Nationwide prevalence of lymph node metastases in Gleason score 3+3=6 prostate cancer

      This paper is only available as a PDF. To read, Please Download here.

      Summary

      Based on revisions of Gleason scoring in 2005, it has been reported that nodal metastases at radical prostatectomy in Gleason 3+3=6 (GS6) prostate cancer are extremely rare, and that GS6 cancers with nodal metastases are invariably upgraded upon review by academic urological pathologists. We analysed the prevalence and determinants of nodalmetastases in a national sample of patients with GS6 cancer. We utilised the SEER database to identify patients diagnosed with GS6 prostate cancer during 2004-2010 who had radical prostatectomy and ≥1 lymph node(s) examined. We calculated the prevalence of nodal metastases and constructed a multivariable logistic regression model to identify factors associated with nodal metastases. Among 21,960 patients, the prevalence of nodal metastases was 0.48%. Older age, preoperative PSA >10 ng/mL, and advanced stage were positively associated with nodal metastases. Lymph node metastases in GS6 cancer are more prevalent in a nationwide population compared to academic centres. Revised guidelines for Gleason scoring have made GS6 cancer a more homogeneously indolent disease, which may be relevant in the era of active surveillance. We submit that lymph node metastases in GS6 cancer be used as a proxy for adherence to the 2005 ISUP consensus on Gleason grading.

      Key words

      To read this article in full you will need to make a payment

      Purchase one-time access:

      Academic and Personal
      One-time access price info
      • For academic or personal research use, select 'Academic and Personal'
      • For corporate R&D use, select 'Corporate R&D Professionals'

      Subscribe:

      Subscribe to Pathology
      Already a print subscriber? Claim online access
      Already an online subscriber? Sign in
      Institutional Access: Sign in to ScienceDirect

      References

        • Bailar J.C.
        • Mellinger G.T.
        • Gleason D.F.
        Survival rates of patients with prostatic cancer, tumor stage, and differentiation—preliminary report.
        Cancer Chemother Rep. 1966; 50: 129-136
        • Gleason D.F.
        Classification of prostatic carcinomas.
        Cancer Chemother Rep. 1966; 50: 125-128
        • Epstein J.I.
        • Allsbrook W.C.
        • Amin M.B.
        The 2005 International Society of Urological Pathology (ISUP) Consensus Conference on Gleason Grading of Prostatic Carcinoma.
        Am J Surg Pathol. 2005; 29: 1228-1242
        • Ross H.M.
        • Kryvenko O.N.
        • Cowan J.E.
        Do adenocarcinomas of the prostate with Gleason score (GS) ≤6 have the potential to metastasize to lymph nodes?.
        Am J Surg Pathol. 2012; 36: 1346-1352
      1. Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER) Program. SEER*Stat Database: Incidence - SEER 18 Regs Research Data + Hurricane Katrina Impacted Louisiana Cases, Nov 2012 Sub (1973–2010 varying). Linked To County Attributes – Total US, 1969–2011 Counties, National Cancer Institute, DCCPS, Surveillance Research Program, Surveillance Systems Branch, released April 2013, based on the November 2012 submission. www.seer.cancer.gov

        • Birkhahn M.
        • Penson D.F.
        • Cai J.
        Long-term outcome in patients with a Gleason score ≤6 prostate cancer treated by radical prostatectomy.
        BJU Int. 2011; 108: 660-664
        • Ganz P.A.
        • Barry J.M.
        • Burke W.
        NIH State-of-the-Science Conference Statement: Role of active surveillance in the management of men with localized prostate cancer.
        NIH Consensus and State-of-the-Science Statements. 2011; 28: 1-27
        • Esserman L.J.
        • Thompson I.M.
        • Reid B.
        Overdiagnosis and overtreatment in cancer: an opportunity for improvement.
        JAMA. 2013; 310: 797-798
        • Gleason D.F.
        • Mellinger G.T.
        Prediction of prognosis for prostatic adenocarcinoma by combined histological grading and clinical staging.
        J Urol. 1974; 111: 58-64
        • Allsbrook W.C.
        • Mangold K.A.
        • Johnson M.H.
        Interobserver reproducibility of Gleason grading of prostatic carcinoma: urologic pathologists.
        Hum Pathol. 2001; 32: 74-80
        • McNeal J.E.
        • Villers A.A.
        • Redwine E.A.
        Histologic differentiation, cancer volume, and pelvic lymph node metastasis in adenocarcinoma of the prostate.
        Cancer. 1990; 66: 1225-1233
        • Albertsen P.C.
        • Hanley J.A.
        • Barrows G.H.
        Prostate cancer and the Will Rogers phenomenon.
        J Natl Cancer Inst. 2005; 97: 1248-1253
        • Klotz L.
        • Zhang L.
        • Lam A.
        Clinical results of long-term follow-up of a large, active surveillance cohort with localized prostate cancer.
        J Clin Oncol. 2010; 28: 126-131
        • Carter H.B.
        • Walsh P.C.
        • Landis P.
        Expectant management of nonpalpable prostate cancer with curative intent: preliminary results.
        J Urol. 2002; 167: 1231-1234
        • King C.R.
        • McNeal J.E.
        • Gill H.
        Reliability of small amounts of cancer in prostate biopsies to reveal pathologic grade.
        Urology. 2006; 67: 1229-1234
        • Cooperberg M.
        • Simko J.
        • Falzarano S.
        Development and validation of the biopsy-based genomic prostate score (GPS) as a predictor of high grade or extracapsular prostate cancer to improve patient selection for active surveillance.
        J Urol. 2013; 189: e873
        • Brooks J.D.
        • Tibshirani R.
        • Ferrari M.
        • et al.
        The impact of tumor volume on outcomes after radical prostatectomy: implications for prostate cancer screening.
        Open Prostate Cancer J. 2008; 1: 1-8
        • Mullins J.K.
        • Feng Z Z.
        • Trock BJ B.J.
        • et al.
        The impact of anatomical radical retropubic prostatectomy on cancer control: the 30-year anniversary.
        J Urol. 2012; 188: 2219-2224
        • Brimo F.
        • Schultz L.
        • Epstein J.I.
        The value of mandatory second opinion pathology review of prostate needle biopsy interpretation before radical prostatectomy.
        J Urol. 2010; 184: 26-30
        • McKenney J.K.
        • Simko J.
        • Bonham M.
        • et al.
        The potential impact of reproducibility of Gleason grading in men with early stage prostate cancer managed by active surveillance: a multi-institutional study.
        J Urol. 2011; 186: 465-469