Advertisement
Research Article| Volume 46, ISSUE 4, P306-310, June 2014

Download started.

Ok

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

DOI:https://doi.org/10.1097/PAT.0000000000000097
Nationwide prevalence of lymph node metastases in Gleason score 3+3=6 prostate cancer
Previous ArticleAscending aortitis: a clinicopathological study of 21 cases in a series of 300 aortic repairs
Next ArticleBRAFV600E mutation analysis by immunohistochemistry in patients with thoracic metastases from colorectal 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 & Personal: 24 hour online accessCorporate R&D Professionals: 24 hour online access
      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
      Register: Create an account
      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

      5. 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

      Article info

      Publication history

      Accepted: January 9, 2014
      Received in revised form: January 2, 2014
      Received: October 29, 2013

      Identification

      DOI: https://doi.org/10.1097/PAT.0000000000000097

      Copyright

      © 2014 Royal College of Pathologists of Australasia. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

      ScienceDirect

      Access this article on ScienceDirect

      The content on this site is intended for healthcare professionals.


      We use cookies to help provide and enhance our service and tailor content. To update your cookie settings, please visit the Cookie Preference Center for this site.
      Copyright © 2023 Elsevier Inc. except certain content provided by third parties.


      RELX