Cargando…
Grade and stage misclassification in intermediate unfavorable‐risk prostate cancer radiotherapy candidates
BACKGROUND: We tested for upgrading (Gleason grade group [GGG] ≥ 4) and/or upstaging to non‐organ‐confined stage ([NOC] ≥ pT3/pN1) in intermediate unfavorable‐risk (IU) prostate cancer (PCa) patients treated with radical prostatectomy, since both change the considerations for dose and/or type of rad...
Autores principales: | , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , |
---|---|
Formato: | Online Artículo Texto |
Lenguaje: | English |
Publicado: |
John Wiley and Sons Inc.
2022
|
Materias: | |
Acceso en línea: | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9325037/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/35365851 http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/pros.24349 |
_version_ | 1784756950512173056 |
---|---|
author | Sorce, Gabriele Flammia, Rocco Simone Hoeh, Benedikt Chierigo, Francesco Hohenhorst, Lukas Panunzio, Andrea Stabile, Armando Gandaglia, Giorgio Tian, Zhe Tilki, Derya Terrone, Carlo Gallucci, Michele Chun, Felix K. H. Antonelli, Alessandro Saad, Fred Shariat, Shahrokh F. Montorsi, Francesco Briganti, Alberto Karakiewicz, Pierre I. |
author_facet | Sorce, Gabriele Flammia, Rocco Simone Hoeh, Benedikt Chierigo, Francesco Hohenhorst, Lukas Panunzio, Andrea Stabile, Armando Gandaglia, Giorgio Tian, Zhe Tilki, Derya Terrone, Carlo Gallucci, Michele Chun, Felix K. H. Antonelli, Alessandro Saad, Fred Shariat, Shahrokh F. Montorsi, Francesco Briganti, Alberto Karakiewicz, Pierre I. |
author_sort | Sorce, Gabriele |
collection | PubMed |
description | BACKGROUND: We tested for upgrading (Gleason grade group [GGG] ≥ 4) and/or upstaging to non‐organ‐confined stage ([NOC] ≥ pT3/pN1) in intermediate unfavorable‐risk (IU) prostate cancer (PCa) patients treated with radical prostatectomy, since both change the considerations for dose and/or type of radiotherapy (RT) and duration of androgen deprivation therapy (ADT). METHODS: We relied on Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (2010–2015). Proportions of (a) upgrading, (b) upstaging, or (c) upgrading and/or upstaging were tabulated and tested in multivariable logistic regression models. RESULTS: We identified 7269 IU PCa patients. Upgrading was recorded in 479 (6.6%) and upstaging in 2398 (33.0%), for a total of 2616 (36.0%) upgraded and/or upstaged patients, who no longer fulfilled the IU grade and stage definition. Prostate‐specific antigen, clinical stage, biopsy GGG, and percentage of positive cores, neither individually nor in multivariable logistic regression models, discriminated between upgraded and/or upstaged patients versus others. CONCLUSIONS: IU PCa patients showed very high (36%) upgrading and/or upstaging proportion. Interestingly, the overwhelming majority of those were upstaged to NOC. Conversely, very few were upgraded to GGG ≥ 4. In consequence, more than one‐third of IU PCa patients treated with RT may be exposed to suboptimal dose and/or type of RT and to insufficient duration of ADT, since their true grade and stage corresponded to high‐risk PCa definition, instead of IU PCa. Data about magnetic resonance imaging were not available but may potentially help with better stage discrimination. |
format | Online Article Text |
id | pubmed-9325037 |
institution | National Center for Biotechnology Information |
language | English |
publishDate | 2022 |
publisher | John Wiley and Sons Inc. |
record_format | MEDLINE/PubMed |
spelling | pubmed-93250372022-07-30 Grade and stage misclassification in intermediate unfavorable‐risk prostate cancer radiotherapy candidates Sorce, Gabriele Flammia, Rocco Simone Hoeh, Benedikt Chierigo, Francesco Hohenhorst, Lukas Panunzio, Andrea Stabile, Armando Gandaglia, Giorgio Tian, Zhe Tilki, Derya Terrone, Carlo Gallucci, Michele Chun, Felix K. H. Antonelli, Alessandro Saad, Fred Shariat, Shahrokh F. Montorsi, Francesco Briganti, Alberto Karakiewicz, Pierre I. Prostate Original Articles BACKGROUND: We tested for upgrading (Gleason grade group [GGG] ≥ 4) and/or upstaging to non‐organ‐confined stage ([NOC] ≥ pT3/pN1) in intermediate unfavorable‐risk (IU) prostate cancer (PCa) patients treated with radical prostatectomy, since both change the considerations for dose and/or type of radiotherapy (RT) and duration of androgen deprivation therapy (ADT). METHODS: We relied on Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (2010–2015). Proportions of (a) upgrading, (b) upstaging, or (c) upgrading and/or upstaging were tabulated and tested in multivariable logistic regression models. RESULTS: We identified 7269 IU PCa patients. Upgrading was recorded in 479 (6.6%) and upstaging in 2398 (33.0%), for a total of 2616 (36.0%) upgraded and/or upstaged patients, who no longer fulfilled the IU grade and stage definition. Prostate‐specific antigen, clinical stage, biopsy GGG, and percentage of positive cores, neither individually nor in multivariable logistic regression models, discriminated between upgraded and/or upstaged patients versus others. CONCLUSIONS: IU PCa patients showed very high (36%) upgrading and/or upstaging proportion. Interestingly, the overwhelming majority of those were upstaged to NOC. Conversely, very few were upgraded to GGG ≥ 4. In consequence, more than one‐third of IU PCa patients treated with RT may be exposed to suboptimal dose and/or type of RT and to insufficient duration of ADT, since their true grade and stage corresponded to high‐risk PCa definition, instead of IU PCa. Data about magnetic resonance imaging were not available but may potentially help with better stage discrimination. John Wiley and Sons Inc. 2022-04-01 2022-07-01 /pmc/articles/PMC9325037/ /pubmed/35365851 http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/pros.24349 Text en © 2022 The Authors. The Prostate published by Wiley Periodicals LLC. https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/This is an open access article under the terms of the http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/ (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/) License, which permits use, distribution and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited and is not used for commercial purposes. |
spellingShingle | Original Articles Sorce, Gabriele Flammia, Rocco Simone Hoeh, Benedikt Chierigo, Francesco Hohenhorst, Lukas Panunzio, Andrea Stabile, Armando Gandaglia, Giorgio Tian, Zhe Tilki, Derya Terrone, Carlo Gallucci, Michele Chun, Felix K. H. Antonelli, Alessandro Saad, Fred Shariat, Shahrokh F. Montorsi, Francesco Briganti, Alberto Karakiewicz, Pierre I. Grade and stage misclassification in intermediate unfavorable‐risk prostate cancer radiotherapy candidates |
title | Grade and stage misclassification in intermediate unfavorable‐risk prostate cancer radiotherapy candidates |
title_full | Grade and stage misclassification in intermediate unfavorable‐risk prostate cancer radiotherapy candidates |
title_fullStr | Grade and stage misclassification in intermediate unfavorable‐risk prostate cancer radiotherapy candidates |
title_full_unstemmed | Grade and stage misclassification in intermediate unfavorable‐risk prostate cancer radiotherapy candidates |
title_short | Grade and stage misclassification in intermediate unfavorable‐risk prostate cancer radiotherapy candidates |
title_sort | grade and stage misclassification in intermediate unfavorable‐risk prostate cancer radiotherapy candidates |
topic | Original Articles |
url | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9325037/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/35365851 http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/pros.24349 |
work_keys_str_mv | AT sorcegabriele gradeandstagemisclassificationinintermediateunfavorableriskprostatecancerradiotherapycandidates AT flammiaroccosimone gradeandstagemisclassificationinintermediateunfavorableriskprostatecancerradiotherapycandidates AT hoehbenedikt gradeandstagemisclassificationinintermediateunfavorableriskprostatecancerradiotherapycandidates AT chierigofrancesco gradeandstagemisclassificationinintermediateunfavorableriskprostatecancerradiotherapycandidates AT hohenhorstlukas gradeandstagemisclassificationinintermediateunfavorableriskprostatecancerradiotherapycandidates AT panunzioandrea gradeandstagemisclassificationinintermediateunfavorableriskprostatecancerradiotherapycandidates AT stabilearmando gradeandstagemisclassificationinintermediateunfavorableriskprostatecancerradiotherapycandidates AT gandagliagiorgio gradeandstagemisclassificationinintermediateunfavorableriskprostatecancerradiotherapycandidates AT tianzhe gradeandstagemisclassificationinintermediateunfavorableriskprostatecancerradiotherapycandidates AT tilkiderya gradeandstagemisclassificationinintermediateunfavorableriskprostatecancerradiotherapycandidates AT terronecarlo gradeandstagemisclassificationinintermediateunfavorableriskprostatecancerradiotherapycandidates AT galluccimichele gradeandstagemisclassificationinintermediateunfavorableriskprostatecancerradiotherapycandidates AT chunfelixkh gradeandstagemisclassificationinintermediateunfavorableriskprostatecancerradiotherapycandidates AT antonellialessandro gradeandstagemisclassificationinintermediateunfavorableriskprostatecancerradiotherapycandidates AT saadfred gradeandstagemisclassificationinintermediateunfavorableriskprostatecancerradiotherapycandidates AT shariatshahrokhf gradeandstagemisclassificationinintermediateunfavorableriskprostatecancerradiotherapycandidates AT montorsifrancesco gradeandstagemisclassificationinintermediateunfavorableriskprostatecancerradiotherapycandidates AT brigantialberto gradeandstagemisclassificationinintermediateunfavorableriskprostatecancerradiotherapycandidates AT karakiewiczpierrei gradeandstagemisclassificationinintermediateunfavorableriskprostatecancerradiotherapycandidates |