Contemporary Distribution of High-Grade Prostate Cancer in the Circumstances of Opportunistic Testing

Stojadinovic, Milorad M; Pantic, Damjan N; Stojadinovic, Miroslav M

doi:10.2478/sjecr-2018-0030

Abstract

Screening has dramatically changed the distribution of the mean age, stage and grade of prostate cancer (PCa) at diagnosis. However, regional-level data that characterize contemporary PCa patients are limited. The aim of the study was to ascertain main clinical and pathological characteristics of PCa at the present time in the circumstances of opportunistic testing.

High-grade PCa according to age, serum prostate specific antigen (PSA), volume prostate, PSA density (PSAD), digital rectal examination (DRE) number of positive cores biopsies and the average percentage of cancer in biopsy at diagnosis has been retrospectively evaluated in 100 men with biopsyproven PCa, at Clinical Centre Kragujevac, from September 2016 until September 2017. PCa were stratified according to Gleason score (GS) into low/intermediate-grade (GS ≤ 7) and high-grade (GS ≥ 8). To identify the determinants associated with high-grade PCa, we performed univariate and multivariate logistic regression.

The most prevalent PCa were the low/intermediate-grade (65%), followed by high-grade (35%). The mean age of the patients was 71.5 (range: 56–88) years and median PSA was 14.6 (range: 1.4–935) ng/ml. There were significant differences in age, PSA, PSAD, DRE, number of positive biopsy and average percentage of cancer in biopsy between patients with or without high-grade GS. Logistic analysis demonstrated the PSAD and age have strong prognostic value of high-grade PCa.

In conclusion, our study has shown the worrying frequency of high-grade PCa in the circumstances of opportunistic testing. Older men and higher level of PSAD had a much higher probability of high-grade PCa.

References

1. Arnold M, Karim-Kos HE, Coebergh JW, Byrnes G, Antilla A, Ferlay J, et al. (2015). Recent trends in incidence of five common cancers in 26 European countries since 1988: analysis of the European Cancer Observatory. Eur J Cancer 51(9):1164-87. doi: 10.1016/j.ejca.2013.09.002.24120180
Open DOI Search in Google Scholar Back to article
2. Hoffman RM, Meisner AL, Arap W, Barry M, Shah SK, Zeliadt SB, et al. (2016). Trends in United States Prostate Cancer Incidence Rates by Age and Stage, 1995-2012. Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev. 25(2):259-63. doi: 10.1158/1055-9965.EPI-15-0723.26646364
Open DOI Search in Google Scholar Back to article
3. Shao YH, Demissie K, Shih W, Mehta AR, Stein MN, Roberts CB, et al. (2009). Contemporary risk profile of prostate cancer in the United States. J Natl Cancer Inst. 101(18):1280-3. doi: 10.1093/jnci/djp262.274472919713548
Open DOI Search in Google Scholar Back to article
4. van Poppel H (2014). Locally advanced and high risk prostate cancer: The best indication for initial radical prostatectomy? Asian J Urol. 1(1):40-45. doi: 10.1016/j.ajur.2014.09.009.583288329511636
Open DOI Search in Google Scholar Back to article
5. Noone AM, Howlader N, Krapcho M, Miller D, Brest A, Yu M, et al. (eds) (2018). SEER Cancer Statistics Review, 1975-2015, National Cancer Institute. Bethesda, MD, https://seer.cancer.gov/csr/1975_2015/. Accessed April 30, 2018.
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
6. Institut za javno zdravlje Srbije „Dr Milan Jovanović Batut“. Incidencija i mortalitet od raka u centralnoj Srbiji, 1999-2008. [cited 2016 Apr 30]. Available from: http://www.batut.org.rs/.
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
7. Epstein JI, Allsbrook WC Jr, Amin MB, Egevad LL; ISUP Grading Committee (2005). The 2005 International Society of Urological Pathology (ISUP) Consensus Conference on Gleason Grading of Prostatic Carcinoma. Am J Surg Pathol. 29(9):1228-42. PubMed PMID: 16096414.
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
8. Brawley OW (2012). Trends in prostate cancer in the United States. J Natl Cancer Inst Monogr. 2012(45):152-6. doi: 10.1093/jncimonographs/lgs035.354088123271766
Open DOI Search in Google Scholar Back to article
9. Pepe P, Pennisi M (2015). Gleason score stratification according to age at diagnosis in 1028 men. Contemp Oncol (Pozn). 19(6):471-3. doi: 10.5114/wo.2015.56654.473145426843845
Open DOI Search in Google Scholar Back to article
10. Muralidhar V, Ziehr DR, Mahal BA, Chen YW, Nezolosky MD, Viswanathan VB, et al. (2015). Association Between Older Age and Increasing Gleason Score. Clin Genitourin Cancer. 13(6):525-30.e1-3. doi: 10.1016/j.clgc.2015.05.007.26119229
Open DOI Search in Google Scholar Back to article
11. Ji G, Huang C, Song G, Xiong G, Fang D, Wang H, et al. (2017). Are the Pathological Characteristics of Prostate Cancer More Aggressive or More Indolent Depending upon the Patient Age? Biomed Res Int. 2017:1438027. doi: 10.1155/2017/1438027.531862028265568
Open DOI Search in Google Scholar Back to article
12. Epstein JI, Walsh PC, Carter HB (2001). Dedifferentiation of prostate cancer grade with time in men followed expectantly for stage T1c disease. J Urol. 166(5):1688-91. PubMed PMID: 11586203.
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
13. Alibhai SM, Krahn MD, Fleshner NE, Cohen MM, Tomlinson GA, Naglie G (2004). The association between patient age and prostate cancer stage and grade at diagnosis. BJU Int. 94(3):303-6. PubMed PMID: 15291856.
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
14. Pierorazio PM, Walsh PC, Partin AW, Epstein JI (2013). Prognostic Gleason grade grouping: data based on the modified Gleason scoring system. BJU Int. 111:753–60. doi: 10.1111/j.1464-410X.2012.11611.x.397814523464824
Open DOI Search in Google Scholar Back to article
15. Epstein JI, Zelefsky MJ, Sjoberg DD, Nelson JB, Egevad L, Magi-Galluzzi C, et al. (2016). A Contemporary Prostate Cancer Grading System: A Validated Alternative to the Gleason Score. Eur Urol. 69(3):428-35. doi: 10.1016/j.eururo.2015.06.046.500299226166626
Open DOI Search in Google Scholar Back to article
16. Benson MC, Whang IS, Pantuck A, Ring K, Kaplan SA, Olsson CA, et al. (1992). Prostate specific antigen density: a means of distinguishing benign prostatic hypertrophy and prostate cancer. J Urol.147(3 Pt 2):815-6. PubMed PMID: 1371554.
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
17. Kulkarni GS, Al-Azab R, Lockwood G, Toi A, Evans A, Trachtenberg J, et al. (2006). Evidence for a biopsy derived grade artifact among larger prostate glands. J Urol. 175:505-9. PubMed PMID: 16406982.
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
18. Yilmaz H, Ustuner M, Ciftci S, Yavuz U, Ozkan TA, Dillioglugil O (2014). Prostate volume predicts high grade prostate cancer both in digital rectal examination negative (ct1c) and positive (≥ct2) patients. Int Braz J Urol. 40(5):613-9. doi: 10.1590/S1677-5538.
Open DOI Search in Google Scholar Back to article
19. Ngo TC, Conti SL, Shinghal R, Presti JC Jr (2012). Prostate size does not predict high grade cancer. J Urol. 187:477-80. doi: 10.1016/j.juro.2011.10.042.22177152
Open DOI Search in Google Scholar Back to article
20. Stackhouse DA, Sun L, Schroeck FR, Jayachandran J, Caire AA, Acholo CO, et al. (2009). Factors predicting prostatic biopsy Gleason sum under grading. J Urol. 182(1):118-22. doi: 10.1016/j.juro.2009.02.127.19447436
Open DOI Search in Google Scholar Back to article
21. Mottet N, Bellmunt J, Bolla M, Briers E, Cumberbatch MG, De Santis M, et al. (2017). EAU-ESTRO-SIOG Guidelines on Prostate Cancer. Part 1: Screening, Diagnosis, and Local Treatment with Curative Intent. Eur Urol. 71(4):618-629. doi: 10.1016/j.eururo.2016.08.003.27568654
Open DOI Search in Google Scholar Back to article
22. Heidenreich A, Abrahamsson PA, Artibani W, Catto J, Montorsi F, Van Poppel H, et al. (2013). Early detection of prostate cancer: European Association of Urology recommendation. Eur Urol. 64(3):347-54. doi: 10.1016/j.eururo.2013.06.051.23856038
Open DOI Search in Google Scholar Back to article
23. Reese AC, Wessel SR, Fisher SG, Mydlo JH (2016). Evidence of prostate cancer “reverse stage migration” toward more advanced disease at diagnosis: Data from the Pennsylvania Cancer Registry. Urol Oncol. 34(8):335.e21-8. doi: 10.1016/j.urolonc.2016.03.014.27108226
Open DOI Search in Google Scholar Back to article
24. Schroder FH, Hugosson J, Roobol MJ, Tammela TL, Ciatto S, Nelen V, et al. ERSPC Investigators (2012). Prostate-cancer mortality at 11 years of follow-up. N Engl J Med. 366(11):981-90. doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa1113135.602758522417251
Open DOI Search in Google Scholar Back to article
25. Jani AB, Master VA, Rossi PJ, Liauw SL, Johnstone PA (2007). Grade migration in prostate cancer: an analysis using the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results registry. Prostate Cancer Prostatic Dis. 10(4):347-51. PubMed PMID: 17505529.
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
26. Siddiqui MM, Rais-Bahrami S, Turkbey B, George AK, Rothwax J, Shakir N, et al. (2015). Comparison of MR/ultrasound fusion-guided biopsy with ultrasound-guided biopsy for the diagnosis of prostate cancer. JAMA. 313(4):390-7. doi: 10.1001/jama.2014.17942.457257525626035
Open DOI Search in Google Scholar Back to article

Contemporary Distribution of High-Grade Prostate Cancer in the Circumstances of Opportunistic Testing

Abstract

Paradigm

My account