Volume 81, Issue 12 pp. 866-873
ORIGINAL ARTICLE

Percentage of Gleason pattern 4 and tumor volume predict adverse pathological stage and margin status at radical prostatectomy in grade Group 2 and grade Group 3 prostate cancers

Oleksii A. Iakymenko MD

Oleksii A. Iakymenko MD

Department of Pathology and Laboratory Medicine, University of Miami Miller School of Medicine, Miami, Florida, USA

Search for more papers by this author
Isabella Lugo MPH

Isabella Lugo MPH

Department of Pathology and Laboratory Medicine, University of Miami Miller School of Medicine, Miami, Florida, USA

Search for more papers by this author
Laurence M. Briski MD

Laurence M. Briski MD

Department of Pathology and Laboratory Medicine, University of Miami Miller School of Medicine, Miami, Florida, USA

Sylvester Comprehensive Cancer Center, University of Miami Miller School of Medicine, Miami, Florida, USA

Search for more papers by this author
Ivan Nemov MD

Ivan Nemov MD

Department of Pathology and Laboratory Medicine, University of Miami Miller School of Medicine, Miami, Florida, USA

Search for more papers by this author
Sanoj Punnen MD

Sanoj Punnen MD

Department of Urology, University of Miami Miller School of Medicine, Miami, Florida, USA

Sylvester Comprehensive Cancer Center, University of Miami Miller School of Medicine, Miami, Florida, USA

Search for more papers by this author
Deukwoo Kwon PhD

Deukwoo Kwon PhD

Department of Public Health Sciences, University of Miami Miller School of Medicine, Miami, Florida, USA

Search for more papers by this author
Alan Pollack MD, PhD

Alan Pollack MD, PhD

Department of Radiation Oncology, University of Miami Miller School of Medicine, Miami, Florida, USA

Sylvester Comprehensive Cancer Center, University of Miami Miller School of Medicine, Miami, Florida, USA

Search for more papers by this author
Radka Stoyanova PhD

Radka Stoyanova PhD

Department of Radiation Oncology, University of Miami Miller School of Medicine, Miami, Florida, USA

Sylvester Comprehensive Cancer Center, University of Miami Miller School of Medicine, Miami, Florida, USA

Search for more papers by this author
Dipen J. Parekh MD

Dipen J. Parekh MD

Department of Urology, University of Miami Miller School of Medicine, Miami, Florida, USA

Sylvester Comprehensive Cancer Center, University of Miami Miller School of Medicine, Miami, Florida, USA

Search for more papers by this author
Merce Jorda MD, PhD, MBA

Merce Jorda MD, PhD, MBA

Department of Pathology and Laboratory Medicine, University of Miami Miller School of Medicine, Miami, Florida, USA

Department of Urology, University of Miami Miller School of Medicine, Miami, Florida, USA

Sylvester Comprehensive Cancer Center, University of Miami Miller School of Medicine, Miami, Florida, USA

Search for more papers by this author
Mark L. Gonzalgo MD, PhD

Mark L. Gonzalgo MD, PhD

Department of Urology, University of Miami Miller School of Medicine, Miami, Florida, USA

Sylvester Comprehensive Cancer Center, University of Miami Miller School of Medicine, Miami, Florida, USA

Search for more papers by this author
Oleksandr N. Kryvenko MD

Corresponding Author

Oleksandr N. Kryvenko MD

Department of Pathology and Laboratory Medicine, University of Miami Miller School of Medicine, Miami, Florida, USA

Department of Urology, University of Miami Miller School of Medicine, Miami, Florida, USA

Sylvester Comprehensive Cancer Center, University of Miami Miller School of Medicine, Miami, Florida, USA

Correspondence Oleksandr N. Kryvenko, MD, Department of Pathology and Laboratory Medicine, University of Miami Miller School of Medicine, 1400 NW 12th Avenue, Room 4076, Miami, FL 33136, USA.

Email: [email protected]

Search for more papers by this author
First published: 29 June 2021
Citations: 2

The data were presented in part at the 108th Annual Meeting of the United States and Canadian Academy of Pathology (USCAP), March 16–21, 2019, National Harbor, Maryland, USA.

Abstract

Background

Increasing percentages of Gleason pattern 4 (GP4%) in radical prostatectomy (RP) correlate with an increased likelihood of nonorgan-confined disease and earlier biochemical recurrence (BCR). However, there are no detailed RP studies assessing the impact of GP4% and corresponding tumor volume (TV) on extraprostatic extension (EPE), seminal vesicle (SV) invasion (SV+), and positive surgical margin (SM) status (SM+).

Methods

In 1301 consecutive RPs, we analyzed each tumor nodule (TN) for TV, Grade Group (GG), presence of focal versus nonfocal EPE, SV+ , and SM+. Using GG1 (GP4% = 0) TNs as a reference, we recorded GP4% for all GG2 or GG3 TNs. We performed a multivariable analysis (MVA) using a mixed effects logistic regression that tested significant variables for risk of EPE, SV+, and SM+, as well as a multinomial logistic regression model that tested significant variables for risks of nonorgan-confined disease (pT2+, pT3a, and pT3b) versus organ-confined disease (pT2).

Results

We identified 3231 discrete TNs ranging from 1 to 7 (median: 2.5) per RP. These included GG1 (n = 2115), GG2 (n = 818), GG3 (n = 274), and GG4 (n = 24) TNs. Increasing GP4% weakly paralleled increasing TV (tau = 0.07, p < .001). In MVA, increasing GP4% and TV predicted a greater likelihood of EPE (odds ratio [OR]: 1.03 and 4.41), SV+ (OR: 1.03 and 3.83), and SM+ (1.01, p = .01 and 2.83), all p < .001. Our multinomial logistic regression model demonstrated an association between GP4% and the risk of EPE (i.e., pT3a and pT3b disease), as well as an association between TV and risk of upstaging (all p < .001).

Conclusions

Both GP4% and TV are independent predictors of adverse pathological stage and margin status at RP. However, the risks for adverse outcomes associated with GP4% are marginal, while those for TV are strong. The prognostic significance of GP4% on BCR-free survival has not been studied controlling for TV and other adverse RP findings. Whether adverse pathological stage and margin status associated with larger TV could decrease BCR-free survival to a greater extent than increasing RP GP4% remains to be studied.

CONFLICT OF INTERESTS

The authors declare that there are no conflict of interests.

DATA AVAILABILITY STATEMENT

The data that support the findings of this study are available from the corresponding author upon reasonable request.

The full text of this article hosted at iucr.org is unavailable due to technical difficulties.