Definition of Insignificant Tumor Volume of Gleason Score 3 + 3 = 6 (Grade Group 1) Prostate Cancer at Radical Prostatectomy—Is it Time to Increase the Threshold?

Oleksandr Kryvenko, Jonathan I. Epstein

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

12 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

Purpose We investigated the tumor volume of insignificant Gleason score 3 + 3 = 6 (Grade Group 1) prostate cancer with contemporary grading. Materials and Methods We studied 439 consecutive radical prostatectomies with Gleason score 3 + 3 = 6 (Grade Group 1) cancer entirely submitted for histological examination. Results A total of 407 cases (92.7%) were organ confined (pT2), 17 (3.9%) had a positive margin at the apex (pT2+) and 15 (3.4%) had extraprostatic extension (pT3a). Extraprostatic extension was focal in 10 cases and nonfocal in 5. pT2 and pT3 cases did not differ by age or gland weight. When total tumor volume was less than 0.5 cm3, 6 of 311 tumors (1.9%) had extraprostatic extension and 6 of 311 (1.9%) had tumor at the margin at the apex for a total of 12 significant cancers (3.8%). Tumor volumes between 0.5 and 1.0 and 1.0 and 2.0 cm3 had a similar incidence of significant cancers. Of 108 cases with a tumor volume of 0.5 to 2.0 cm3 5 (4.6%) had extraprostatic extension and 7 (6.5%) had pT2+ at the apex for a total of 12 significant cancers (11.1%). The incidence of significant cancer increased further with tumor volumes greater than 2.0 cm3. Conclusions Only 3.8% of less than 0.5 cm3 Gleason score 3 + 3 = 6 (Grade Group 1) cancers had extraprostatic extension or extended apically where surgical removal was not possible. In contrast, 11.1% of 0.5 to 2.0 cm3 cancers had these adverse features and would not have been tumors amenable to active surveillance. Our data indicate that increasing the threshold above 0.5 cm3 is associated with a significantly increased likelihood of extraprostatic extension and positive surgical margins. This should be considered in future studies of the prognostic value of tumor volume and in studies of active surveillance criteria.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)1664-1669
Number of pages6
JournalJournal of Urology
Volume196
Issue number6
DOIs
StatePublished - Dec 1 2016

Fingerprint

Neoplasm Grading
Tumor Burden
Prostatic Neoplasms
Neoplasms
Incidence
Prostatectomy
Weights and Measures

Keywords

  • neoplasm grading
  • neoplasm invasiveness
  • prostatic neoplasms
  • tumor burden
  • watchful waiting

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Urology

Cite this

@article{18c92766dfd54be384f3190afde68caf,
title = "Definition of Insignificant Tumor Volume of Gleason Score 3 + 3 = 6 (Grade Group 1) Prostate Cancer at Radical Prostatectomy—Is it Time to Increase the Threshold?",
abstract = "Purpose We investigated the tumor volume of insignificant Gleason score 3 + 3 = 6 (Grade Group 1) prostate cancer with contemporary grading. Materials and Methods We studied 439 consecutive radical prostatectomies with Gleason score 3 + 3 = 6 (Grade Group 1) cancer entirely submitted for histological examination. Results A total of 407 cases (92.7{\%}) were organ confined (pT2), 17 (3.9{\%}) had a positive margin at the apex (pT2+) and 15 (3.4{\%}) had extraprostatic extension (pT3a). Extraprostatic extension was focal in 10 cases and nonfocal in 5. pT2 and pT3 cases did not differ by age or gland weight. When total tumor volume was less than 0.5 cm3, 6 of 311 tumors (1.9{\%}) had extraprostatic extension and 6 of 311 (1.9{\%}) had tumor at the margin at the apex for a total of 12 significant cancers (3.8{\%}). Tumor volumes between 0.5 and 1.0 and 1.0 and 2.0 cm3 had a similar incidence of significant cancers. Of 108 cases with a tumor volume of 0.5 to 2.0 cm3 5 (4.6{\%}) had extraprostatic extension and 7 (6.5{\%}) had pT2+ at the apex for a total of 12 significant cancers (11.1{\%}). The incidence of significant cancer increased further with tumor volumes greater than 2.0 cm3. Conclusions Only 3.8{\%} of less than 0.5 cm3 Gleason score 3 + 3 = 6 (Grade Group 1) cancers had extraprostatic extension or extended apically where surgical removal was not possible. In contrast, 11.1{\%} of 0.5 to 2.0 cm3 cancers had these adverse features and would not have been tumors amenable to active surveillance. Our data indicate that increasing the threshold above 0.5 cm3 is associated with a significantly increased likelihood of extraprostatic extension and positive surgical margins. This should be considered in future studies of the prognostic value of tumor volume and in studies of active surveillance criteria.",
keywords = "neoplasm grading, neoplasm invasiveness, prostatic neoplasms, tumor burden, watchful waiting",
author = "Oleksandr Kryvenko and Epstein, {Jonathan I.}",
year = "2016",
month = "12",
day = "1",
doi = "10.1016/j.juro.2016.06.013",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "196",
pages = "1664--1669",
journal = "Journal of Urology",
issn = "0022-5347",
publisher = "Elsevier Inc.",
number = "6",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Definition of Insignificant Tumor Volume of Gleason Score 3 + 3 = 6 (Grade Group 1) Prostate Cancer at Radical Prostatectomy—Is it Time to Increase the Threshold?

AU - Kryvenko, Oleksandr

AU - Epstein, Jonathan I.

PY - 2016/12/1

Y1 - 2016/12/1

N2 - Purpose We investigated the tumor volume of insignificant Gleason score 3 + 3 = 6 (Grade Group 1) prostate cancer with contemporary grading. Materials and Methods We studied 439 consecutive radical prostatectomies with Gleason score 3 + 3 = 6 (Grade Group 1) cancer entirely submitted for histological examination. Results A total of 407 cases (92.7%) were organ confined (pT2), 17 (3.9%) had a positive margin at the apex (pT2+) and 15 (3.4%) had extraprostatic extension (pT3a). Extraprostatic extension was focal in 10 cases and nonfocal in 5. pT2 and pT3 cases did not differ by age or gland weight. When total tumor volume was less than 0.5 cm3, 6 of 311 tumors (1.9%) had extraprostatic extension and 6 of 311 (1.9%) had tumor at the margin at the apex for a total of 12 significant cancers (3.8%). Tumor volumes between 0.5 and 1.0 and 1.0 and 2.0 cm3 had a similar incidence of significant cancers. Of 108 cases with a tumor volume of 0.5 to 2.0 cm3 5 (4.6%) had extraprostatic extension and 7 (6.5%) had pT2+ at the apex for a total of 12 significant cancers (11.1%). The incidence of significant cancer increased further with tumor volumes greater than 2.0 cm3. Conclusions Only 3.8% of less than 0.5 cm3 Gleason score 3 + 3 = 6 (Grade Group 1) cancers had extraprostatic extension or extended apically where surgical removal was not possible. In contrast, 11.1% of 0.5 to 2.0 cm3 cancers had these adverse features and would not have been tumors amenable to active surveillance. Our data indicate that increasing the threshold above 0.5 cm3 is associated with a significantly increased likelihood of extraprostatic extension and positive surgical margins. This should be considered in future studies of the prognostic value of tumor volume and in studies of active surveillance criteria.

AB - Purpose We investigated the tumor volume of insignificant Gleason score 3 + 3 = 6 (Grade Group 1) prostate cancer with contemporary grading. Materials and Methods We studied 439 consecutive radical prostatectomies with Gleason score 3 + 3 = 6 (Grade Group 1) cancer entirely submitted for histological examination. Results A total of 407 cases (92.7%) were organ confined (pT2), 17 (3.9%) had a positive margin at the apex (pT2+) and 15 (3.4%) had extraprostatic extension (pT3a). Extraprostatic extension was focal in 10 cases and nonfocal in 5. pT2 and pT3 cases did not differ by age or gland weight. When total tumor volume was less than 0.5 cm3, 6 of 311 tumors (1.9%) had extraprostatic extension and 6 of 311 (1.9%) had tumor at the margin at the apex for a total of 12 significant cancers (3.8%). Tumor volumes between 0.5 and 1.0 and 1.0 and 2.0 cm3 had a similar incidence of significant cancers. Of 108 cases with a tumor volume of 0.5 to 2.0 cm3 5 (4.6%) had extraprostatic extension and 7 (6.5%) had pT2+ at the apex for a total of 12 significant cancers (11.1%). The incidence of significant cancer increased further with tumor volumes greater than 2.0 cm3. Conclusions Only 3.8% of less than 0.5 cm3 Gleason score 3 + 3 = 6 (Grade Group 1) cancers had extraprostatic extension or extended apically where surgical removal was not possible. In contrast, 11.1% of 0.5 to 2.0 cm3 cancers had these adverse features and would not have been tumors amenable to active surveillance. Our data indicate that increasing the threshold above 0.5 cm3 is associated with a significantly increased likelihood of extraprostatic extension and positive surgical margins. This should be considered in future studies of the prognostic value of tumor volume and in studies of active surveillance criteria.

KW - neoplasm grading

KW - neoplasm invasiveness

KW - prostatic neoplasms

KW - tumor burden

KW - watchful waiting

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=84995911623&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=84995911623&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1016/j.juro.2016.06.013

DO - 10.1016/j.juro.2016.06.013

M3 - Article

VL - 196

SP - 1664

EP - 1669

JO - Journal of Urology

JF - Journal of Urology

SN - 0022-5347

IS - 6

ER -