Multiple cores of Gleason score 6 correlate with favourable findings at radical prostatectomy
- PMID: 23350787
- PMCID: PMC3978182
- DOI: 10.1111/j.1464-410X.2012.11680.x
Multiple cores of Gleason score 6 correlate with favourable findings at radical prostatectomy
Abstract
Objective: To establish whether the good prognosis of Gleason score 6 (GS6) is maintained in the setting of multiple involved cores.
Patients and methods: In total, 6156 men (from 1 April 2000 to 30 April 2007) with GS6 on biopsy underwent radical prostatectomy (RP) at our institution. The number of positive cores was correlated with the outcome at RP.
Results: More positive cores correlated with less organ-confined disease (P < 0.001), positive margins (P < 0.012), increasing RP grade (P < 0.001) and increased seminal vesicles/lymph node involvement (P = 0.012). For men with data available, the actuarial risk of being biochemically free of disease at 5 years was 93.2% when ≤6 cores were positive (812 men followed to 5 years) vs 89.1% if >6 cores were positive (41 men followed to 2 years) (P = 0.6). Although the predicted 'cure rate' of >75% probability of a tumour showing no evidence of biochemical recurrence at 10 years after RP was statistically different between cases with ≤6 vs >6 positive cores (P < 0.0001), the outcome in both groups was still favourable (90.5% vs 84%). Partin-like tables were generated factoring in the number of positive cores to predict organ-confined disease as a guide for urologists to perform nerve-sparing surgery. For example, with T1c disease, there was a ≥75% probability of organ-confined disease with one to three positive cores regardless of prostate-specific antigen (PSA) level, and the same probability was present with four to six positive cores and a PSA level of 0-4 ng/mL.
Conclusion: A low Gleason score on biopsy is a powerful prognostic finding, such that this favourable outcome is maintained even in the setting of multiple positive cores with GS6.
© 2013 BJU International.
Conflict of interest statement
None declared.
References
-
- Han M, Partin AW, Zahurak M, Piantadosi S, Epstein JI, Walsh PC. Biochemical (prostate specific antigen) recurrence probability following radical prostatectomy for clinically localized prostate cancer. J Urol. 2003;169:517–523. - PubMed
-
- Wang D, Lawton C. Pelvic lymph node irradiation for prostate cancer: who, why, and when? Semin Radiat Oncol. 2008;18:35–40. - PubMed
-
- Ohori M, Kattan MW, Koh H, et al. Predicting the presence and side of extracapsular extension: a nomogram for staging prostate cancer. J Urol. 2004;171:1844–1849. - PubMed
-
- Boorjian SA, Karnes RJ, Rangel LJ, Bergstralh EJ, Blute ML. Mayo Clinic validation of the D’Amico risk group classification for predicting survival following radical prostatectomy. J Urol. 2008;179:1354–1360. - PubMed
-
- D’Amico AV, Whittington R, Malkowicz SB, et al. Biochemical outcome after radical prostatectomy, external beam radiation therapy, or interstitial radiation therapy for clinically localized prostate cancer. JAMA. 1998;280:969–974. - PubMed
Publication types
MeSH terms
Substances
Grants and funding
LinkOut - more resources
Full Text Sources
Other Literature Sources
Medical
Research Materials
Miscellaneous
