Gleason score 6 adenocarcinoma: should it be labeled as cancer?

Prostate cancer screening: Is it time for a new approach? A review article

Prostate cancer screening has presented a challenge to clinicians. Although the implementation of screening tests such as prostate-specific antigen (PSA) and digital rectal exam (DRE) has had a significant impact on prostate-cancer-specific mortality, these traditional screening tests have a relatively poor positive predictive value of clinically significant prostate cancer (CSPC), leading to unnecessary biopsies and treatment with a host of potential complications. Fortunately, much research has been done to optimize prostate cancer screening. This includes the Prostate, Lung, Colorectal, and Ovarian Cancer Screening Trial, which underwent a secondary analysis to identify an association between PSA level and CSPC, and the IP1-PROSTAGRAM Tri.

What is cancer? A focus on Grade Group 1 prostate cancer

Since the widespread adoption of prostate-specific antigen-based screening for prostate cancer, the prevalence of Grade Group 1 (GG1) prostate cancer has risen. Historically, these patients were subjected to overtreatment of this otherwise indolent disease process, leading to significant quality-of-life detriments. Active surveillance as a primary management strategy has allowed for a focus on early detection while minimising morbidity from unnecessary intervention. Here we provide a comprehensive overview of the characteristics of GG1 prostatic adenocarcinoma, including its histological features, genomic differentiators, clinical progression, and implications for treatment guidelines, all supporting the movement to reclassify GG1 disease as a non-cancerous entity.

Fewer systematic prostate core biopsies in clinical stage T1c prostate cancer leads to biochemical recurrence after brachytherapy as monotherapy

BACKGROUND

After brachytherapy, fewer prostate biopsy cores at diagnosis can underestimate the pathological characteristics of prostate cancer (PCa) with lower concordance, resulting in improper treatment, particularly in patients with low-risk nonpalpable cT1c PCa. The aim of this study was to assess the relationship between the number of biopsy cores at diagnosis and long-term clinical outcomes after brachytherapy for cT1c PCa.

METHODS

We reviewed 516 patients with localized cT1c PCa with Gleason scores of 3 + 3 = 6 or 3 + 4 = 7 who underwent brachytherapy as monotherapy without hormonal therapy between January 2005 and September 2014 at our institution. Clinical staging was based on the American Joint Committee on Cancer manual for staging. Thus, the cT1c category is based solely on digital rectal examination. The primary outcome was biochemical recurrence (BCR). Based on the optimized cutoff value for biopsy core number obtained from receiver operating characteristic analysis, patients were divided into the biopsy cores ≤8 (N = 123) and ≥9 (N = 393) groups. The BCR-free survival rate was compared between the groups. Prognostic factors for BCR were evaluated, including age, initial prostate-specific antigen (PSA) level, Gleason score, positive core rate, PSA density, prostate magnetic resonance imaging findings, and biopsy core number.

RESULTS

The median patient age was 66.0 years (interquartile range [IQR]: 61.0-71.0 years), and the median follow-up time was 11.1 years (IQR: 9.5-13.3 years). The median number of core biopsies was 12 (IQR: 9-12). The area under the curve was 0.637 (95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.53-0.75), and the optimal biopsy core cutoff value for BCR prediction was 8.5 (sensitivity = 43.5%, specificity = 77.1%). Although fewer patients had Gleason scores of 3 + 4 = 7 (19/123 [15%] vs. 125/393 [32%], p < 0.02) in the biopsy cores ≤8 group, the 10-year BCR-free survival rate was significantly lower in the biopsy cores ≤8 group than in the biopsy cores ≥9 group (93.8% vs. 96.3%, p < 0.05). Multivariate analysis revealed that a lower biopsy core number (hazard ratio: 0.828, 95% CI: 0.71-0.97, p < 0.03) and a Gleason score of 3 + 4 = 7 (hazard ratio: 3.26, 95% CI: 1.37-7.73, p < 0.01) significantly predicted BCR.

CONCLUSIONS

A low number of prostate core biopsies results in worse BCR-free survival after brachytherapy as monotherapy in patients with cT1c PCa.

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.

Prostate cancer in workers exposed to night-shift work: two cases recognized by the Korean Epidemiologic Investigation Evaluation Committee

Background

In 2019, the International Agency for Research on Cancer re-evaluated the carcinogenicity of night-shift work and reported that there is limited evidence that night-shift work is carcinogenic for the development of prostate cancer. Therefore, in 2020 and 2021, the Korean Epidemiologic Investigation Evaluation Committee concluded that 2 cases of prostate cancer were occupational diseases related to the night-shift work. Here, we report the 2 cases of prostate cancer in night-shift workers which were first concluded as occupational diseases by the Korean Epidemiologic Investigation Evaluation Committee.

Case presentation

Patient A: A 61-year-old man worked as a city bus driver for approximately 17 years, from 2002 to 2019, and was exposed to night-shift work during this period. In March 2017, the patient was diagnosed with high-grade prostate cancer through core-needle biopsy after experiencing stinging pain lasting for 2 months. Patient B: A 56-year-old man worked as an electrician and an automated equipment operator in a cement manufacturing plant for 35 years from 1976 to 2013 and was exposed to night-shift work during this period. In 2013, the patient was diagnosed with high-grade prostate cancer through core needle biopsy at a university hospital because of dysuria that lasted for 6 months.

Conclusions

The 2 workers were diagnosed with high-grade prostate cancer after working night shifts for 17 and 35 years respectively. Additionally, previous studies have reported that high-grade prostate cancer has a stronger relationship with night-shift work than low or medium-grade prostate cancer. Therefore, the Korean Epidemiologic Investigation Evaluation Committee concluded that night-shift work in these 2 patients contributed to the development of their prostate cancer.

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.

Grade Group 1 Prostate Cancers Exhibit Tumor-defining Androgen Receptor-driven Programs

Grade group 1 (GG1) primary prostate cancers with a pathologic Gleason score of 6 are considered indolent and generally not associated with fatal outcomes, so treatment is not indicated for most cases. These low-grade cancers have an overall negligible risk of locoregional progression and metastasis to distant organs, which is why there is an ongoing debate about whether these lesions should be reclassified as "noncancerous". However, the underlying molecular activity of key disease drivers, such as the androgen receptor (AR), have thus far not been thoroughly characterized in low-grade tumors. Therefore, we set out to delineate the AR chromatin-binding landscape in low-grade GG1 prostate cancers to gain insights into whether these AR-driven programs are actually tumor-specific or are normal prostate epithelium-like. These analyses showed that GG1 tumors do not harbor a distinct AR cistrome and, similar to higher-grade cancers, AR preferentially binds to tumor-defining cis-regulatory elements. Furthermore, the enhancer activity of these regions and the expression of their respective target genes were not significantly different in GG1 tumors. From an epigenetic perspective, this finding supports the cancer designation currently given to these low-grade tumors and clearly distinguishes them from noncancerous benign tissue. PATIENT SUMMARY: We characterized the molecular activity of the androgen receptor protein, which drives prostate cancer disease, in low-grade tumors. Our results show that these tumors are true cancers and are clearly separate from benign prostate tissue despite their low clinical aggressiveness.

Clinical-Genomic Risk Group Classification of Suspicious Lesions on Prostate Multiparametric-MRI

The utilization of multi-parametric MRI (mpMRI) in clinical decisions regarding prostate cancer patients' management has recently increased. After biopsy, clinicians can assess risk using National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN) risk stratification schema and commercially available genomic classifiers, such as Decipher. We built radiomics-based models to predict lesions/patients at low risk prior to biopsy based on an established three-tier clinical-genomic classification system. Radiomic features were extracted from regions of positive biopsies and Normally Appearing Tissues (NAT) on T2-weighted and Diffusion-weighted Imaging. Using only clinical information available prior to biopsy, five models for predicting low-risk lesions/patients were evaluated, based on: 1: Clinical variables; 2: Lesion-based radiomic features; 3: Lesion and NAT radiomics; 4: Clinical and lesion-based radiomics; and 5: Clinical, lesion and NAT radiomic features. Eighty-three mpMRI exams from 78 men were analyzed. Models 1 and 2 performed similarly (Area under the receiver operating characteristic curve were 0.835 and 0.838, respectively), but radiomics significantly improved the lesion-based performance of the model in a subset analysis of patients with a negative Digital Rectal Exam (DRE). Adding normal tissue radiomics significantly improved the performance in all cases. Similar patterns were observed on patient-level models. To the best of our knowledge, this is the first study to demonstrate that machine learning radiomics-based models can predict patients' risk using combined clinical-genomic classification.

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.

Natural history, and impact of surgery and radiation on survival outcomes of men diagnosed with low-grade prostate cancer at ≤ 55 years of age: a 25-year follow-up of > 60,000 men

PURPOSE

Low-grade prostate cancer has low mortality rates at 10 years; however, it is unclear if the response is sustained for up to 25 years of follow-up.

METHODS

Using Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results database, the overall and cancer-specific mortality rates were compared among men ≤ 55 years of age diagnosed with low-grade prostate cancer that either had radical prostatectomy, radiotherapy, or no known treatment.

RESULTS

Of the 62,772 men diagnosed with low-grade prostate cancer between 1975 and 2016, about 60%, 20% and 20% of men underwent radical prostatectomy, radiotherapy, and no known treatment, respectively. At a median follow-up of 10 years, almost 2% and 7% of men died of prostate cancer and other causes, respectively. The overall mortality was significantly better in radical prostatectomy group compared to no known treatment group (HR 1.99, CI 1.84-2.15, P value < 0.001), but not between the radiotherapy and no known treatment groups. Moreover, the overall and cancer-specific mortality rates in the radiotherapy group were almost two and three times compared to the radical prostatectomy group, respectively (HR 2.15, CI 2.01-2.29, P value < 0.001 for overall mortality and HR 2.87, CI 2.5-3.29, P value < 0.001 for cancer-specific mortality).

CONCLUSIONS

The study confirms low mortality rates in men diagnosed with low-grade prostate cancer for over 25 years' follow-up. While radical prostatectomy improves survival significantly compared to no known treatment, radiotherapy is associated with an increase in overall and cancer-specific mortality, which may be related to long-term toxicities.

Blood Prostate-specific Antigen by Volume of Benign, Gleason Pattern 3 and 4 Prostate Tissue

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate how blood levels of prostate-specific antigen (PSA) relate to prostate volume of benign tissue, Gleason pattern 3 (GP3) and Gleason pattern 4 (GP4) cancer.

METHODS

The cohort included 2209 consecutive men undergoing radical prostatectomy at 2 academic institutions with pT2N0, Grade Group 1-4 prostate cancer and an undetectable postoperative PSA. Volume of benign, GP3, and GP4 were estimated. The primary analysis evaluated the association between PSA and volume of each type of tissue using multivariable linear regression. R2, a measure of explained variation, was calculated using a multivariable model.

RESULTS

Estimated contribution to PSA was 0.04/0.06 ng/mL/cc for benign, 0.08/0.14 ng/mL/cc for GP3, and 0.62/0.80 ng/ml/cc for GP4 for the 2 independent cohorts, respectively. GP4 was associated with 6 to 8-fold more PSA per cc compared to GP3 and 15-fold higher compared to benign tissue. We did not observe a difference between PSA per cc for GP3 vs. benign tissue (P = 0.2). R2 decreased only slightly when removing age (0.006/0.018), volume of benign tissue (0.051/0.054) or GP3 (0.014/0.023) from the model. When GP4 was removed, R2 decreased 0.051/0.310. PSA density (PSA divided by prostate volume) was associated with volume of GP4 but not GP3, after adjustment for benign volume.

CONCLUSION

Gleason pattern 4 cancer contributes considerably more to PSA and PSA density per unit volume compared to GP3 and benign tissue. Contributions from GP3 and benign are similar. Further research should examine the utility of determining clinical management recommendations by absolute volume of GP4 rather than the ratio of GP3 to GP4.

Grade group 1 prostate cancer on biopsy: are we still missing aggressive disease in the era of image-directed therapy?

PURPOSE

Recently, Eggener et al. reignited a debate consisting to redefine Gleason Grade Group (GGG) 1 prostate cancer (PCa) as a precancerous lesion to reduce overdiagnosis and overtreatment. However, historical cohorts showed that some GGG1-labeled disease at biopsy may be underestimated by the standard PCa diagnostic workup. The aim was to assess whether the risk of adverse features at radical prostatectomy (RP) in selected GGG1 patients still exists in the era of pre-biopsy mpMRI and image-guided biopsies.

METHODS

We retrospectively reviewed our data from a European RP dataset to assess in contemporary patients with GGG1 at mpMRI-targeted biopsy the rate of adverse features at final pathology, defined as ≥ pT3a and/or pN+ and/or GGG ≥ 3.

RESULTS

A total of 419 patients with cT1-T2 cN0 GGG1-PCa were included. At final pathology, 143 (34.1%) patients had adverse features. In multivariate analysis, only unfavorable intermediate-risk/high-risk disease (defined on PSA or stage) was predictive of adverse features (OR 2.45, 95% CI 1.11-5.39, p = 0.02). A significant difference was observed in the 3-year biochemical recurrence-free survival between patients with and without adverse features (93.4 vs 87.8%, p = 0.026). In sensitivity analysis restricted low- and favorable intermediate-risk PCa, 122/383 patients (31.8%) had adverse features and no preoperative factors were statistically associated with this risk.

CONCLUSION

In this European study, we showed that there is still a risk of underestimating GGG1 disease at biopsy despite the routine use of image-guided biopsies. Future studies are warranted to improve the detection of aggressive disease in GGG1-labeled patients by incorporating the latest tools such as genomic testing or radiomics.

It's all in the name: Does nomenclature for indolent prostate cancer impact management and anxiety?

BACKGROUND

Despite consensus guidelines, many men with low-grade prostate cancer are not managed with active surveillance. Patient perception of the nomenclature used to describe low-grade prostate cancers may partly explain this discrepancy.

METHODS

A randomized online survey was administered to men without a history of prostate cancer, presenting a hypothetical clinical scenario in which they are given a new diagnosis of low-grade prostate cancer. The authors determined whether diagnosis nomenclature was associated with management preference and diagnosis-related anxiety using ratings given on a scale from 1 to 100, adjusting for participant characteristics through multivariable linear regression.

RESULTS

The survey was completed by 718 men. Compared with Gleason 6 out of 10 prostate cancer, the term grade group 1 out of 5 prostate cancer was associated with lower preference for immediate treatment versus active surveillance (β = -9.3; 95% CI, -14.4, -4.2; P < .001), lower diagnosis-related anxiety (β = -8.3; 95% CI, -12.8, -3.8; P < .001), and lower perceived disease severity (β = -12.3; 95% CI, -16.5, -8.1; P < .001) at the time of initial diagnosis. Differences decreased as participants received more disease-specific education. Indolent lesion of epithelial origin, a suggested alternative term for indolent tumors, was not associated with differences in anxiety or preference for active surveillance.

CONCLUSIONS

Within a hypothetical clinical scenario, nomenclature for low-grade prostate cancer affects initial perception of the disease and may alter subsequent decision making, including preference for active surveillance. Disease-specific education reduces the differential impact of nomenclature use, reaffirming the importance of comprehensive counseling and clear communication between the clinician and patient.

How Much Reliable Is the Current Belief on Grade Group 1 Prostate Cancer?

Objective: To evaluate the clinicopathological characteristics of grade group 1 (GG1) prostate cancer in Korean populations.

Methods: We retrospectively analyzed 492 consecutive radical prostatectomy specimens from our institution, which included those from 322 men with clinical GG1 and 170 with clinical GG2 tumors between years 2009 and 2018. The incidence of Gleason score (GS) upgrading, extraprostatic extension (EPE), and seminal vesicle invasion (SVI) were evaluated in patients with clinical GG1. In pathological GG1 cases, the distribution of adverse pathological features including EPE, lymphovascular invasion (LVI), perineural invasion (PNI), and biochemical recurrence (BCR) was analyzed.

Results: Altogether, 78 (24.2%) out of 322 men in the clinical GG1 group demonstrated upgrading of GS, including 19 men with pathological Gleason score 4 + 3 = 7 and 6 with ≥ pathological Gleason score 4 + 4 = 8 cases. EPE was found in 37 (11.5%) and 22 (8.9%) men in clinical GG1 and pathological GG1 group, respectively. The incidence of LVI and PNI in the pathological GG1 cases was 2.8% (n = 7) and 28.6% (n = 71), respectively. BCR was observed in 4 men in pathological GG1 T2 (n = 226) and 2 men in GG1 T3 (n = 22) group. When we compared the pathological features between pathological GG1 T3 vs. GG2 T2, there was no statistical differences in the incidence of LVI and PNI between the two groups.

Conclusions: Contrary to the current concept that GG1 is almost always clinically insignificant, it seems that GG1 still possess its respectable position as a group of cancer with aggressiveness. These findings should be kept in mind when deciding on treatment options for prostate cancer patients in the Asian populations.

Grade group 2 (10% ≥ GP4) patients have very similar malignant potential with grade group 1 patients, given the risk of intraductal carcinoma of the prostate

BACKGROUND

It has been argued that grade group 2 (GG2) with a low Gleason pattern 4 (GP4) proportion should be an indication for active surveillance (AS) of prostate cancer (PCa). However, the cut-off GP4 proportion for AS remains unclear. Here, we evaluated the effect of GP4 proportion and IDC-P on cancer recurrence following radical prostatectomy (RP) in GG1 and GG2 patients, and identified candidates for AS.

METHODS

We retrospectively evaluated 646 patients with PCa who underwent RP between 2005 and 2014, and whose specimens were of GG1 or GG2 status.

RESULTS

The GGs were as follows: GG1, 25.2% (n = 163); GG2 (5% ≥ GP4), 11.4% (n = 74); GG2 (5% < GP4 ≤ 10%), 25.9% (n = 167); and GG2 (20% ≤ GP4), 37.5% (n = 242). IDC-P was detected in 26 patients (4%), i.e., in 2/167 GG2 (5% < GP4 ≤ 10%; 1%) cases and 24/242 GG2 (20% ≤ GP4; 10%) cases. GG2 patients with IDC-P exhibited a significantly poorer prognosis than did those without IDC-P (P < 0.0001), as did GG2 (20% ≤ GP4) patients without IDC-P (P < 0.05). The GG2 (5% ≥ GP4) and (5% < GP4 ≤ 10%) groups exhibited prognoses similar to those of the GG1 patients. In multivariate analysis, GG2 (20% ≤ GP4) without IDC-P, the presence of IDC-P, and the prostate-specific antigen level at diagnosis significantly predicted prognosis (P < 0.05, < 0.0001, and < 0.0001, respectively).

CONCLUSION

Our findings suggest that GG2 (GP4 ≤ 10%) patients could be indicated for AS, similar to GG1 patients, given the risk of IDC-P tumors.

Simulation model of disease incidence driven by diagnostic activity

It is imperative to understand the effects of early detection and treatment of chronic diseases, such as prostate cancer, regarding incidence, overtreatment and mortality. Previous simulation models have emulated clinical trials, and relied on extensive assumptions on the natural history of the disease. In addition, model parameters were typically calibrated to a variety of data sources. We propose a model designed to emulate real‐life scenarios of chronic disease using a proxy for the diagnostic activity without explicitly modeling the natural history of the disease and properties of clinical tests. Our model was applied to Swedish nation‐wide population‐based prostate cancer data, and demonstrated good performance in terms of reconstructing observed incidence and mortality. The model was used to predict the number of prostate cancer diagnoses with a high or limited diagnostic activity between 2017 and 2060. In the long term, high diagnostic activity resulted in a substantial increase in the number of men diagnosed with lower risk disease, fewer men with metastatic disease, and decreased prostate cancer mortality. The model can be used for prediction of outcome, to guide decision‐making, and to evaluate diagnostic activity in real‐life settings with respect to overdiagnosis and prostate cancer mortality.

Multiparametric MRI for Prostate Cancer Characterization: Combined Use of Radiomics Model with PI-RADS and Clinical Parameters

Radiomics is an emerging field of image analysis with potential applications in patient risk stratification. This study developed and evaluated machine learning models using quantitative radiomic features extracted from multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging (mpMRI) to detect and classify prostate cancer (PCa). In total, 191 patients that underwent prostatic mpMRI and combined targeted and systematic fusion biopsy were retrospectively included. Segmentations of the whole prostate glands and index lesions were performed manually in apparent diffusion coefficient (ADC) maps and T2-weighted MRI. Radiomic features were extracted from regions corresponding to the whole prostate gland and index lesion. The best performing combination of feature setup and classifier was selected to compare its predictive ability of the radiologist’s evaluation (PI-RADS), mean ADC, prostate specific antigen density (PSAD) and digital rectal examination (DRE) using receiver operating characteristic (ROC) analysis. Models were evaluated using repeated 5-fold cross-validation and a separate independent test cohort. In the test cohort, an ensemble model combining a radiomics model, with models for PI-RADS, PSAD and DRE achieved high predictive AUCs for the differentiation of (i) malignant from benign prostatic lesions (AUC = 0.889) and of (ii) clinically significant (csPCa) from clinically insignificant PCa (cisPCa) (AUC = 0.844). Our combined model was numerically superior to PI-RADS for cancer detection (AUC = 0.779; p = 0.054) as well as for clinical significance prediction (AUC = 0.688; p = 0.209) and showed a significantly better performance compared to mADC for csPCa prediction (AUC = 0.571; p = 0.022). In our study, radiomics accurately characterizes prostatic index lesions and shows performance comparable to radiologists for PCa characterization. Quantitative image data represent a potential biomarker, which, when combined with PI-RADS, PSAD and DRE, predicts csPCa more accurately than mADC. Prognostic machine learning models could assist in csPCa detection and patient selection for MRI-guided biopsy.

Optimizing size thresholds for detection of clinically significant prostate cancer on MRI: Peripheral zone cancers are smaller and more predictable than transition zone tumors

PURPOSE

To evaluate if size-based cut-offs based on MR imaging can successfully assess clinically significant prostate cancer (csPCA). The goal was to improve the currently applied size-based differentiation criterion in PI-RADS.

METHODS AND MATERIALS

MRIs of 293 patients who had undergone 3 T MR imaging with subsequent confirmation of prostate cancer on systematic and targeted MRI/TRUS-fusion biopsy were re-read by three radiologists. All identifiable tumors were measured on T2WI for lesions originating in the transition zone (TZ) and on DWI for lesions from the peripheral zone (PZ) and tabulated against their Gleason grade.

RESULTS

309 lesions were analyzed, 213 (68.9 %) in the PZ and 96 (31.1 %) in the TZ. ROC-Analysis showed a stronger correlation between lesion size and clinically significant (defined as Gleason Grade Group ≥ 2) prostate cancer (PCa) for the PZ (AUC = 0.73) compared to the TZ (AUC = 0.63). The calculated Youden index resulted in size cut-offs of 14 mm for PZ and 21 mm for TZ tumors.

CONCLUSION

Size cut-offs can be used to stratify prostate cancer with different optimal size thresholds in the peripheral zone and transition zone. There was a clearer separation of clinically significant tumors in peripheral zone cancers compared to transition zone cancers. Future iterations of PI-RADS could therefore take different size-based cut-offs for peripheral zone and transition zone cancers into account.

Pseudogene Associated Recurrent Gene Fusion in Prostate Cancer

We present the functional characterization of a pseudogene associated recurrent gene fusion in prostate cancer. The fusion gene KLK4-KLKP1 is formed by the fusion of the protein coding gene KLK4 with the noncoding pseudogene KLKP1. Screening of a cohort of 659 patients (380 Caucasian American; 250 African American, and 29 patients from other races) revealed that the KLK4-KLKP1 is expressed in about 32% of prostate cancer patients. Correlative analysis with other ETS gene fusions and SPINK1 revealed a concomitant expression pattern of KLK4-KLKP1 with ERG and a mutually exclusive expression pattern with SPINK1, ETV1, ETV4, and ETV5. Development of an antibody specific to KLK4-KLKP1 fusion protein confirmed the expression of the full-length KLK4-KLKP1 protein in prostate tissues. The in vitro and in vivo functional assays to study the oncogenic properties of KLK4-KLKP1 confirmed its role in cell proliferation, cell invasion, intravasation, and tumor formation. Presence of strong ERG and AR binding sites located at the fusion junction in KLK4-KLKP1 suggests that the fusion gene is regulated by ERG and AR. Correlative analysis of clinical data showed an association of KLK4-KLKP1 with lower preoperative PSA values and in young men (<50 years) with prostate cancer. Screening of patient urine samples showed that KLK4-KLKP1 can be detected noninvasively in urine. Taken together, we present KLK4-KLKP1 as a class of pseudogene associated fusion transcript in cancer with potential applications as a biomarker for routine screening of prostate cancer.

Immediate versus delayed prostatectomy and the fate of patients who progress to a higher risk disease on active surveillance

INTRODUCTION

Oncological outcomes of radical prostatectomy (RP) in patients progressing on active surveillance (AS) are debated. We compared outcomes of AS eligible patients undergoing RP immediately after diagnosis with those doing so after delay or disease progression on AS.

METHODS

Between 2000 and 2014, 961 patients were AS eligible as per EAU criteria. RP within 6 months of diagnosis (IRP) or beyond (DRP), RP without AS (DRPa) and AS patients progressing to RP (DRPb) were compared. Baseline PSA, clinical and biopsy characteristics were noted. Oncological outcomes included adverse pathology in RP specimen and biochemical recurrence (BCR). Matched pair analysis was done between DRPb and GS7 patients undergoing immediate RP (GS7IRP).

RESULTS

IRP, DRP, DRPa and DRPb had 820 (85%), 141 (15%), 118 (12.24%) and 23 (2.7%) patients respectively. IRP, DRPa and DRPb underwent RP at a median of 3, 9 and 19 months after diagnosis respectively. Baseline characteristics were comparable. DRP vs. IRP had earlier median time (31 vs. 43 months; p<.001) and higher rate of progression to BCR (7.6 vs. 3.9%;p=.045). DRPb showed higher BCR (19 vs. 5%;p=.021) with earlier median time to BCR, compared to IRP and DRPa (p=.038). There was no difference in adverse pathology and BCR rates, but time to BCR was significantly lesser in DRPb (49 vs. 6 months;p<.001), compared to GS7IRP.

CONCLUSIONS

Patients progressing on AS had worst oncological outcomes. RP for GS7 progression and matched pair of GS7 patients had similar outcomes. Worse oncological outcomes in AS progressors cannot be explained by a mere delay in RP.

The Ability of Prostate Health Index (PHI) to Predict Gleason Score in Patients With Prostate Cancer and Discriminate Patients Between Gleason Score 6 and Gleason Score Higher Than 6-A Study on 320 Patients After Radical Prostatectomy

Aim:

The purpose of this study was to investigate the Prostate Health Index as a marker for tumor aggressiveness in prostate biopsy and the optimization of indication for treatment options.

Methods:

Our cohort consisted of 320 patients indicated for radical prostatectomy with preoperative measurements of total prostate-specific antigen, free prostate-specific antigen, [-2]proPSA, calculated %freePSA, and Prostate Health Index. The Gleason score was determined during biopsy and after radical prostatectomy. Using the Gleason score, we divided the group of patients into the 2 subgroups: Gleason score ≤6 and Gleason score >6. This division was performed according to the biopsy Gleason score and according to the postoperative Gleason score. We compared total prostate-specific antigen, [-2]proPSA, %freePSA, and Prostate Health Index in the subgroups Gleason score ≤6 and Gleason score >6 after biopsy and the definitive score.

Results:

On evaluation of the subgroups created by Gleason score ≤6 and Gleason score >6, we observed agreement between biopsy Gleason score and definitive Gleason score in only 45.3% of cases. Of the calculated biopsy, Gleason score ≤6 and Gleason score >6 subgroups, [-2]proPSA, and Prostate Health Index (P = .0003 and P = .0005) were statistically significant. Of the definitive Gleason score ≤6 and Gleason score >6 subgroups, Prostate Health Index, [-2]proPSA, %freePSA, and PSA (P < .0001, P < .0001, P = .0003, and P = .0043) were statistically significant. The best area under the curve value (0.7496) was achieved by Prostate Health Index when the subgroups were established according to the postoperative Gleason score.

Conclusion:

Prostate Health Index is the best of the tested markers for the categorization of Gleason score 6 tumors and for facilitating the management of patients with prostate cancer. Prostate Health Index can be a helpful marker for indication of active surveillance or radical prostatectomy. Prostate health index can also simplify the decision of whether to perform nerve-sparing radical prostatectomy.

Recurrence analysis on prostate cancer patients with Gleason score 7 using integrated histopathology whole-slide images and genomic data through deep neural networks

Prostate cancer is the most common nonskin-related cancer, affecting one in seven men in the United States. Gleason score, a sum of the primary and secondary Gleason patterns, is one of the best predictors of prostate cancer outcomes. Recently, significant progress has been made in molecular subtyping prostate cancer through the use of genomic sequencing. It has been established that prostate cancer patients presented with a Gleason score 7 show heterogeneity in both disease recurrence and survival. We built a unified system using publicly available whole-slide images and genomic data of histopathology specimens through deep neural networks to identify a set of computational biomarkers. Using a survival model, the experimental results on the public prostate dataset showed that the computational biomarkers extracted by our approach had hazard ratio as 5.73 and C -index as 0.74, which were higher than standard clinical prognostic factors and other engineered image texture features. Collectively, the results of this study highlight the important role of neural network analysis of prostate cancer and the potential of such approaches in other precision medicine applications.

Correlation of Prostate Cancer CHD1 Status with Response to Androgen Deprivation Therapy: a Pilot Study

INTRODUCTION

CHD1 has been identified as a tumor suppressor gene in prostate cancer. Previous studies have shown strong associations between CHD1 deletion, prostate specific antigen [PSA] recurrence, and absence of ERG fusion. In this preliminary study we seek to find whether there is an independent correlation between CHD1 status and response to androgen deprivation therapy[ADT].

MATERIALS AND METHODS

We identified 11 patients with prostate cancer who underwent prostatectomy and received at least 7 months of ADT at our institution. They were divided into undetectable [PSA < 0.2 ng/mL; n = 8] and detectable [PSA > 0.2 ng/mL; n = 3] according to their serum PSA nadir after 7 months of ADT. Tissue microarray was generated from their formalin-fixed paraffin-embedded prostatectomy and involved lymph node tissues. Fluorescence in situ hybridization [FISH] analysis for CHD1 and immunohistochemical stains for PSA, AR, PTEN, ERG and SPINK1 were performed.

RESULTS

Our results showed heterogeneity of FISH and immunostains expressions in different foci of tumor. Status of CHD1, ERG, PTEN, or SPINK1 did not correlate with one another or with response to ADT.

CONCLUSIONS

Additional larger studies may be needed to further elucidate trends between these biomarkers and clinical outcomes in prostate cancer patients.

[Studies on localized low-risk prostate cancer : Do we know enough?]

BACKGROUND

Treatment of localized low-risk prostate cancer (PCa) is undergoing a paradigm shift: Invasive treatments such as surgery and radiation therapy are being replaced by defensive strategies such as active surveillance (AS) and watchful waiting (WW).

OBJECTIVE

The aim of this work is to evaluate the significance of current studies regarding defensive strategies (AS and WW).

METHODS

The best-known AS studies are critically evaluated for their significance in terms of input criteria, follow-up criteria, and statistical significance.

RESULTS

The difficulties faced by randomized studies in answering the question of the best treatment for low-risk cancer in two or even more study groups with known low tumor-specific mortality are clearly shown. Some studies fail because of the objective, others-like PIVOT-are underpowered. ProtecT, a renowned randomized, controlled trial (RCT), lists systematic and statistical shortcomings in detail.

CONCLUSION

The time and effort required for RCTs to answer the question of which therapy is best for locally limited low-risk cancer is very large because the low specific mortality rate requires a large number of participants and a long study duration. In any case, RCTs create hand-picked cohorts for statistical evaluation that have little to do with care in daily clinical practice. The necessary randomization is also offset by the decision-making of the informed patient. If further studies of low-risk PCa are needed, they will need real-world conditions that an RCT can not provide. To obtain clinically relevant results, we need to rethink things: When planning the study, biometricians and clinicians must understand that the statistical methods used in RCTs are of limited use and they must select a method (e.g. propensity scores) appropriate for health care research.

Natural history of prostatic lesions on serial multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging

INTRODUCTION

The natural history of prostatic lesions identified on multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging (mpMRI) is largely unknown. We aimed to describe changes observed over time on serial MRI.

METHODS

All patients with ≥2 MRI studies between 2008 and 2015 at our institution were identified. MRI progression was defined as an increase in Prostate Imaging Reporting and Data System (PI-RADS; version 2) or size of existing lesions, or the appearance of a new lesion PIRADS ≥4. Patients on active surveillance (AS) were analyzed for correlation of MRI progression to biopsy reclassification.

RESULTS

A total of 83 patients (54 on AS and 29 for diagnostic purposes) underwent serial MRI, with a mean interval of 1.9 years between scans. At baseline, 115 lesions (66 index, 49 non-index) were identified. Index lesions were more likely than non-index lesions to increase in size ≥2 mm (36.2 vs. 7.3 %; p=0.002). Overall progression was more likely to be seen among the index cohort (34.8 vs. 7.6%; p<0.001). New lesions with PI-RADS ≥4 were seen on second imaging in 13 (16.5%) men, and became the index lesion in 29 cases (34.9%). Eighteen men on AS showed evidence of MRI progression (five with new lesions, 13 with progression of a previous lesion). Biopsy reclassification was present in three men (16.7%) with and seven men without MRI progression (19.4%).

CONCLUSIONS

Overall changes in size and PI-RADS scores of index lesions on MRI were small. New lesions were common, but usually did not alter management.

Novel Biomarkers for Prostate Cancer Detection and Prognosis

Prostate cancer (PCa) remains as one of the most controversial issues in health care because of the dilemmas related to screening using Prostate Specific Antigen (PSA). A high number of false positive biopsies and an elevated rate of overdiagnosis are the main problems associated with PSA. New PCa biomarkers have been recently proposed to increase the predictive value of PSA. The published results showed that PCA3 score, Prostate Health Index and 4Kscore can reduce the number of unnecessary biopsies, outperforming better than PSA and the percentage of free PSA. Furthermore, 4Kscore provides with high accuracy an individual risk for high-grade PCa. High values of PHI are also associated with tumor aggressiveness. In contrast, the relationship of PCA3 score with aggressiveness remains controversial, with studies showing opposite conclusions. Finally, the development of molecular biology has opened the study of genes, among them TMPRSS2:ERG fusion gene and miRNAs, in PCa detection and prognosis.

Utility of Single-Cell Genomics in Diagnostic Evaluation of Prostate Cancer

A distinction between indolent and aggressive disease is a major challenge in diagnostics of prostate cancer. As genetic heterogeneity and complexity may influence clinical outcome, we have initiated studies on single tumor cell genomics. In this study, we demonstrate that sparse DNA sequencing of single-cell nuclei from prostate core biopsies is a rich source of quantitative parameters for evaluating neoplastic growth and aggressiveness. These include the presence of clonal populations, the phylogenetic structure of those populations, the degree of the complexity of copy-number changes in those populations, and measures of the proportion of cells with clonal copy-number signatures. The parameters all showed good correlation to the measure of prostatic malignancy, the Gleason score, derived from individual prostate biopsy tissue cores. Remarkably, a more accurate histopathologic measure of malignancy, the surgical Gleason score, agrees better with these genomic parameters of diagnostic biopsy than it does with the diagnostic Gleason score and related measures of diagnostic histopathology. This is highly relevant because primary treatment decisions are dependent upon the biopsy and not the surgical specimen. Thus, single-cell analysis has the potential to augment traditional core histopathology, improving both the objectivity and accuracy of risk assessment and inform treatment decisions.Significance: Genomic analysis of multiple individual cells harvested from prostate biopsies provides an indepth view of cell populations comprising a prostate neoplasm, yielding novel genomic measures with the potential to improve the accuracy of diagnosis and prognosis in prostate cancer. Cancer Res; 78(2); 348-58. ©2017 AACR.

[Prospective: How will renal, prostatic and urothelial tumours be treated in 10 years?]

Forward thinking does not seek to predict the future, to unveil it as if it were already in existence, rather, its aim is to help us to construct it. Although today's epidemiological and therapeutic situations for urogenital tumours can evolve over the next 10 years, diagnostic and therapeutic methods, as well as the treatment and implementation of innovations, are already rapidly changing. Rather than reducing our prospective thinking to the therapeutic treatment of cancer only, we will aim at proposing a global sanitary vision that includes diagnosis, therapies, prevention, routine utilisation of technomedicine, genomics and even nanomedicine. This journey into the near future of tomorrow's cancerology holds the promise of being better adapted to the evolution of the medical thinking process. Imagining the way we will be treating renal, prostatic and urothelial tumours in 10 years' time is as much an introspection into our present day treatment system as a projection into its hoped for future evolution.

Cost-effectiveness of MR Imaging-guided Strategies for Detection of Prostate Cancer in Biopsy-Naive Men

Purpose To evaluate the cost-effectiveness of multiparametric diagnostic magnetic resonance (MR) imaging examination followed by MR imaging-guided biopsy strategies in the detection of prostate cancer in biopsy-naive men presenting with clinical suspicion of cancer for the first time. Materials and Methods A decision-analysis model was created for biopsy-naive men who had been recommended for prostate biopsy on the basis of abnormal digital rectal examination results or elevated prostate-specific antigen levels (age groups: 41-50 years, 51-60 years, and 61-70 years). The following three major strategies were evaluated: (a) standard transrectal ultrasonography (US)-guided biopsy; (b) diagnostic MR imaging followed by MR imaging-targeted biopsy, with no biopsy performed if MR imaging findings were negative; and (c) diagnostic MR imaging followed by MR imaging-targeted biopsy, with a standard biopsy performed when MR imaging findings were negative. The following three MR imaging-guided biopsy strategies were further evaluated in each MR imaging category: (a) biopsy with cognitive guidance, (b) biopsy with MR imaging/US fusion guidance, and (c) in-gantry MR imaging-guided biopsy. Model parameters were derived from the literature. The primary outcome measure was net health benefit (NHB), which was measured as quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) gained or lost by investing resources in a new strategy compared with a standard strategy at a willingness-to-pay (WTP) threshold of $50 000 per QALY gained. Probabilistic sensitivity analysis was performed by using Monte Carlo simulations. Results Noncontrast MR imaging followed by cognitively guided MR biopsy (no standard biopsy if MR imaging findings were negative) was the most cost-effective approach, yielding an additional NHB of 0.198 QALY compared with the standard biopsy approach. Noncontrast MR imaging followed by in-gantry MR imaging-guided biopsy (no standard biopsy if MR imaging findings were negative) led to the highest NHB gain of 0.251 additional QALY compared with the standard biopsy strategy. All MR imaging strategies were cost-effective in 94.05% of Monte Carlo simulations. Analysis by age groups yielded similar results. Conclusion MR imaging-guided strategies for the detection of prostate cancer were cost-effective compared with the standard biopsy strategy in a decision-analysis model. ^© RSNA, 2017 Online supplemental material is available for this article.

Exosomal and Non-Exosomal Urinary miRNAs in Prostate Cancer Detection and Prognosis

BACKGROUND

MicroRNAs (miRNAs) are non-coding small RNAs, involved in post-transcriptional regulation of many target genes.

METHODS

Five miRNAs that have been consistently found deregulated in PCa (miR-21, miR-141, miR-214, miR-375, and let-7c) were analyzed in urinary pellets from 60 prostate cancer (PCa) patients and 10 healthy subjects by qRT-PCR. Besides, urinary exosomes were isolated by differential centrifugation and analyzed for those miRNAs.

RESULTS

Significant upregulation of miR-21, miR-141, and miR-375 was found comparing PCa patients with healthy subjects in urinary pellets, while miR-214 was found significantly downregulated. Regarding urinary exosomes, miR-21 and miR-375 were also significantly upregulated in PCa but no differences were found for miR-141. Significant differences were found for let-7c in PCa in urinary exosomes while no differences were observed in urinary pellets. A panel combining miR-21 and miR-375 is suggested as the best combination to distinguish PCa patients and healthy subjects, with an AUC of 0.872. Furthermore, the association of miRNAs with clinicopathological characteristics was investigated. MiR-141 resulted significantly correlated with Gleason score in urinary pellets and let-7c with clinical stage in urinary exosomes. Additionally, miR-21, miR-141, and miR-214 were found significantly deregulated in intermediate/high-risk PCa versus low-risk/healthy subjects in urinary pellets. Significant differences between both groups were found in urinary exosomes for miR-21, miR-375, and let-7c.

CONCLUSIONS

These findings suggest that the analysis of miRNAs-especially miRNA-21 and miR-375- in urine could be useful as biomarkers in PCa. Prostate 77: 573-583, 2017. © 2016 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.

A prospective study investigating the impact of multiparametric MRI in biopsy-naïve patients with clinically suspected prostate cancer: The PROKOMB study

BACKGROUND

In patients with suspected prostate cancer (PCa) according to current guidelines systematic transrectal ultrasound (TRUS)-guided biopsy of the prostate is performed to verify or rule out PCa. However, TRUS-guided biopsy can result in underdetection of clinically significant cancers as well as diagnosis of clinically insignificant cancers. Multiparametric MRI (mpMRI) might improve the diagnostic pathway and help to avoid unnecessary biopsies.

DESIGN AND METHODS

The PROKOMB (Prostata - Kooperatives MRT-Projekt Berlin) study is a prospective two-arm multicentre study designed to evaluate the potential role of mpMRI as a triage test before biopsy. Up to 600 biopsy-naïve men with suspicion for PCa undergo mpMRI at two dedicated imaging centers. Only patients with equivocal or suspicious lesions on mpMRI undergo prostate biopsy including systematic as well as MRI-guided targeted biopsies at several different community-based urologists or hospitals. The PROKOMB study is designed to evaluate how many biopsies can be avoided, how many clinically insignificant cancers are diagnosed on prostate biopsy in patients with positive findings on mpMRI, and how many clinically significant cancers are missed using this alternative diagnostic pathway. For the purpose of this study clinically significant PCa is defined as Gleason ≥3+4 cancer. In addition, the detection rates of different techniques for MRI-guided biopsy are evaluated as well as psychological distress before mpMRI and after the diagnosis of PCa.

CONCLUSION

The PROKOMB study might help in defining the role of mpMRI in biopsy-naïve patients with suspected PCa in an ambulatory care setting.

Targeted Biopsy to Detect Gleason Score Upgrading during Active Surveillance for Men with Low versus Intermediate Risk Prostate Cancer

PURPOSE

We sought to determine the rate of upgrading to Gleason score 4 + 3 or greater using targeted biopsy for diagnosis and monitoring in men undergoing active surveillance of prostate cancer.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Study subjects comprised all 259 men, including 196 with Gleason score 3 + 3 and 63 with Gleason score 3 + 4, who were diagnosed by magnetic resonance imaging/ultrasound fusion guided biopsy from 2009 to 2015 and underwent subsequent fusion biopsy for as long as 4 years of active surveillance. The primary end point was the discovery of Gleason score 4 + 3 or greater prostate cancer. Followup biopsies included targeting of positive sites, which were tracked in an Artemis™ device. Kaplan-Meier curves were generated to determine upgrading rates, stratified by initial Gleason score and prostate specific antigen density.

RESULTS

Based on a Cox proportional hazard model, men with Gleason score 3 + 4 were 4.65 times more likely to have upgrading than men with an initial Gleason score of 3 + 3 at 3 years (p <0.01). By the third surveillance year 63% of men with Gleason score 3 + 4 had been upgraded compared with 18.0% who started with Gleason score 3 + 3 (p <0.01). Of all 33 upgrades 32 (97%) occurred at a magnetic resonance imaging visible or a tracked site of tumor, rather than at a previously negative systematic site. Independent predictors of upgrading were Gleason score 3 + 4, prostate specific antigen density 0.15 ng/ml/cm3 or greater and a grade 5 lesion on magnetic resonance imaging. The incidence rate ratio of upgrading (Gleason score 3 + 4 vs 3 + 3) was 4.25 per year of patient followup (p <0.01).

CONCLUSIONS

During active surveillance of prostate cancer, targeting of tracked tumor foci by magnetic resonance imaging/ultrasound fusion biopsy allows for heightened detection of Gleason score 4 + 3 or greater cancers. Baseline variables directly related to important upgrading that warrant increased vigilance include Gleason score 3 + 4, prostate specific antigen density 0.15 ng/ml/cm3 or greater and grade 5 lesions on magnetic resonance imaging.

Automatic Gleason grading of prostate cancer using quantitative phase imaging and machine learning

We present an approach for automatic diagnosis of tissue biopsies. Our methodology consists of a quantitative phase imaging tissue scanner and machine learning algorithms to process these data. We illustrate the performance by automatic Gleason grading of prostate specimens. The imaging system operates on the principle of interferometry and, as a result, reports on the nanoscale architecture of the unlabeled specimen. We use these data to train a random forest classifier to learn textural behaviors of prostate samples and classify each pixel in the image into different classes. Automatic diagnosis results were computed from the segmented regions. By combining morphological features with quantitative information from the glands and stroma, logistic regression was used to discriminate regions with Gleason grade 3 versus grade 4 cancer in prostatectomy tissue. The overall accuracy of this classification derived from a receiver operating curve was 82%, which is in the range of human error when interobserver variability is considered. We anticipate that our approach will provide a clinically objective and quantitative metric for Gleason grading, allowing us to corroborate results across instruments and laboratories and feed the computer algorithms for improved accuracy.

Active Surveillance of Prostate Cancer: Use, Outcomes, Imaging, and Diagnostic Tools

Active surveillance (AS) has emerged as a standard management option for men with very low-risk and low-risk prostate cancer, and contemporary data indicate that use of AS is increasing in the United States and abroad. In the favorable-risk population, reports from multiple prospective cohorts indicate a less than 1% likelihood of metastatic disease and prostate cancer-specific mortality over intermediate-term follow-up (median 5-6 years). Higher-risk men participating in AS appear to be at increased risk of adverse outcomes, but these populations have not been adequately studied to this point. Although monitoring on AS largely relies on serial prostate biopsy, a procedure associated with considerable morbidity, there is a need for improved diagnostic tools for patient selection and monitoring. Revisions from the 2014 International Society of Urologic Pathology consensus conference have yielded a more intuitive reporting system and detailed reporting of low-intermediate grade tumors, which should facilitate the practice of AS. Meanwhile, emerging modalities such as multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging and tissue-based molecular testing have shown prognostic value in some populations. At this time, however, these instruments have not been sufficiently studied to consider their routine, standardized use in the AS setting. Future studies should seek to identify those platforms most informative in the AS population and propose a strategy by which promising diagnostic tools can be safely and efficiently incorporated into clinical practice.

Evolving Recommendations on Prostate Cancer Screening

Results of a number of studies demonstrate that the serum prostate-specific antigen (PSA) in and of itself is an inadequate screening test. Today, one of the most pressing questions in prostate cancer medicine is how can screening be honed to identify those who have life-threatening disease and need aggressive treatment. A number of efforts are underway. One such effort is the assessment of men in the landmark Prostate Cancer Prevention Trial that has led to a prostate cancer risk calculator (PCPTRC), which is available online. PCPTRC version 2.0 predicts the probability of the diagnosis of no cancer, low-grade cancer, or high-grade cancer when variables such as PSA, age, race, family history, and physical findings are input. Modern biomarker development promises to provide tests with fewer false positives and improved ability to find high-grade cancers. Stockholm III (STHLM3) is a prospective, population-based, paired, screen-positive, prostate cancer diagnostic study assessing a combination of plasma protein biomarkers along with age, family history, previous biopsy, and prostate examination for prediction of prostate cancer. Multiparametric MRI incorporates anatomic and functional imaging to better characterize and predict future behavior of tumors within the prostate. After diagnosis of cancer, several genomic tests promise to better distinguish the cancers that need treatment versus those that need observation. Although the new technologies are promising, there is an urgent need for evaluation of these new tests in high-quality, large population-based studies. Until these technologies are proven, most professional organizations have evolved to a recommendation of informed or shared decision making in which there is a discussion between the doctor and patient.

[The 2014 consensus conference of the ISUP on Gleason grading of prostatic carcinoma]

In 2005 the International Society of Urological Pathology (ISUP) held a concensus conference on Gleason grading in order to bring this grading system up to the current state of contemporary practice; however, it became clear that further modifications on the grading of prostatic carcinoma were necessary. The International Society of Urological Pathology therefore held a further consensus conference in 2014 to clarify these points. This article presents the essential results of the Chicago grading meeting.

Comparison of free-hand transperineal mpMRI/TRUS fusion-guided biopsy with transperineal 12-core systematic biopsy for the diagnosis of prostate cancer: a single-center prospective study in China

OBJECTIVES

To prospectively compare biopsy outcomes between free-hand transperineal mpMRI/TRUS fusion targeted biopsy (TB) and transperineal systematic biopsy (SB) in patients with first prostate biopsy.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

In all, 224 consecutive patients with the suspicion of PCa were investigated. All patients were evaluated by 3.0-T mpMRI applying the ESUR criteria. All patients underwent free-hand transperineal mpMRI/TRUS fusion TB and additionally a transperineal SB. Pathological findings of TB, SB, and step-sectioned RP specimens were analyzed.

RESULTS

The median age of the patients was 69 (40-85) years, median PSA level was 10.05 (3.61-78.39) ng/mL, and median prostate volume was 45.5 (22-77) mL. Overall, the PCa detection rate was 50.45% (113/224). TB detected significantly more cancer [44.2% (99/224) vs. 34.8% (78/224); P = 0.001] and clinically significant PCa [75.75% (75/99) vs. 62.82% (49/78); P = 0.005] than SB. For the upgrading of Gleason score, 39.74% (31/78), more clinically significant PCa was detected by using additional TB than by SB alone. Conversely, 5.05% (5/99) more clinically significant PCa was found by SB in addition to that by TB. The location of 96.67% (58/60) and Gleason score of 60% (36/60) of TB-proven ITs were correctly identified, as corroborated by RP specimens. The median IT volume was 1.125 (0.21-19.87) ml on MRI and 1.41 (0.13-9.56) ml in RP specimens.

CONCLUSIONS

Free-hand transperineal mpMRI/TRUS fusion biopsy was associated with a higher detection rate of clinically significant PCa while taking fewer cores. Moreover, this technique can reliably predict the location, and relatively reliably predict cancer volume and Gleason score of ITs.

Active surveillance as a therapeutic option for patients with low-risk prostate cancer according to the 2014 International Society of Urological Pathology grading system: a review

Extended prostate-specific antigen screening and the tightly focused execution of biopsies have resulted in an increased rate of detection, and thereby increased interventional treatment, of prostate cancer (PCa). The potential overdiagnosis and overtreatment of PCa patients have repeatedly been criticized in national and international literature. Controlled monitoring of patients in the setting of active surveillance (AS) can prevent overtreatment and the needless impairment of quality of life. The prerequisite for this treatment strategy is the diagnosis of low-grade/risk PCa. Since 2005, the modified Gleason grading system has been used for the histological assessment of PCa. In 2014, the International Society of Urological Pathology recommended a new prognostic grading system with five grades analogous to the modified Gleason score. This review discusses the importance of pathological histological analysis of PCa, particularly in the face of recent amendments, and sheds light on the significance of the new grading system for the diagnosis of low-grade/risk PCa with regard to the therapeutic option of AS.

Newly Proposed Prognostic Grade Group System for Prostate Cancer: Genesis, Utility and its Implications in Clinical Practice

We know about the Gleason pattern and Gleason score which are of paramount importance in tailoring the treatment of a prostate cancer. However, there are certain deficiencies in this current scoring system. To simplify the treatment options and have a better idea about the prognosis, a new grade group system has been proposed by ISUP/WHO in 2015. This has been validated in the clinical practice. This commentary takes you through its genesis, utility and its implications on the clinical practice.

Evaluating the Four Kallikrein Panel of the 4Kscore for Prediction of High-grade Prostate Cancer in Men in the Canary Prostate Active Surveillance Study

BACKGROUND

Diagnosis of Gleason 6 prostate cancer can leave uncertainty about the presence of undetected aggressive disease.

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate the utility of a four kallikrein (4K) panel in predicting the presence of high-grade cancer in men on active surveillance.

DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS

Plasma collected before the first and subsequent surveillance biopsies was assessed for 718 men prospectively enrolled in the multi-institutional Canary PASS trial. Biopsy data were split 2:1 into training and test sets. We developed statistical models that included clinical information and either the 4Kpanel or serum prostate-specific antigen (PSA).

OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS AND STATISTICAL ANALYSIS

The endpoint was reclassification to Gleason ≥7. We used receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve analyses and area under the curve (AUC) to assess discriminatory capacity, and decision curve analysis (DCA) to report clinical net benefit.

RESULTS AND LIMITATIONS

Significant predictors for reclassification were 4Kpanel (odds ratio [OR] 1.54, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.31-1.81) or PSA (OR 2.11, 95% CI 1.53-2.91), ≥20% cores positive (OR 2.10, 95% CI 1.33-3.32), two or more prior negative biopsies (OR 0.19, 95% CI 0.04-0.85), prostate volume (OR 0.47, 95% CI 0.31-0.70), and body mass index (OR 1.09, 95% CI 1.04-1.14). ROC curve analysis comparing 4K and base models indicated that the 4Kpanel improved accuracy for predicting reclassification (AUC 0.78 vs 0.74) at the first surveillance biopsy. Both models performed comparably for prediction of reclassification at subsequent biopsies (AUC 0.75 vs 0.76). In DCA, both models showed higher net benefit compared to biopsy-all and biopsy-none strategies. Limitations include the single cohort nature of the study and the small numbers; results should be validated in another cohort before clinical use.

CONCLUSIONS

The 4Kpanel provided incremental value over routine clinical information in predicting high-grade cancer in the first biopsy after diagnosis. The 4Kpanel did not add predictive value to the base model at subsequent surveillance biopsies.

PATIENT SUMMARY

Active surveillance is a management strategy for many low-grade prostate cancers. Repeat biopsies monitor for previously undetected high-grade cancer. We show that a model with clinical variables, including a panel of four kallikreins, indicates the presence of high-grade cancer before a biopsy is performed.

Relationship between Gleason score and apparent diffusion coefficients of diffusion-weighted magnetic resonance imaging in prostate cancer patients

INTRODUCTION

We assessed the correlation between the apparent diffusion coefficient (ADC) and pathological Gleason score (GS) of prostate cancer patients.

METHODS

A total of 125 patients who underwent multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging before radical prostatectomy for prostate cancer were included in this study. ADC values were compared with different GS. We used receiver operating characteristic analysis and determined the ADC cutoff value to differentiate tumours with a GS of 6 from those with a GS ≥7.

RESULTS

We identified 34 patients (27.2%) with a GS of 6; 33 patients (26.4%) with a GS of 7; 22 patients (17.6%) with a GS of 8; and 36 patients (28.8%) with a GS of ≥9. The mean ADC value for disease with a GS of 6 was 0.914 ± 0.161 ×10^-3 mm²/s; GS of 7: 0.741 ± 0.164 ×10^-3 mm²/s; GS of 8: 0.679 ± 0.130 ×10^-3 mm²/s; and GS of ≥9: 0.593 ± 0.089 ×10^-3 mm²/s. An ADC value of 0.830 ×10^-3mm²/s was the best cutoff value to identify prostate cancer with a GS of 6.

CONCLUSIONS

We observed an inverse relationship between GS and ADC value. Moreover, a cutoff ADC value may help differentiate disease with a GS of 6 from disease with a GS ≥7.