1
|
Tohi Y, Kato T, Sugimoto M. Aggressive Prostate Cancer in Patients Treated with Active Surveillance. Cancers (Basel) 2023; 15:4270. [PMID: 37686546 PMCID: PMC10486407 DOI: 10.3390/cancers15174270] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 07/28/2023] [Revised: 08/23/2023] [Accepted: 08/24/2023] [Indexed: 09/10/2023] Open
Abstract
Active surveillance has emerged as a promising approach for managing low-risk and favorable intermediate-risk prostate cancer (PC), with the aim of minimizing overtreatment and maintaining the quality of life. However, concerns remain about identifying "aggressive prostate cancer" within the active surveillance cohort, which refers to cancers with a higher potential for progression. Previous studies are predictors of aggressive PC during active surveillance. To address this, a personalized risk-based follow-up approach that integrates clinical data, biomarkers, and genetic factors using risk calculators was proposed. This approach enables an efficient risk assessment and the early detection of disease progression, minimizes unnecessary interventions, and improves patient management and outcomes. As active surveillance indications expand, the importance of identifying aggressive PC through a personalized risk-based follow-up is expected to increase.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Yoichiro Tohi
- Department of Urology, Faculty of Medicine, Kagawa University, Kagawa 761-0793, Japan
| | | | | |
Collapse
|
2
|
Wang X, Zhang Y, Ji Z, Yang P, Tian Y. Old men with prostate cancer have higher risk of Gleason score upgrading and pathological upstaging after initial diagnosis: a systematic review and meta-analysis. World J Surg Oncol 2021; 19:18. [PMID: 33472645 PMCID: PMC7818761 DOI: 10.1186/s12957-021-02127-3] [Citation(s) in RCA: 5] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.7] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 09/04/2020] [Accepted: 01/11/2021] [Indexed: 11/10/2022] Open
Abstract
BACKGROUND To evaluate the predictive performance of age for the risk of Gleason score change and pathologic upstaging. EVIDENCE ACQUISITION Ovid MEDLINE, Ovid Embase, and the Cochrane Library were searched from inception until May 2020. Quality of included studies was appraised utilizing the Newcastle-Ottawa Quality Assessment Scale for case-control studies. The publication bias was evaluated by funnel plots and Egger's tests. EVIDENCE SYNTHESIS Our search yielded 27 studies with moderate-to-high quality including 84296 patients with mean age of 62.1 years. From biopsy to prostatectomy, upgrading and upstaging occurred in 32.3% and 9.8% of patients, respectively. Upgrading from diagnostic biopsy to confirmatory biopsy was found in 16.8%. Older age was associated with a significant increased risk of upgrading (OR 1.04, 95% CI 1.03-1.05), and similar direction of effect was found in studies focused on upgrading from diagnostic biopsy to confirmatory biopsy (OR 1.06, 95% CI 1.04-1.08). For pathologic upstaging within older men compared with younger, the pooled odds was 1.03 (95% CI 1.01-1.04). CONCLUSION Thorough consideration of age in the context of effect sizes for other factors not only prompts more accurate risk stratification but also helps providers to select optimal therapies for patients with prostate cancer.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Xiaochuan Wang
- Department of Urology, Capital Medical University affiliated Beijing Friendship Hospital, No. 95, Yongan Road, Xicheng District, 100050, Beijing, People's Republic of China
| | - Yu Zhang
- Department of Urology, Capital Medical University affiliated Beijing Friendship Hospital, No. 95, Yongan Road, Xicheng District, 100050, Beijing, People's Republic of China
| | - Zhengguo Ji
- Department of Urology, Capital Medical University affiliated Beijing Friendship Hospital, No. 95, Yongan Road, Xicheng District, 100050, Beijing, People's Republic of China
| | - Peiqian Yang
- Department of Urology, Capital Medical University affiliated Beijing Friendship Hospital, No. 95, Yongan Road, Xicheng District, 100050, Beijing, People's Republic of China
| | - Ye Tian
- Department of Urology, Capital Medical University affiliated Beijing Friendship Hospital, No. 95, Yongan Road, Xicheng District, 100050, Beijing, People's Republic of China.
| |
Collapse
|
3
|
Roscigno M, Stabile A, Lughezzani G, Pepe P, Dell’Atti L, Naselli A, Naspro R, Nicolai M, La Croce G, Muhannad A, Perugini G, Guazzoni G, Montorsi F, Balzarini L, Sironi S, Da Pozzo LF. Multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging and clinical variables: Which is the best combination to predict reclassification in active surveillance patients? Prostate Int 2020; 8:167-172. [PMID: 33425794 PMCID: PMC7767935 DOI: 10.1016/j.prnil.2020.05.003] [Citation(s) in RCA: 5] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.3] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 04/10/2020] [Revised: 04/25/2020] [Accepted: 05/14/2020] [Indexed: 11/23/2022] Open
Abstract
Introduction & objectives We tested the role of multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging (mpMRI) in disease reclassification and whether the combination of mpMRI and clinicopathological variables could represent the most accurate approach to predict the risk of reclassification during active surveillance. Materials & methods Three-hundred eighty-nine patients (pts) underwent mpMRI and subsequent confirmatory or follow-up biopsy according to the Prostate Cancer Research International Active Surveillance (PRIAS) protocol. Pts with negative (−) mpMRI underwent systematic random biopsy. Pts with positive (+) mpMRI [Prostate Imaging Reporting and Data System, version 2 (PI-RADS-V2) score ≥3] underwent targeted + systematic random biopsies. Multivariate analyses were used to create three models predicting the probability of reclassification [International Society of Urological Pathology ≥ Grade Group 2 (GG2)]: a basic model including only clinical variables (age, prostate-specific antigen density, and number of positive cores at baseline), an Magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) model including only the PI-RADS score, and a full model including both the previous ones. The predictive accuracy (PA) of each model was quantified using the area under the curve. Results mpMRI negative (−) was recorded in 127 (32.6%) pts; mpMRI positive (+) was recorded in 262 pts: 72 (18.5%) had PI-RADS 3, 150 (38.6%) PI-RADS 4, and 40 (10.3%) PI-RADS 5 lesions. At a median follow-up of 12 months, 125 pts (32%) were reclassified to GG2 prostate cancer. The rate of reclassification to GG2 prostate cancer was 17%, 35%, 38%, and 52% for mpMRI (−), PI-RADS 3, 4, and 5, respectively (P < 0.001). The PA was 69% and 64% in the basic and MRI models, respectively. The full model had the best PA of 74%: older age (P = 0.023; Odds ratio (OR) = 1.040), prostate-specific antigen density (P = 0.037; OR = 1.324), number of positive cores at baseline (P = 0.001; OR = 1.441), and PI-RADS 3, 4, and 5 (overall P = 0.001; OR = 2.458, 3.007, and 3.898, respectively) were independent predictors of reclassification. Conclusions Disease reclassification increased according to the PI-RADS score increase, at confirmatory or follow-up biopsy. However, a no-negligible rate of reclassification was found also in cases of mpMRI (−). The combination of mpMRI and clinicopathological variables still represents the most accurate approach to pts on active surveillance.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Marco Roscigno
- Department of Urology, ASST Papa Giovanni XXIII, Bergamo, Italy
- Corresponding author. Dept. of Urology, ASST Papa Giovanni XXIII, Piazza OMS 1, 24127, Bergamo, Italy.
| | - Armando Stabile
- Department of Urology and Division of Experimental Oncology, URI, Vita-Salute San Raffaele University, IRCCS San Raffaele Scientific Institute, Milan, Italy
| | - Giovanni Lughezzani
- Department of Urology, Istituto Clinico Humanitas IRCCS-Clinical and Research Hospital, Rozzano, Italy
| | - Pietro Pepe
- Urology Unit, Cannizzaro Hospital, Catania, Italy
| | - Lucio Dell’Atti
- Department of Urology, University Hospital “Ospedali Riuniti” and Polythecnic University of Marche Region, Ancona, Italy
| | - Angelo Naselli
- Urology Department, Ospedale San Giuseppe, Gruppo Multimedica, Milan, Italy
| | - Richard Naspro
- Department of Urology, ASST Papa Giovanni XXIII, Bergamo, Italy
| | - Maria Nicolai
- Department of Urology, ASST Papa Giovanni XXIII, Bergamo, Italy
| | | | | | | | - Giorgio Guazzoni
- Department of Urology, Istituto Clinico Humanitas IRCCS-Clinical and Research Hospital, Rozzano, Italy
- Department of Biomedical Science, Humanitas University, Milan, Rozzano, Italy
| | - Francesco Montorsi
- Department of Urology and Division of Experimental Oncology, URI, Vita-Salute San Raffaele University, IRCCS San Raffaele Scientific Institute, Milan, Italy
| | - Luca Balzarini
- Dept. of Radiology, Humanitas Clinical and Research Center, Humanitas University, Rozzano, Italy
| | - Sandro Sironi
- Department of Radiology, ASST Papa Giovanni XXIII, Bergamo, Italy
- University of Milano-Bicocca, School of Medicine and Surgery, Monza, Italy
| | - Luigi F. Da Pozzo
- Department of Urology, ASST Papa Giovanni XXIII, Bergamo, Italy
- University of Milano-Bicocca, School of Medicine and Surgery, Monza, Italy
| |
Collapse
|