Gleason skor 6 prostat kanserinin ekstraprostatik yayılımı: tek merkez deneyimi

Year 2021, Volume: 16 Issue: 2, 165 - 170, 29.06.2021

Onur Ceylan , Rabia Demirtaş

https://doi.org/10.33719/yud.2021;16-2-844173

Abstract

Amaç: Son yıllarda tedavi komplikasyonlarından dolayı gleason skor (GS) 3+3:6 prostat kanserlerinde (PK) radikal tedavi yerine klinik izlem önerilmektedir. Radikal tedavi yerine klinik izlem uygulanmasının en önemli dezavantajlarından biri düşük dereceli PK’ da lokal agresif davranış görülebilmesidir. Çalışmamızda amacımız GS-6 PK’ da lokal agresif davranış olarak kabul edilen ekstraprostatik yayılım (EPY) görülme oranını araştırmaktır.

Gereç ve Yöntemler: Çalışmamıza Ocak 2010-Mayıs 2019 yılları arasında bölümümüze radikal prostatektomi materyali olarak gönderilmiş prostatik adenokarsinom (GS 3+3:6) tanısı almış tersiyer patern içermeyen 119 materyal incelendi. Bu materyallerden kaçında EPY olduğu araştırıldı.

Bulgular: Çalışmamızda olguların 16 tanesinde (%13,45) EPY tespit edildi. Bunlardan 5’ inde veziküla seminalis invazyonu (pT3b), 11’ inde veziküla seminalis invazyonu olmadan mesane boyun invazyonu (pT3a) izlendi.

Sonuç: GS-6 PK tanısı alan olgularımızın %13,45' inde EPY (pT3a), %4,2' sinde seminal vezikül invazyonu (pT3b) izlememizden dolayı GS-6 PK’ nın EPY yapma olasılığının nadir olmadığını düşünüyoruz. Bu bulgularımızdan yola çıkarak klinik izlem uygulanan GS-6 PK' lı olguların EPY açısından daha dikkatli takip edilmesi gerektiğini savunuyoruz.

Keywords

Prostat Kanseri , Gleason Skor , Ekstraprostatik Yayılım

Project Number

NA

Extraprostatic extension of gleason 6 prostate cancer: single center experience

Abstract

Objective: For Gleason Score (GS) 3+3:6 prostate cancer (PC) cases, recent guidelines recommend clinical follow-up instead of radical treatment due to complications. One of the most important disadvantages of clinical follow-up is that low-grade PC may include local aggressive behavior. Hence, our aim here was to investigate the incidence of extraprostatic extension (EPE), a local aggressive behavior, in GS6 PC cases.

Material and Methods: We examined 119 materials diagnosed with prostatic adenocarcinoma (GS 3+3:6) with no tertiary pattern and that were sent to our department as radical prostatectomy materials between January 2010 – May 2019. We investigated how many of the materials had EPE.

Results: We observed EPE in 16 (13.45%) of our cases. 5 of the cases had vesicula seminalis invasion (pT3b) and 11 had bladder neck invasion (pT3a) without vesicula seminalis invasion.

Conclusion: Among our patients diagnosed with GS-6 PC, we observed EPE (pT3a) in 13.45% and vesicula seminalis invasion (pT3b) in 4.2%, which suggests that the possibility of EPE is not uncommon in GS-6 PC. Based on these findings, we argue that patients with GS-6 PC under clinical follow-up should be followed more carefully for EPE.

Keywords

Prostate Cancer , Gleason Score , Extraprostatic Extension

Supporting Institution

NA

Project Number

NA

Thanks

NA

References

• 1. Ferlay J, Soerjomataram I, Dikshit R, et al. Cancer incidence and mortality worldwide: sources, methods and major patterns in GLOBOCAN 2012. International journal of cancer. 2015;136(5):359-86.
• 2. Pernar CH, Ebot EM, Wilson KM, Mucci LA. The epidemiology of prostate cancer. Cold Spring Harbor Perspectives in Medicine. 2018;8(12):a030361.
• 3. Yilmaz B, Sarikaya D. Prostat Kanseri İnsidansı ve Risk Faktörleri. Türkiye Klinikleri Tıbbi Onkoloji-Özel Konular. 2017;10(4):337-42.
• 4. Mohler JL, Armstrong AJ, Bahnson RR, et al. Prostate cancer, version 3.2012 featured updates to the NCCN guidelines. Journal of the National Comprehensive Cancer Network. 2012;10(9):1081-7.
• 5. Rubio-Briones J, Borque A, Esteban L, et al. Preliminary results of the Spanish Association of Urology National Registry in Active Surveillance for prostate cancer. Actas Urológicas Españolas (English Edition). 2016;40(1):3-10.
• 6. Samaratunga H, Delahunt B, Egevad L, Srigley JR, Yaxley J. The evolution of Gleason grading of prostate cancer. J Diagn Pathol. 2017;12:5-11.
• 7. Liu J-J, Lichtensztajn DY, Gomez SL, et al. Nationwide prevalence of lymph node metastases in Gleason score 3+ 3= 6 prostate cancer. Pathology. 2014;46(4):306-10.
• 8. Epstein JI, Egevad L, Amin MB, Delahunt B, Srigley JR, Humphrey PA. The 2014 International Society of Urological Pathology (ISUP) consensus conference on Gleason grading of prostatic carcinoma. The American journal of surgical pathology. 2016;40(2):244-52.
• 9. Mohler j, Bahnson RR, Boston B, et al. NCCN clinical practice guidelines in oncology: prostate cancer. Practice Guideline J Natl Compr Canc Netw. 2010 Feb;8(2):162-200.
• 10. Hamilton AS, Albertsen PC, Johnson TK, et al. Trends in the treatment of localized prostate cancer using supplemented cancer registry data. BJU international. 2011;107(4):576-84.
• 11. Carter HB, Partin AW, Walsh PC, et al. Gleason score 6 adenocarcinoma: should it be labeled as cancer? Journal of Clinical Oncology. 2012;30(35):4294.
• 12. Hernandez DJ, Nielsen ME, Han M, et al. Natural history of pathologically organ-confined (pT2), Gleason score 6 or less, prostate cancer after radical prostatectomy. Urology. 2008;72(1):172-6.
• 13. Anderson BB, Oberlin DT, Razmaria AA, et al. Extraprostatic extension is extremely rare for contemporary Gleason score 6 prostate cancer. European Urology. 2017;72(3):455-60. 14. Hassan O, Han M, Zhou A, et al. Incidence of extraprostatic extension at radical prostatectomy with pure Gleason score 3+ 3= 6 (grade group 1) cancer: Implications for whether Gleason score 6 prostate cancer should be renamed" not cancer" and for selection criteria for active surveillance. The Journal of urology. 2018;199(6):1482-7.
• 15. Takamatsu K, Matsumoto K, Shojo K, et al., editors. The prognostic value of zonal origin and extraprostatic extension of prostate cancer for biochemical recurrence after radical prostatectomy. Urologic Oncology: Seminars and Original Investigations; 2019: Elsevier.
• 16. Farchoukh L, Laframboise WA, Nelson JB, Bastacky S, Parwani AV, Dhir R. Multifocal Extraprostatic Extension of Prostate Cancer: A Third Subtype With Worse Prognosis Than Focal Prostate Cancer. American Journal of Clinical Pathology. 2020;153(4):548-53.
• 17. Maubon T, Branger N, Bastide C, et al. Impact of the extent of extraprostatic extension defined by Epstein’s method in patients with negative surgical margins and negative lymph node invasion. Prostate Cancer and Prostatic Diseases. 2016;19(3):317-21.
• 18. Ball MW, Partin AW, Epstein JI. Extent of extraprostatic extension independently influences biochemical recurrence-free survival: evidence for further pT3 subclassification. Urology. 2015;85(1):161-4.