Author:
Aykanat Ibrahim Can,Kordan Yakup,Seymen Hulya,Koseoglu Ersin,Ozkan Arif,Esen Baris,Tarim Kayhan,Kulac Ibrahim,Falay Okan,Gurses Bengi,Baydar Dilek Ertoy,Canda Abdullah Erdem,Balbay Mevlana Derya,Demirkol Mehmet Onur,Esen Tarik
Abstract
Abstract
Background
To investigate the predictable parameters associated with downgrading in patients with a Gleason score (GS) 8 (4+4) in prostate biopsy after radical prostatectomy.
Methods
We retrospectively analyzed 62 patients with a GS of 4+4 on prostate biopsy who underwent robotic radical prostatectomy between 2017 and 2022.
Results
38 of 62 (61.2%) were downgraded. In multivariable logistic regression model, Ga-68 prostate-specific membrane antigen (PSMA) positron-emission tomography (PET)/computed tomography (CT) SUV max was independent predictor of downgrading (OR 0.904; p = 0.011) and a Logistic Regression model was constructed using the following formula: Y = 1.465–0.95 (PSMA PET/CT SUV max). The model using this variable correctly predicted the downgrading in 72.6% of patients. The AUC for PSMA PET/CT SUV max was 0.709 the cut off being 8.8.
A subgroup analysis was performed in 37 patients who had no other European Association of Urology (EAU) high risk features. 25 out of 37 (67.5%) were downgraded, and 21 of these 25 had organ confined disease. Low PSMA SUV max (<8.1) and percentage of GS 4+4 biopsy cores to cancer bearing cores (45.0%) were independently associated with downgrading to GS 7.
Conclusion
PSMA PET/CT can be used to predict downgrading in patients with GS 4+4 PCa. Patients with GS 4+4 disease, but no other EAU high risk features, low percentage of GS 4+4 biopsy cores to cancer bearing cores, and a low PSMA PET/CT SUV max are associated with a high likelihood of the cancer reclassification to intermediate risk group.
Publisher
Springer Science and Business Media LLC
Reference15 articles.
1. Sung H, Ferlay J, Siegel RL et al (2021) Global cancer statistics 2020: GLOBOCAN estimates of incidence and mortality worldwide for 36 cancers in 185 countries. CA Cancer J Clin 71:209–249
2. Cornford P, van den Bergh RCN, Briers E, Van den Broeck T, Brunckhorst O, Darraugh J, et al (2024) EAU-EANM-ESTRO-ESUR-ISUP-SIOG Guidelines on Prostate Cancer-2024 Update. Part I: Screening, Diagnosis, and Local Treatment with Curative Intent. Eur Urol. 12:S0302-2838(24)02254-1
3. Schaeffer EM, Srinivas S, Adra N, An Y, Barocas D, Bitting R, et al (2023) Prostate Cancer, Version 4.2023, NCCN Clinical Practice Guidelines in Oncology. J Natl Compr Canc Netw 21(10):1067–1096
4. Schreiber D, Wong AT, Rineer J et al (2015) Prostate biopsy concordance in a large population-based sample: a surveillance, epidemiology and end results study. J Clin Pathol 68:453–457
5. Qi R, Foo WC, Ferrandino MN et al (2017) Over half of contemporary clinical Gleason 8 on prostate biopsy are downgraded at radical prostatectomy. Can J Urol 24:8982–8989