Renaming Grade Group 1 Prostate "Cancer" From a Pathology Perspective: A Call for Multidisciplinary Discussion.

Despite the innovations made to enhance smarter screening and conservative management for low-grade prostate cancer, overdiagnosis, and overtreatment remains a major health care problem. Driven by the primary goal of reducing harm to the patients, relabeling of nonlethal grade group 1 (GG 1) prostate cancer has been proposed but faced varying degrees of support and objection from clinicians and pathologists. GG 1 tumor exhibits histologic (invasive) and molecular features of cancer but paradoxically, if pure, is unable to metastasize, rarely extends out of the prostate, and if resected, has a cancer-specific survival approaching 100%. Most of the arguments against relabeling GG 1 relate to concerns of missing a higher-grade component through the unsampled area at biopsy. However, the designation of tumor benignity or malignancy should not be based on the shortcomings of a diagnostic procedure and sampling errors. This review explores possible solutions, mainly the feasibility of renaming GG 1 in radical prostatectomy (RP) with ramifications in biopsy diagnosis, acceptable for both pathologists and clinicians. One workable approach is to rename GG 1 in RP with a cautious neutral or nonbenign non-cancer term (eg, acinar neoplasm) using "defined criteria" that will stop the indiscriminate reporting of every GG 1 in biopsy as carcinoma including eventual insignificant microtumors in RPs. Use of a corresponding noncommittal term at biopsy while commenting on the possibility of an undersampled nonindolent cancer, might reduce the pathologist's concerns about upgrading. Dropping the word "carcinoma" in biopsy preempts the negative consequences of labeling the patient with cancer, including unnecessary definitive therapy (the root cause of overtreatment). Renaming should retain the status quo of contemporary grading and risk stratifications for management algorithms while trying to minimize overtreatment. However, the optimal approach to find answers to this issue is through multidisciplinary discussions of key stakeholders with a specific focus on patient-centered concerns and their ramifications in our practices. GG 1 renaming has been brought up in the past and came up again despite the continued counterarguments, and if not addressed more comprehensively will likely continue to reemerge as overdiagnosis, overtreatment, and patient's sufferings persist.