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

Open access

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. Th e 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/intermediategrade (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.

If the inline PDF is not rendering correctly, you can download the PDF file here.

  • 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:

    • Crossref
    • Export Citation
  • 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:

    • Crossref
    • Export Citation
  • 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:

    • Crossref
    • Export Citation
  • 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:

    • Crossref
    • Export Citation
  • 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.

  • 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/.

  • 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.

  • 8. Brawley OW (2012). Trends in prostate cancer in the United States. J Natl Cancer Inst Monogr. 2012(45):152-6. doi:

    • Crossref
    • Export Citation
  • 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:

    • Crossref
    • Export Citation
  • 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:

    • Crossref
    • Export Citation
  • 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:

    • Crossref
    • Export Citation
  • 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.

  • 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.

  • 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:

    • Crossref
    • Export Citation
  • 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:

    • Crossref
    • Export Citation
  • 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.

  • 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.

  • 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:

    • Crossref
    • Export Citation
  • 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:

    • Crossref
    • Export Citation
  • 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:

    • Crossref
    • Export Citation
  • 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:

    • Crossref
    • Export Citation
  • 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:

    • Crossref
    • Export Citation
  • 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:

    • Crossref
    • Export Citation
  • 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:

    • Crossref
    • Export Citation
  • 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.

  • 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:

    • Crossref
    • Export Citation
Search
Journal information
Impact Factor


CiteScore 2018: 0.13

SCImago Journal Rank (SJR) 2018: 0.118
Source Normalized Impact per Paper (SNIP) 2018: 0.079

Metrics
All Time Past Year Past 30 Days
Abstract Views 0 0 0
Full Text Views 91 91 1
PDF Downloads 52 52 1