Gleason scoring at a comprehensive cancer center: what's the difference?

A systematic review and meta-analysis of patient-relevant outcomes in comprehensive cancer centers versus noncomprehensive cancer centers

This systematic review describes difference in patient-relevant outcomes between comprehensive cancers (CCCs) versus non-CCCs. Studies were identified in PubMed, Cochrane CENTRAL, Epistemonikos, and gray literature from January 2002 to May 2024. Data were extracted and appraised by two authors. Results were narratively synthesized, and meta-analyzed where appropriate. Of 2272 records screened, 36 observational studies were included, predominantly from the United States, and focused on adults with solid cancers. Compared to non-CCCs, studies consistently or predominantly reported superior outcomes at CCCs relating to mortality and survival, quality of peri- and postoperative care, rates of cancer recurrence or progression, and impact on symptoms and health-related quality of life. Meta-analysis showed a significantly lower overall mortality risk of 23% in CCCs compared to non-CCCs (hazard ratio, 0.77; 95% confidence interval, 0.74-0.81, p < .001), with medium heterogeneity (I2 = 64.61%; Q-test = 36.29, p < .01) observed between the studies. Studies reporting on health equity and costs outcomes consistently or predominantly favored non-CCCs over CCCs. Mixed results were reported for outcomes relating to time to care, palliative and end-of-life care, and health care utilization. The literature reports CCCs are associated with superior outcomes in many areas, especially around mortality and survival. Greater focus is needed to explore outcomes that are important to people with cancer including health-related quality of life, symptoms, and treatment experience, and economic evaluation. Rather than aiming for superior outcomes, CCCs should be striving to enable equitable, high value, patient-centered outcomes for all people affected by cancer.

Evaluating the Initial Experience and Clinical Impact of Prostate-Specific Membrane Antigen (PSMA) Positron Emission Tomography/Computed Tomography (PET/CT) Scans in Prostate Cancer Management: A Retrospective Study in Iraq

Background Prostate cancer is a significant health concern globally, especially in the Middle East, including Iraq. This study explores the adoption and impact of prostate-specific membrane antigen (PSMA) positron emission tomography/computed tomography (PET/CT) scans in Erbil, Iraq, from 2020 to 2023, marking a pivotal advancement in prostate cancer diagnostics in a region where the disease's prevalence is rising.  Materials and methods Through a retrospective analysis at Medya Diagnostic Center in Erbil, Iraq, involving 172 patients, we assessed the feasibility, applicability, and clinical utility of PSMA PET/CT in the local population.  Results The study highlights the modality's enhanced sensitivity and specificity in detecting prostate cancer and its metastases, with bone being the most frequent metastasis site. Despite positive outcomes, challenges such as integration into clinical practice, adherence to guidelines, and financial implications were identified. The majority of referrals came from medical oncologists, primarily for staging and response evaluation, indicating PSMA PET/CT's critical role in managing prostate cancer. The findings suggest a need for national guidelines, interdisciplinary collaboration, and educational initiatives to optimize the use of PSMA PET/CT in Iraq's healthcare setting.  Conclusions This study contributes valuable insights into the early experiences with PSMA PET/CT, paving the way for improved prostate cancer diagnostics and management in similar contexts.

Impact of prebiopsy magnetic resonance imaging on biopsy and radical prostatectomy grade concordance

BACKGROUND

Adoption of prostate magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) before biopsy is based on evidence demonstrating superior detection of clinically significant prostate cancer on biopsy. Whether this is due to the detection of otherwise occult higher grade cancers or preferential sampling of higher grade areas within an otherwise low-grade cancer is unknown.

METHODS

To distinguish these two possibilities, this study examined the effect of prebiopsy MRI on the rate of pathologic upgrading and downgrading at prostatectomy in Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results-Medicare linked data from 2010 to 2015. Logistic regression was performed to assess the effect of MRI use on the Gleason grade change between biopsy and prostatectomy.

RESULTS

Among biopsy-naive men, those who underwent prebiopsy MRI had higher odds of downgrading at prostatectomy (odds ratio [OR], 1.32; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.05-1.66). In contrast, the odds of upgrading were significantly lower for men who underwent prebiopsy MRI (OR, 0.78; 95% CI, 0.61-0.99). Limitations included a low overall rate of MRI-utilization prior to biopsy and an inability to distinguish between template, software-assisted and cognitive fusion biopsy.

CONCLUSIONS

Prebiopsy MRI is associated with both oversampling of higher grade areas, which results in downgrading at prostatectomy, and the detection of otherwise occult higher grade lesions, which results in less upgrading at prostatectomy.

Factors predicting pathological upgrading after prostatectomy in patients with Gleason grade group 1 prostate cancer based on opinion-matched biopsy specimens

The present study investigated the concordance between Gleason scores assigned to prostate biopsy specimens by outside pathologists and a urological pathology expert, and determined the risk of upgrading between opinion-matched Gleason grade group (GGG) 1 biopsy specimens and radical prostatectomy specimens. Between January 2012 and May 2018, 733 patients underwent robot-assisted radical prostatectomy. Patients whose original biopsy specimens from outside hospitals were reviewed by a urological pathology expert Okayama University Hospital were included. Patients who had received neoadjuvant hormonal therapy were excluded. Logistic regression analysis was used to identify predictors of upgrading among GGG 1 diagnoses. A total of 403 patients were included in the present study. Agreement in GGG between initial and second-opinion diagnoses was present in 256 cases (63.5%). Although opinion-matched cases improved concordance between biopsy and prostatectomy specimen GGG compared with single-opinion cases (initial, 35.2%; second-opinion, 36.5%; matched, 41.4%), 71% (56/79) of cases classified as GGG 1 were upgraded after prostatectomy. Multivariate analysis revealed that prostate-specific antigen density and Prostate Imaging Reporting and Data System version 2 score were significant predictors of upgrading (odds ratio, 1.10; P=0.01; and odds ratio, 1.88; P=0.03, respectively). In conclusion, the GGG concordance rate between needle-core biopsy and radical prostatectomy specimens was higher in opinion-matched cases; however, 71% of opinion-matched GGG1 cases were upgraded after robot-assisted radical prostatectomy. Urologists should propose treatment strategies or further biopsy rather than active surveillance for patients with GGG1 and a high PSAD and/or PI-RADS score.

Circulating blood miRNAs for prostate cancer risk stratification: miRroring the underlying tumor biology with liquid biopsies

Current risk stratification methods for prostate cancer – although they have seen marked improvements over the past decades – are far from perfect. Despite the significant utility of prostate-specific antigen as a biomarker to monitor for disease recurrence, it cannot predict which tumors will recur or recommend the best treatment for patients. Similarly, although biopsies are imperative for diagnosis and staging, they are saddled with limitations and risks. We must move toward a noninvasive biomarker that has predictive and prognostic efficacy. We therefore review the current literature on circulating miRNA biomarkers, apply their use to two significant clinical problems (ie, how limitations of prostate biopsies can impact diagnosis and treatment management, and the need to tailor treatment for a clinically heterogeneous disease), and evaluate how circulating miRNAs have inherent properties that make them ideal liquid biomarkers. We also outline current gaps in knowledge that must be addressed before they can be implemented into routine clinical practice. With further research on their function and validation of their biomarker utility in large prospective cohorts, circulating miRNAs will likely prove to be the liquid biopsies of tomorrow.

Impact of Pathology Review for Decision Therapy in Localized Prostate Cancer

Background

The Gleason score is an essential tool in the decision to treat localized prostate cancer. However, experienced pathologists can classify Gleason score differently than do low-volume pathologists, and this may affect the treatment decision. This study sought to assess the impact of pathology review of external biopsy specimens from 23 men with a recent diagnosis of localized prostate cancer.

Methods

All external biopsy specimens were reviewed at our pathology department. Data were retrospectively collected from scanned charts.

Results

The median patient age was 63 years (range: 46-74 years). All patients had a Karnofsky performance score of 90% to 100%. The median prostate-specific antigen level was 23.6 ng/dL (range: 1.04-13.6 ng/dL). Among the 23 reviews, the Gleason score changed for 8 (35%) patients: 7 upgraded and 1 downgraded. The new Gleason score affected the treatment decision in 5 of 8 cases (62.5%).

Conclusions

This study demonstrates the need for pathology review in patients with localized prostate cancer before treatment because Gleason score can change in more than one-third of patients and can affect treatment decision in almost two-thirds of recategorized patients.

Modernizing the diagnostic and decision-making pathway for prostate cancer

PSA has led to a drastic increase in the detection of prostate cancer, rendering this biomarker the gateway for the diagnostic pathway of prostatic neoplasms. However, the increase in incidence has not been mirrored by a similar reduction in mortality. Widespread PSA testing has facilitated the overdiagnosis and overtreatment of indolent disease. To reduce this phenomenon and avoid negative repercussions on the quality of life of men undergoing unnecessary therapies, the diagnostic pathway of prostate cancer needs to be improved. Multiparametric MRI (mp-MRI) can enhance the sensitivity and specificity of PSA, as well as the shortcomings of random biopsy sampling. This novel imaging technique has been proven to identify larger and more aggressive cancer foci, which should be targeted for treatment. New technological developments now allow for fusion of mp-MRI images with real-time ultrasound, opening the way to lesion-targeted biopsies. Furthermore, mp-MRI and targeted biopsies can also improve active surveillance protocols and permit more conservative focal therapy strategies. By implementing targeted biopsies, the diagnostic pathway will focus on clinically significant disease, consequently reducing overdiagnosis and overtreatment. Before this novel protocol becomes the new gold standard, mp-MRI acquisition and interpretation need to be standardized and targeted-biopsy strategies need to be further validated prior to abandoning random-sampling ones. Several multidisciplinary consortiums are already working on the standardization of prostate MRI, and there are ongoing prospective trials on targeted biopsies and MRI. Soon, imaging of prostatic lesions and selected biopsies will modify the diagnostic evaluation of prostate cancer, reducing overtreatment and therapy-derived complications that negatively affect quality of life.

Comparative meta-analysis of prognostic gene signatures for late-stage ovarian cancer

BACKGROUND

Ovarian cancer is the fifth most common cause of cancer deaths in women in the United States. Numerous gene signatures of patient prognosis have been proposed, but diverse data and methods make these difficult to compare or use in a clinically meaningful way. We sought to identify successful published prognostic gene signatures through systematic validation using public data.

METHODS

A systematic review identified 14 prognostic models for late-stage ovarian cancer. For each, we evaluated its 1) reimplementation as described by the original study, 2) performance for prognosis of overall survival in independent data, and 3) performance compared with random gene signatures. We compared and ranked models by validation in 10 published datasets comprising 1251 primarily high-grade, late-stage serous ovarian cancer patients. All tests of statistical significance were two-sided.

RESULTS

Twelve published models had 95% confidence intervals of the C-index that did not include the null value of 0.5; eight outperformed 97.5% of signatures including the same number of randomly selected genes and trained on the same data. The four top-ranked models achieved overall validation C-indices of 0.56 to 0.60 and shared anticorrelation with expression of immune response pathways. Most models demonstrated lower accuracy in new datasets than in validation sets presented in their publication.

CONCLUSIONS

This analysis provides definitive support for a handful of prognostic models but also confirms that these require improvement to be of clinical value. This work addresses outstanding controversies in the ovarian cancer literature and provides a reproducible framework for meta-analytic evaluation of gene signatures.

Comparative meta-analysis of prognostic gene signatures for late-stage ovarian cancer

BACKGROUND

Ovarian cancer is the fifth most common cause of cancer deaths in women in the United States. Numerous gene signatures of patient prognosis have been proposed, but diverse data and methods make these difficult to compare or use in a clinically meaningful way. We sought to identify successful published prognostic gene signatures through systematic validation using public data.

METHODS

A systematic review identified 14 prognostic models for late-stage ovarian cancer. For each, we evaluated its 1) reimplementation as described by the original study, 2) performance for prognosis of overall survival in independent data, and 3) performance compared with random gene signatures. We compared and ranked models by validation in 10 published datasets comprising 1251 primarily high-grade, late-stage serous ovarian cancer patients. All tests of statistical significance were two-sided.

RESULTS

Twelve published models had 95% confidence intervals of the C-index that did not include the null value of 0.5; eight outperformed 97.5% of signatures including the same number of randomly selected genes and trained on the same data. The four top-ranked models achieved overall validation C-indices of 0.56 to 0.60 and shared anticorrelation with expression of immune response pathways. Most models demonstrated lower accuracy in new datasets than in validation sets presented in their publication.

CONCLUSIONS

This analysis provides definitive support for a handful of prognostic models but also confirms that these require improvement to be of clinical value. This work addresses outstanding controversies in the ovarian cancer literature and provides a reproducible framework for meta-analytic evaluation of gene signatures.