Objective: The aim of this study was to evaluate the feasibility of including patients with biopsy Gleason score (bGS) 3 + 4 prostate cancer in an active surveillance (AS) protocol. Methods: A total of 615 patients underwent a radical prostatectomy and satisfied the following requirements: prostate-specific antigen ≤10 ng/dL, clinical stage T1c or T2a, 2 or fewer positive biopsy cores, and bGS 6 or 3 + 4 prostate cancer. The patients were divided into two groups according to their bGS (bGS 6 group, n =534; bGS 3 + 4 group, n = 81). Results: The adverse pathological features were significantly higher in the bGS 3 + 4 group (16.7 vs. 49.4%, p< 0.001). Biochemical recurrence (BCR)-free survival was also significantly lower in this group (p < 0.001). In a multivariate analysis, clinical stage (odds ratio [OR] 2.026, p =0.007), maximum percentage of biopsy core involvement (OR 1.015, p = 0.014), and bGS (OR 1.913, p = 0.030) were independent risk factors for adverse pathological features. However, the bGS was the only variable to forecast BCR (hazard ratio 3.567, p < 0.001). Conclusions: A bGS 3 + 4 was the leading risk factor for a worse postoperative prognosis. Therefore, patients with a bGS 3 + 4 are not appropriate candidates for AS.

1.
Syed
JS
,
Javier-Desloges
J
,
Tatzel
S
,
Bhagat
A
,
Nguyen
KA
,
Hwang
K
, et al
Current Management Strategy for Active Surveillance in Prostate Cancer
.
Curr Oncol Rep
.
2017
Feb
;
19
(
2
):
11
.
[PubMed]
1523-3790
2.
Stavrinides
V
,
Parker
CC
,
Moore
CM
.
When no treatment is the best treatment: active surveillance strategies for low risk prostate cancers
.
Cancer Treat Rev
.
2017
Jul
;
58
:
14
21
.
[PubMed]
0305-7372
3.
Garisto
JD
,
Klotz
L
.
Active Surveillance for Prostate Cancer: How to Do It Right
.
Oncology (Williston Park)
.
2017
May
;
31
(
5
):
333
40
.
[PubMed]
0890-9091
4.
Chung
MS
,
Lee
SH
.
Current status of active surveillance in prostate cancer
.
Investig Clin Urol
.
2016
Jan
;
57
(
1
):
14
20
.
[PubMed]
2466-0493
5.
Babaian
KN
.
Active surveillance for prostate cancer: when to recommend delayed intervention
.
Asian J Androl
.
2015
Nov-Dec
;
17
(
6
):
885
7
.
[PubMed]
1008-682X
6.
Glaser
ZA
,
Gordetsky
JB
,
Porter
KK
,
Varambally
S
,
Rais-Bahrami
S
.
Prostate Cancer Imaging and Biomarkers Guiding Safe Selection of Active Surveillance
.
Front Oncol
.
2017
Oct
;
7
:
256
.
[PubMed]
2234-943X
7.
Barrett
T
,
Haider
MA
.
The Emerging Role of MRI in Prostate Cancer Active Surveillance and Ongoing Challenges
.
AJR Am J Roentgenol
.
2017
Jan
;
208
(
1
):
131
9
.
[PubMed]
0361-803X
8.
Luckenbaugh
AN
,
Auffenberg
GB
,
Hawken
SR
,
Dhir
A
,
Linsell
S
,
Kaul
S
, et al;
Michigan Urological Surgery Improvement Collaborative
.
Variation in Guideline Concordant Active Surveillance Followup in Diverse Urology Practices
.
J Urol
.
2017
Mar
;
197
(
3 Pt 1
):
621
6
.
[PubMed]
0022-5347
9.
Perlis
N
,
Klotz
L
.
Contemporary Active Surveillance: Candidate Selection, Follow-up Tools, and Expected Outcomes
.
Urol Clin North Am
.
2017
Nov
;
44
(
4
):
565
74
.
[PubMed]
0094-0143
10.
Godtman
RA
,
Schafferer
M
,
Pihl
CG
,
Stranne
J
,
Hugosson
J
.
Long-term outcomes after deferred radical prostatectomy in men initially managed by active surveillance
.
J Urol
.
2018
Oct
;
200
(
4
):
779
85
.
[PubMed]
0022-5347
11.
Klotz
L
.
Active Surveillance for Intermediate Risk Prostate Cancer
.
Curr Urol Rep
.
2017
Aug
;
18
(
10
):
80
.
[PubMed]
1527-2737
12.
Lee
H
,
Lee
IJ
,
Byun
SS
,
Lee
SE
,
Hong
SK
.
Favorable Gleason 3 + 4 Prostate Cancer Shows Comparable Outcomes With Gleason 3 + 3 Prostate Cancer: Implications for the Expansion of Selection Criteria for Active Surveillance
.
Clin Genitourin Cancer
.
2017
Dec
;
15
(
6
):
e1117
22
.
[PubMed]
1558-7673
13.
Wong
LM
,
Tang
V
,
Peters
J
,
Costello
A
,
Corcoran
N
.
Feasibility for active surveillance in biopsy Gleason 3 + 4 prostate cancer: an Australian radical prostatectomy cohort
.
BJU Int
.
2016
Apr
;
117
Suppl 4
:
82
7
.
[PubMed]
1464-4096
14.
Morlacco
A
,
Cheville
JC
,
Rangel
LJ
,
Gearman
DJ
,
Karnes
RJ
.
Adverse Disease Features in Gleason Score 3 + 4 “Favorable Intermediate-Risk” Prostate Cancer: Implications for Active Surveillance
.
Eur Urol
.
2017
Sep
;
72
(
3
):
442
7
.
[PubMed]
0302-2838
15.
Mundy
AR
,
Andrich
DE
.
Posterior urethral complications of the treatment of prostate cancer
.
BJU Int
.
2012
Aug
;
110
(
3
):
304
25
.
[PubMed]
1464-4096
16.
Cookson
MS
,
Aus
G
,
Burnett
AL
,
Canby-Hagino
ED
,
D’Amico
AV
,
Dmochowski
RR
, et al
Variation in the definition of biochemical recurrence in patients treated for localized prostate cancer: the American Urological Association Prostate Guidelines for Localized Prostate Cancer Update Panel report and recommendations for a standard in the reporting of surgical outcomes
.
J Urol
.
2007
Feb
;
177
(
2
):
540
5
.
[PubMed]
0022-5347
17.
Gandaglia
G
,
Briganti
A
,
Fossati
N
,
Salonia
A
,
Mottrie
A
,
Catto
J
, et al
The Problem Is Not What to Do with Indolent and Harmless Prostate Cancer-The Problem Is How to Avoid Finding These Cancers
.
Eur Urol
.
2016
Oct
;
70
(
4
):
547
8
.
[PubMed]
0302-2838
18.
Audenet
F
,
Vertosick
EA
,
Fine
SW
,
Sjoberg
DD
,
Vickers
AJ
,
Reuter
VE
, et al
Biopsy Core Features are Poor Predictors of Adverse Pathology in Men with Grade Group 1 Prostate Cancer
.
J Urol
.
2018
Apr
;
199
(
4
):
961
8
.
[PubMed]
0022-5347
19.
Jeong
CW
,
Hong
SK
,
Byun
SS
,
Jeon
SS
,
Seo
SI
,
Lee
HM
,
Ahn
H
,
Kwon
DD
,
Ha
HK
,
Kwon
TG
,
Chung
JS
,
Kwak
C
,
Kim
HJ
:
Selection Criteria for Active Surveillance of Patients with Prostate Cancer in Korea: A Multicenter Analysis of Pathology after Radical Prostatectomy.
Cancer research and treatment : official journal of Korean Cancer Association
2018
;50:265-274.
20.
Kim
TH
,
Jeon
HG
,
Choo
SH
,
Jeong
BC
,
Seo
SI
,
Jeon
SS
,
Choi
HY
,
Lee
HM
:
Pathological upgrading and upstaging of patients eligible for active surveillance according to currently used protocols.
International journal of urology : official journal of the Japanese Urological Association
2014
;21:377-381.
21.
Lee
DH
,
Jung
HB
,
Lee
SH
,
Rha
KH
,
Choi
YD
,
Hong
SJ
, et al
Comparison of pathological outcomes of active surveillance candidates who underwent radical prostatectomy using contemporary protocols at a high-volume Korean center
.
Jpn J Clin Oncol
.
2012
Nov
;
42
(
11
):
1079
85
.
[PubMed]
0368-2811
22.
Kinsella
N
,
Stattin
P
,
Cahill
D
,
Brown
C
,
Bill-Axelson
A
,
Bratt
O
, et al
Factors Influencing Men’s Choice of and Adherence to Active Surveillance for Low-risk Prostate Cancer: A Mixed-method Systematic Review
.
Eur Urol
.
2018
Sep
;
74
(
3
):
261
80
.
[PubMed]
0302-2838
23.
Bul
M
,
Zhu
X
,
Valdagni
R
,
Pickles
T
,
Kakehi
Y
,
Rannikko
A
, et al
Active surveillance for low-risk prostate cancer worldwide: the PRIAS study
.
Eur Urol
.
2013
Apr
;
63
(
4
):
597
603
.
[PubMed]
0302-2838
24.
Butler
SS
,
Mahal
BA
,
Lamba
N
,
Mossanen
M
,
Martin
NE
,
Mouw
KW
, et al
Use and early mortality outcomes of active surveillance in patients with intermediate-risk prostate cancer
.
Cancer
.
2019
Sep
;
125
(
18
):
3164
71
.
[PubMed]
0008-543X
25.
Ong
WL
,
Evans
SM
,
Evans
M
,
Tacey
M
,
Dodds
L
,
Kearns
P
,
Milne
RL
,
Foroudi
F
,
Millar
J
: Trends in Conservative Management for Low-risk Prostate Cancer in a Population-based Cohort of Australian Men Diagnosed Between 2009 and 2016. European urology oncology
2019
26.
Mahal
AR
,
Butler
S
,
Franco
I
,
Muralidhar
V
,
Larios
D
,
Pike
LR
, et al
Conservative management of low-risk prostate cancer among young versus older men in the United States: trends and outcomes from a novel national database
.
Cancer
.
2019
Oct
;
125
(
19
):
3338
46
.
[PubMed]
0008-543X
27.
Druskin
SC
,
Mamawala
M
,
Tosoian
JJ
,
Epstein
JI
,
Pavlovich
CP
,
Carter
HB
, et al
Older Age Predicts Biopsy and Radical Prostatectomy Grade Reclassification to Aggressive Prostate Cancer in Men on Active Surveillance
.
J Urol
.
2019
Jan
;
201
(
1
):
98
104
.
[PubMed]
0022-5347
28.
Gearman
DJ
,
Morlacco
A
,
Cheville
JC
,
Rangel
LJ
,
Karnes
RJ
.
Comparison of Pathological and Oncologic Outcomes of Favorable Risk Gleason Score 3 + 4 and Low Risk Gleason Score 6 Prostate Cancer: Considerations for Active Surveillance
.
J Urol
.
2018
May
;
199
(
5
):
1188
95
.
[PubMed]
0022-5347
29.
Alberts
AR
,
Roobol
MJ
,
Drost
FH
,
van Leenders
GJ
,
Bokhorst
LP
,
Bangma
CH
, et al
Risk-stratification based on magnetic resonance imaging and prostate-specific antigen density may reduce unnecessary follow-up biopsy procedures in men on active surveillance for low-risk prostate cancer
.
BJU Int
.
2017
Oct
;
120
(
4
):
511
9
.
[PubMed]
1464-4096
30.
Tsang
CF
,
Lai
TC
,
Lam
W
,
Ho
BS
,
Ng
AT
,
Ma
WK
, et al
Is prostate specific antigen (PSA) density necessary in selecting prostate cancer patients for active surveillance and what should be the cutoff in the Asian population?
Prostate Int
.
2019
Jun
;
7
(
2
):
73
7
.
[PubMed]
2287-8882
31.
Borkowetz
A
,
Renner
T
,
Platzek
I
,
Toma
M
,
Herout
R
,
Baunacke
M
, et al
Evaluation of Magnetic Resonance Imaging/Ultrasound-Fusion Biopsy in Patients with Low-Risk Prostate Cancer Under Active Surveillance Undergoing Surveillance Biopsy
.
Urol Int
.
2018
;
100
(
2
):
155
63
.
[PubMed]
0042-1138
32.
Lee
CU
,
Sung
SH
,
Jang
CT
,
Kang
M
,
Sung
HH
,
Jeong
BC
, et al
Cancer Location in Upgrading and Detection after Transperineal Template-Guided Mapping Biopsy for Patients in Active Surveillance and Negative Transrectal Ultrasonography-Guided Prostate Biopsy
.
Urol Int
.
2019
Jul
;
•••
:
1
8
.
[PubMed]
0042-1138
33.
Song
C
,
Ro
JY
,
Lee
MS
,
Hong
SJ
,
Chung
BH
,
Choi
HY
, et al
Prostate cancer in Korean men exhibits poor differentiation and is adversely related to prognosis after radical prostatectomy
.
Urology
.
2006
Oct
;
68
(
4
):
820
4
.
[PubMed]
0090-4295
34.
Jeong
CW
,
Jeong
SJ
,
Hong
SK
,
Lee
SB
,
Ku
JH
,
Byun
SS
,
Jeong
H
,
Kwak
C
,
Kim
HH
,
Lee
E
,
Lee
SE
:
Nomograms to predict the pathological stage of clinically localized prostate cancer in Korean men: comparison with western predictive tools using decision curve analysis.
International journal of urology : official journal of the Japanese Urological Association
2012
;19:846-852.
Copyright / Drug Dosage / Disclaimer
Copyright: All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be translated into other languages, reproduced or utilized in any form or by any means, electronic or mechanical, including photocopying, recording, microcopying, or by any information storage and retrieval system, without permission in writing from the publisher.
Drug Dosage: The authors and the publisher have exerted every effort to ensure that drug selection and dosage set forth in this text are in accord with current recommendations and practice at the time of publication. However, in view of ongoing research, changes in government regulations, and the constant flow of information relating to drug therapy and drug reactions, the reader is urged to check the package insert for each drug for any changes in indications and dosage and for added warnings and precautions. This is particularly important when the recommended agent is a new and/or infrequently employed drug.
Disclaimer: The statements, opinions and data contained in this publication are solely those of the individual authors and contributors and not of the publishers and the editor(s). The appearance of advertisements or/and product references in the publication is not a warranty, endorsement, or approval of the products or services advertised or of their effectiveness, quality or safety. The publisher and the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to persons or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content or advertisements.
You do not currently have access to this content.