of upstaging (all p < .001).

CONCLUSIONS

Both GP4% and TV are independent predictors of adverse pathological stage and margin status at RP. However, the risks for adverse outcomes associated with GP4% are marginal, while those for TV are strong. The prognostic significance of GP4% on BCR-free survival has not been studied controlling for TV and other adverse RP findings. Whether adverse pathological stage and margin status associated with larger TV could decrease BCR-free survival to a greater extent than increasing RP GP4% remains to be studied.

Does active surveillance avoid overtreatment in prostate cancer? Lessons learned from salvage radical prostatectomies

OBJECTIVE

Determine whether our institution´s active surveillance (AS) protocol is a suitable strategy to minimise prostate cancer overtreatment.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

Retrospective analysis of 516 patients on AS after prostate cancer diagnosis. Population divided into "per-protocol" vs "induced" AS depending on fulfilment of protocol´s inclusion criteria. Radical prostatectomies after AS were selected and stratified based on: reclassification, progression or patient anxiety. Clinicopathological features and biochemical relapse-free survival were studied. Primary endpoint was overtreatment ratio based on the presence of insignificant prostate cancer and adverse pathological features in the surgical specimen. Kaplan-Meier curves were used to estimate the biochemical relapse-free survival and compared with log-rank test.

RESULTS

304 patients fulfilled inclusion criteria; 100 proceeded to radical prostatectomy (31% "induced", 69% "per-protocol" AS). Surgery indications were reclassification, progression and anxiety in 66%, 18% and 16% of patients respectively. Rate of positive lymph nodes was higher in the progression group (11%) compared to reclassification and anxiety (5% and 0% respectively, P = .002). Positive surgical margins were more frequently reported in the progression cohort compared to reclassification (28% vs 20%). Median follow-up from diagnosis until last radical prostatectomy was 48.3 months (32.4-70). 3 year biochemical relapse-free survival in the salvage radical prostatectomy was 85.4% (95 CI 78.3-93.2). Insignificant cancer was noticed in 7% of patients (Epstein´s vs 24% Wolters´ criteria). Rate of patients with adverse pathological features was 36%.

CONCLUSIONS

The majority of patients who underwent salvage surgery after AS were not overtreated. Radical prostatectomy should be considered a safe rescue treatment.

Does active surveillance avoid overtreatment in prostate cancer? Lessons learned from salvage radical prostatectomies

OBJECTIVE

Determine whether our institution's active surveillance (AS) protocol is a suitable strategy to minimise prostate cancer overtreatment.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

Retrospective analysis of 516 patients on AS after prostate cancer diagnosis. Population divided into «per-protocol» vs «induced» AS depending on fulfilment of protocol's inclusion criteria. Radical prostatectomies after AS were selected and stratified based on reclassification, progression or patient anxiety. Clinicopathological features and biochemical relapse-free survival were studied. Primary endpoint was overtreatment ratio based on the presence of insignificant prostate cancer and adverse pathological features in the surgical specimen. Kaplan-Meier curves were used to estimate the biochemical relapse-free survival and compared with log-rank test.

RESULTS

304 patients fulfilled inclusion criteria; 100 proceeded to radical prostatectomy (31% «induced», 69% «per-protocol» AS). Surgery indications were reclassification, progression and anxiety in 66%, 18% and 16% of patients, respectively. Rate of positive lymph nodes was higher in the progression group (11%) compared to reclassification and anxiety (5% and 0%, respectively; P=.002). Positive surgical margins were more frequently reported in the progression cohort compared to reclassification (28% vs 20%). Median follow-up from diagnosis until last radical prostatectomy was 48.3months (32.4-70). Three year biochemical relapse-free survival in the salvage radical prostatectomy was 85.4% (95%CI: 78.3-93.2). Insignificant cancer was noticed in 7% of patients (Epstein's vs 24% Wolters' criteria). Rate of patients with adverse pathological features was 36%.

CONCLUSIONS

The majority of patients who underwent salvage surgery after AS were not overtreated. Radical prostatectomy should be considered a safe rescue treatment.

Gleason score 5 + 3 = 8 (grade group 4) prostate cancer-a rare occurrence with contemporary grading

Grade Group (GG) 4 prostate cancer includes Gleason scores (GS) 3 + 5 = 8, 4 + 4 = 8, and 5 + 3 = 8. Some studies without pathology re-review of historical cohorts proposed that the presence of pattern 5 worsens prognosis compared to GS 4 + 4 = 8 cancer. We assessed how often historically graded GS 5 + 3 = 8 cancers retain this grade with contemporary grading recommendations. Sixteen prostate biopsies and 24 radical prostatectomies (RP) reported from 2005 to 2019 as GS 5 + 3 = 8 were re-reviewed and graded according to contemporary recommendations. In discrepant cases, an attempt was made to explain the different grading. One (6%) biopsy and 3 (12%) RPs remained GS 5 + 3 = 8 (GG4) after re-review. Two (12%) biopsies remained GG4 but were re-graded as GS 3 + 5 = 8 and 1 (4%) RP was reclassified as GS 4 + 4 = 8 (GG4). Eight (50%) biopsies and 15 (64%) RPs were upgraded to Gleason scores 9-10 (GG5). Five (32%) biopsies and 1 (4%) RPs were downgraded to Gleason score 7 (GG2 and 3). One (4%) RP showed GS 3 + 3 = 6 (GG1) cancer. Data from 2013-current from the 3 institutions were available to assess the incidence of GS 5 + 3 = 8 following re-review of the cases. Out of 14 359 biopsies with cancer and 6727 radical prostatectomy specimens, only 1 case (0.007%) and no cases (0%) were graded as GS 5 + 3 = 8, respectively. Reasons for grading discrepancies included: 1) assigning an overall common grade to separate needle cores or tumor nodules; 2) inclusion of <5% lower grade pattern into grading; and 3) misinterpretation of variant histology and patterns. Challenging patterns were poorly-formed glands, signet ring cell-like features, atrophic carcinoma, ductal carcinoma, and mucinous fibroplasia. GS 5 + 3 = 8 (GG4) cancer is very rare with contemporary grading. The reliability of conclusions from retrospective databases regarding the clinical significance of this grade combination without slide re-review is questionable.

Extensive disease among potential candidates for hemi-ablative focal therapy for prostate cancer

OBJECTIVE

To examine a set of proposed eligibility factors for hemi-ablative focal therapy in prostate cancer and to determine the likelihood of residual extensive disease.

METHODS

We retrospectively analyzed data from 98 patients with unilateral prostate cancer on biopsy with detailed tumor maps from whole-mount slides and preoperative magnetic resonance imaging data. These patients met the focal therapy consensus meeting inclusion criteria (prostate-specific antigen <15 ng/mL, clinical stage T1c-T2a and Gleason score 3 + 3 or 3 + 4 on needle biopsy), and underwent radical prostatectomy between 2000 and 2014. Extensive disease was defined as having Gleason pattern 4/5 in bilateral lobes, any extraprostatic extension, seminal vesicle invasion or lymph node invasion. Both lobes of the prostate were scored on magnetic resonance imaging. Preoperative characteristics including biopsy and magnetic resonance imaging data were used to predict extensive disease.

RESULTS

Among our cohort of 98 patients, 40% (95% CI 30-50%) had extensive disease. A total of 33% (95% CI 24-43%) had Gleason pattern 4/5 in both lobes with a median Gleason pattern 4/5 tumor volume in the biopsy negative lobe of 0.06 cm³ , 17 patients had pathological tumor stage ≥3 and one patient had lymph node invasion.

CONCLUSIONS

An important number of patients meeting the focal therapy consensus meeting inclusion criteria can present extensive disease. Further studies using targeted biopsies might provide more accurate information about the selection of focal therapy candidates.

Is active surveillance an appropriate approach to manage prostate cancer patients with Gleason Score 3+3 who met the criteria for active surveillance?

OBJECTIVE

Prostate cancer is one of the common malignant tumors in men worldwide. Nowadays it seems that Gleason Score 3+3 may not need definite treatment and some of the experts even ignore it as a cancer but we should be aware that in some patients with Gleason Score 3+3 there is a higher risk for harboring higher-grade cancer. We had done this study to evaluate patients with prostate cancer with Gleason Score 3+3 to determine the value of tumor volume in these cases.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

From September 2010 to October 2017, radical prostatectomy was done for 123 sequential patients with localized prostate cancer in two referral centers of Shahid Beheshti Medical University, Tehran, Iran, and 42 cases with Gleason Scores 3+3 which who were candidates for active surveillance were included in the study.

RESULTS

Thirty of 42 (71.4%) patients had significant tumor volumes (≥0/5 cm3). When tumor volume was less than 0.5 cm3, none of the patients had extra prostatic tumor extension. In patients with tumor volume greater than 0.5 cm3, two cases (6.6%) had extra prostatic extension, 4 cases (13.3%) had positive margins, four cases (13.3%) reactive lymph nodes and 16 cases (53.3%) perineural invasion.

CONCLUSION

We suggest that some patients with Gleason Score 3+3 have tumor volume >0.5 cm3 who are considered having significant cancer pathology and active surveillance may not be appropriate approach to manage all cases with Gleason Score 3+3.

Defining clinically significant prostate cancer on the basis of pathological findings

The definition of clinically significant prostate cancer is a dynamic process that was initiated many decades ago, when there was already evidence that a great proportion of patients with prostate cancer diagnosed at autopsy never had any clinical symptoms. Autopsy studies led to examinations of radical prostatectomy (RP) specimens and the establishment of the definition of significant cancer at RP: tumour volume of 0.5 cm³ , Gleason grade 6 [Grade Group (GrG) 1], and organ-confined disease. RP studies were then used to develop prediction models for significant cancer by the use of needle biopsies. The first such model was used to delineate the first active surveillance (AS) criteria, known as the 'Epstein' criteria, in which patients with a cancer Gleason score of 3 + 3 = 6 (GrG1) involving fewer than two cores, and <50% of any given core, and a prostate-specific antigen density of <0.15 ng/ml per cm³ had a minimal risk of significant cancer at RP. These were adopted as components of the 'very-low-risk category' of the National Comprehensive Cancer Network guidelines, in which AS is supported as a management option. With the increase in the popularity of AS, much research has been carried out to better define significant/insignificant cancer, in order to be able to safely offer AS to a larger proportion of patients without the risk of undertreatment. Research has focused on allowing higher volume tumours, focal extraprostatic extension, and a limited amount of Gleason pattern 4, and the significance of different morphological patterns of Gleason 4. Other areas of research that will probably impact on the field but that are not covered in this review include the molecular classification of tumours and imaging techniques.

Prostate Imaging-Reporting and Data System Version 2: Beyond Prostate Cancer Detection

The main purpose of Prostate Imaging-Reporting and Data System Version 2 (PI-RADSv2) is to effectively detect clinically significant prostate cancers (csPCa) using multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging. Since the first introduction of PI-RADSv2, researchers have validated its diagnostic performance in identifying csPCa, and these promising data have influenced biopsy and treatment schemes. However, in this article, we focused on the potential of PI-RADSv2 in relation to various aspects of PCa such as Gleason score, tumor volume, extraprostatic extension, lymph node metastasis, and postoperative biochemical recurrence, beyond prostate cancer detection.

Understanding PSA and its derivatives in prediction of tumor volume: Addressing health disparities in prostate cancer risk stratification

Objectives

To address health disparities in risk stratification of U.S. Hispanic/Latino men by characterizing influences of prostate weight, body mass index, and race/ethnicity on the correlation of PSA derivatives with Gleason score 6 (Grade Group 1) tumor volume in a diverse cohort.

Results

Using published PSA density and PSA mass density cutoff values, men with higher body mass indices and prostate weights were less likely to have a tumor volume <0.5 cm³. Variability across race/ethnicity was found in the univariable analysis for all PSA derivatives when predicting for tumor volume. In receiver operator characteristic analysis, area under the curve values for all PSA derivatives varied across race/ethnicity with lower optimal cutoff values for Hispanic/Latino (PSA=2.79, PSA density=0.06, PSA mass=0.37, PSA mass density=0.011) and Non-Hispanic Black (PSA=3.75, PSA density=0.07, PSA mass=0.46, PSA mass density=0.008) compared to Non-Hispanic White men (PSA=4.20, PSA density=0.11 PSA mass=0.53, PSA mass density=0.014).

Materials and Methods

We retrospectively analyzed 589 patients with low-risk prostate cancer at radical prostatectomy. Pre-operative PSA, patient height, body weight, and prostate weight were used to calculate all PSA derivatives. Receiver operating characteristic curves were constructed for each PSA derivative per racial/ethnic group to establish optimal cutoff values predicting for tumor volume ≥0.5 cm³.

Conclusions

Increasing prostate weight and body mass index negatively influence PSA derivatives for predicting tumor volume. PSA derivatives’ ability to predict tumor volume varies significantly across race/ethnicity. Hispanic/Latino and Non-Hispanic Black men have lower optimal cutoff values for all PSA derivatives, which may impact risk assessment for prostate cancer.

Contemporary grading of prostate cancer: 2017 update for pathologists and clinicians

The Gleason grading system for prostate cancer (PCa) was developed in the 1960s by DF Gleason. Due to changes in PCa detection and treatment, the application of the Gleason grading system has changed considerably in pathology routine practice. Two consensus conferences were held in 2005 and in 2014 to update PCa Gleason grading. This review provides a summary of the changes in the grading of PCa from the original Gleason grading system to the prognostic grade grouping, as well as a discussion of the clinical significance of the percentage of Gleason patterns 4 and 5.

Does the Prostate Health Index Depend on Tumor Volume?-A Study on 196 Patients after Radical Prostatectomy

The Prostate Health Index (PHI) has been used increasingly in the context of prostate cancer (PCa) diagnostics since 2010. Previous studies have shown an association between PHI and a tumor volume of >0.5 cm³. The aim of this study was to investigate the correlation between PHI and tumor volume as well as the Gleason score. A total of 196 selected patients with prostate cancer treated with radical prostatectomy at our institution were included in our study. The tumor volume was calculated and preoperative serum parameters total prostate-specific antigen (tPSA), free PSA (fPSA), [−2]proPSA, and PHI were evaluated. The association between the pathological findings such as Gleason score, pathological T-stage (pT stage), and tumor volume were evaluated. We further used logistic regression and Cox proportional hazard regression analyses for assessing the association between tumor volume and PHI and for predicting biochemical recurrence. With an area under the curve (AUC) of 0.79, PHI is the most accurate predictor of a tumor volumes >0.5 cm³. Moreover, PHI correlates significantly with the tumor volume (r = 0.588), which is significantly different (p = 0.008) from the correlation of the Gleason score with tumor volume (r = 0.385). PHI correlates more strongly with the tumor volume than does the Gleason score. Using PHI improves the prediction of larger tumor volume and subsequently clinically significant cancer.

Do Black NonHispanic Men Produce Less Prostate Specific Antigen in Benign Prostate Tissue or Cancer Compared to White NonHispanic Men with Gleason Score 6 (Grade Group 1) Prostate Cancer?

PURPOSE

We evaluated prostate specific antigen production by benign prostate tissue and Gleason score 3+3=6 (Grade Group 1) prostate cancer in black and white nonHispanic men.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

We used Gleason score 3+3=6 (Grade Group 1) cases to assess prostate specific antigen production by benign prostate tissue in cases with low volume cancer that did not influence prostate specific antigen and in those with high volume cancer in which gland weight did not influence prostate specific antigen. We then created age, prostate specific antigen and prostate weight adjusted cohorts to demonstrate tumor volume per 1 ng/ml prostate specific antigen and 1 μg prostate specific antigen mass. Prostate specific antigen density and prostate specific antigen mass density were used to adjust for prostate weight.

RESULTS

Comparison of 58 black and 301 white men with low volume cancer demonstrated equal prostate specific antigen production by benign prostate tissue. Comparison of 30 black and 75 white men with high volume cancer indicated that prostate specific antigen was being driven by cancer volume, with lower prostate specific antigen production in black men. In the cohort of 54 black and 134 white men matched by age, prostate specific antigen and prostate weight, tumor volume per 1 ng/ml prostate specific antigen or 1 μg prostate specific antigen mass adjusted for prostate weight was 25% and 26% higher in black men, respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

Benign prostate tissue produces equal amounts of prostate specific antigen in black and white men. Gleason score 3+3=6 (Grade Group 1) prostate cancer produces less prostate specific antigen in black men. These data should be considered for lowering prostate specific antigen and its derivatives in determining biopsy thresholds and for adjusting values for active surveillance criteria in black men.