{"title":"对患有 2 级前列腺癌的男性进行病理评估。","authors":"Anika Jain, Lawrence Kim, Manish I Patel","doi":"10.5534/wjmh.230216","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Purpose: </strong>A variety of treatment options are now available for men with localized prostate cancer (PC); however, there is still debate in determining how and when to intervene for Grade Group (GG) 2 disease. Our study aims to formulate strategies to identify men at risk of upgrading and having adverse pathological outcomes.</p><p><strong>Materials and methods: </strong>This retrospective study includes 243 patients with GG2 PC that were treated with radical prostatectomy between 2015 and 2021. Patients on active surveillance, previous history of prostate biopsy, hormonal and/or radiation therapy prior to surgery were excluded from this study. A retrospective analysis was conducted using clinicopathological data obtained from medical records.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Prostate-specific antigen (PSA) and Prostate Imaging Reporting and Data System (PI-RADS) score were statistically significant variables for risk of upgrading. In men who had presence of composite poor outcomes, PSA, PI-RADS score, presence of extraprostatic extension and seminal vesical invasion on MRI, number of positive cores, percentage of high grade (pattern 4/5) on prostate biopsy and Gleason pattern 4 volume on biopsy were all statistically significant variables. Strategy 8 (PI-RADS 5 lesion or percentage high grade [Gleason pattern 4] on prostate biopsy grade >10% or >3 cores positive on prostate biopsy) had significant association to identifying the highest number of men with upgrading and composite poor outcomes.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Our study supports the use of strategy 8 in treatment decision making of men with GG2 PC. Further validation of the use of this strategy is warranted.</p>","PeriodicalId":54261,"journal":{"name":"World Journal of Mens Health","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":4.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-08-14","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Pathological Assessment of Men with Grade Group 2 Prostate Cancer.\",\"authors\":\"Anika Jain, Lawrence Kim, Manish I Patel\",\"doi\":\"10.5534/wjmh.230216\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Purpose: </strong>A variety of treatment options are now available for men with localized prostate cancer (PC); however, there is still debate in determining how and when to intervene for Grade Group (GG) 2 disease. Our study aims to formulate strategies to identify men at risk of upgrading and having adverse pathological outcomes.</p><p><strong>Materials and methods: </strong>This retrospective study includes 243 patients with GG2 PC that were treated with radical prostatectomy between 2015 and 2021. Patients on active surveillance, previous history of prostate biopsy, hormonal and/or radiation therapy prior to surgery were excluded from this study. A retrospective analysis was conducted using clinicopathological data obtained from medical records.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Prostate-specific antigen (PSA) and Prostate Imaging Reporting and Data System (PI-RADS) score were statistically significant variables for risk of upgrading. In men who had presence of composite poor outcomes, PSA, PI-RADS score, presence of extraprostatic extension and seminal vesical invasion on MRI, number of positive cores, percentage of high grade (pattern 4/5) on prostate biopsy and Gleason pattern 4 volume on biopsy were all statistically significant variables. Strategy 8 (PI-RADS 5 lesion or percentage high grade [Gleason pattern 4] on prostate biopsy grade >10% or >3 cores positive on prostate biopsy) had significant association to identifying the highest number of men with upgrading and composite poor outcomes.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Our study supports the use of strategy 8 in treatment decision making of men with GG2 PC. Further validation of the use of this strategy is warranted.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":54261,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"World Journal of Mens Health\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":4.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-08-14\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"World Journal of Mens Health\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.5534/wjmh.230216\",\"RegionNum\":3,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"ANDROLOGY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"World Journal of Mens Health","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.5534/wjmh.230216","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"ANDROLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
摘要
目的:对于患有局部前列腺癌(PC)的男性,目前有多种治疗方案可供选择;然而,在确定如何以及何时干预2级(GG)疾病方面仍存在争议。我们的研究旨在制定策略,识别有升级风险和不良病理结果的男性:这项回顾性研究包括2015年至2021年间接受根治性前列腺切除术治疗的243例GG2级PC患者。本研究排除了正在接受主动监测、既往前列腺活检史、术前接受过激素和/或放射治疗的患者。研究利用从病历中获取的临床病理数据进行了回顾性分析:结果:前列腺特异性抗原(PSA)和前列腺成像报告与数据系统(PI-RADS)评分是导致升级风险的重要统计学变量。在出现综合不良后果的男性中,PSA、PI-RADS 评分、核磁共振成像中是否存在前列腺外扩展和精囊侵犯、阳性核芯数量、前列腺活检中高分级(4/5 型)的百分比以及活检中格里森 4 型的体积都是具有统计学意义的变量。策略8(PI-RADS 5病变或前列腺活检中高分级[Gleason模式4]百分比>10%或前列腺活检中阳性核数>3)与识别出最多的升级和综合不良结局的男性有显著关联:我们的研究支持将策略 8 用于 GG2 PC 男性患者的治疗决策。我们的研究支持在 GG2 PC 男性患者的治疗决策中使用策略 8。
Pathological Assessment of Men with Grade Group 2 Prostate Cancer.
Purpose: A variety of treatment options are now available for men with localized prostate cancer (PC); however, there is still debate in determining how and when to intervene for Grade Group (GG) 2 disease. Our study aims to formulate strategies to identify men at risk of upgrading and having adverse pathological outcomes.
Materials and methods: This retrospective study includes 243 patients with GG2 PC that were treated with radical prostatectomy between 2015 and 2021. Patients on active surveillance, previous history of prostate biopsy, hormonal and/or radiation therapy prior to surgery were excluded from this study. A retrospective analysis was conducted using clinicopathological data obtained from medical records.
Results: Prostate-specific antigen (PSA) and Prostate Imaging Reporting and Data System (PI-RADS) score were statistically significant variables for risk of upgrading. In men who had presence of composite poor outcomes, PSA, PI-RADS score, presence of extraprostatic extension and seminal vesical invasion on MRI, number of positive cores, percentage of high grade (pattern 4/5) on prostate biopsy and Gleason pattern 4 volume on biopsy were all statistically significant variables. Strategy 8 (PI-RADS 5 lesion or percentage high grade [Gleason pattern 4] on prostate biopsy grade >10% or >3 cores positive on prostate biopsy) had significant association to identifying the highest number of men with upgrading and composite poor outcomes.
Conclusions: Our study supports the use of strategy 8 in treatment decision making of men with GG2 PC. Further validation of the use of this strategy is warranted.