MétaCan
Menu
Retour à la cohorte
Enregistrement W1917024962 · doi:10.1111/bju.13333

Gleason pattern 4: active surveillance no more

2015· letter· en· W1917024962 sur OpenAlexaboutno aff
Niranjan Sathianathen, Declan G. Murphy, Roderick C.N. van den Bergh, Nathan Lawrentschuk

Notice bibliographique

RevueBritish Journal of Urology · 2015
Typeletter
Langueen
DomaineMedicine
ThématiqueProstate Cancer Diagnosis and Treatment
Établissements canadiensnon disponible
Organismes subventionnairesnon disponible
Mots-clésMedicineProstatectomyLife expectancyProstate cancerInternal medicineDiseaseHazard ratioCancerGynecologyConfidence intervalEnvironmental healthPopulation

Résumé

récupéré en direct d'OpenAlex

To reduce overtreatment of indolent prostate cancer (PCa), urologists have embraced active surveillance (AS) as a management strategy for low-risk PCa; however, patterns-of-care studies are now showing that AS is also being used for patients with intermediate-risk disease. A contemporary Australian study of 980 men reported that 8.9% of men with intermediate-risk disease were placed on AS, of whom 53.8% had Gleason score (GS) 3+4 PCa and 10.4% had GS 4+3 PCa 1. The most recent update from the CaPSURE database also reflected this trend in AS, but questions remain about the safety of this practice, particularly as the majority of AS protocols worldwide exclude men with GS 4 PCa, unless their life expectancy is limited. Despite long-term data having confirmed the safety and efficacy of AS for low-risk cancers with 10- and 15-year actuarial cause-specific survival rates of 98.1 and 94.3%, respectively 2, the evidence does not extend to supporting its use in intermediate-risk disease. Data from the PIVOT study group indicated that men with intermediate-risk disease who underwent radical prostatectomy had a significant relative reduction of 31% (hazard ratio 0.69, 95% CI 0.49–0.98) in all-cause mortality compared with those who underwent observation 3. A similar trend was observed regarding PCa-specific mortality, but this was not significant. Likewise, the SPCG-4 study group reported that there was a significant absolute reduction in overall mortality, risk of death from PCa and risk of metastasis in the intermediate-risk group who underwent radical surgery 4. Hence, the literature suggests a survival benefit for patients with intermediate-risk PCa who undergo surgery, and it should be strongly reconsidered whether AS is appropriate for patients in this group, especially in younger men with a good life expectancy. Men with intermediate-risk disease are at risk of developing incurable disease in the future as they may miss the window of curability when opting for AS. In the aforementioned Canadian series of 993 patients, Klotz et al. 2 reported that at a median follow-up of 6.4 years, 28 men (2.8%) developed metastatic disease, of whom 15 men died from their PCa 2. The median time to metastasis was 7.3 years (95% CI 5.81–8.76) and it can be reasonably assumed that when follow-up is extended more men will develop metastases. Notably, 44% of men with metastatic disease had GS 3+4 disease at diagnosis and only two men were not upgraded to GS ≥ 7 before developing metastatic disease, neither of whom had surgical grading. Similarly, both the PIVOT 3and SPCG-4 4 studies reported a significant risk reduction of developing metastatic disease of 60 and 43%, respectively, amongst all patients who underwent radical treatment instead of AS. Additionally, this effect was amplified to a 71% relative risk reduction when analysing the intermediate-risk group specifically 3; therefore, the definitive treatment of pattern 4 PCa is recommended in order to prevent the development of incurable metastatic disease in the future. Upgrading disease on AS protocols is a trigger to intervene. Klotz et al. 2 reported that the presence of pattern 4 disease acted as a significant predictor of therapeutic intervention on univariate analysis (odds ratio 1.795, 95% CI 1.216–2.628). It is not clear whether satisfactory oncological outcomes can be achieved at this stage for men whose PCa is upgraded. Furthermore, GS 7 PCa represents a heterogeneous group that is difficult to risk stratify safely. An analysis of 2323 men with GS 3+4 PCa who underwent surgery at six academic centres showed that nearly half the patients had unfavourable disease at final pathology 5. When applying the University of Toronto, Royal Marsden Hospital and Prostate Cancer Research International Active Surveillance (PRIAS) criteria to the above cohort, 78, 59 and 20% of men were eligible for AS, respectively, and the risks of unfavourable disease were decreased to only 42.4, 41.0 and 30.5%, respectively. Only when patients aged <70 years with very favourable disease (cT1c, PSA ≤ 10 ng/mL, PSA density ≤ 0.15 ng/mL/g, ≤2 positive cores) were selected did the risk of unfavourable disease fall below 20% and thus their potential eligibility for AS. Risk stratification of intermediate-risk cancers therefore presents a challenge. The potential of multiparametric MRI lies in its high negative predictive value for the intermediate endpoint of disease upgrading, which may make it useful as an AS endpoint predictor 6. In addition, free PSA and PSA isoforms have been reported to have a similar clinical utility. Although novel biomarkers possess the potential to predict unfavourable findings on repeat biopsy, the data are scarce and have not been used to evaluate long-term endpoints. Further research is required to validate the utility of both multiparametric MRI and biomarkers in this clinical setting. It is recognized that intermediate-risk disease does not always warrant definitive management and that AS may still have a role in older patients with such cancers, in whom higher risks of unfavourable pathology may be accepted. In the Sunnybrook cohort, consisting of a quarter of men with D'Amico intermediate-risk PCa, a low 15-year prostate cancer-specific mortality rate was observed. Furthermore, men aged >70 years in that study were 11.5 (95% CI 5.8–22.8) times more likely to die from causes other than PCa. In comparison, the risk of non-PCa-specific mortality nearly halved in the group aged <70 years (hazard ratio 5.8, 95% CI 2.4–13.8) 2. Although this somewhat justifies the use of AS in the older age group, it also alerts us to the risk associated with placing younger patients on the same management plan. Overall, the literature makes a strong case for definitive intervention for men with intermediate-risk PCa because of their risk of developing incurable disease. In the future it is expected that advances in prostate imaging and biogenomics will improve risk stratification but, until such time, those patients whose disease is classified as Gleason pattern 4 should be offered curative treatment without delay. None declared.

Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.

Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier

Prédiction machine sur la base complète

Imitation des enseignants

Ni prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Le volet Gemma est une étiquette directe du modèle pour chaque travail de la base, lue sur la notice réduite au titre. Le volet Codex est un classifieur appris des 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et calibré sur les taux pondérés de l'échantillon; les champs sans appui suffisant ne portent aucun appel Codex. Le mode candidate est l'union des deux volets; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont pas des étiquettes humaines.

score de la tête « metaresearch » (Codex)0,002
score de la tête « metaresearch » (Gemma)0,003
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cStatut de validation: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Catégories candidatesaucune
Catégories consensuellesaucune
DomaineSignal candidat: aucune · Signal consensuel: aucune
Devis d'étudeSignal candidat: Sans objet · Signal consensuel: aucune
GenreSignal candidat: Commentaire · Signal consensuel: aucune
Score de désaccord entre enseignants0,007
Score d'incertitude au seuil0,022

Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)

CatégorieCodexGemma
Métarecherche0,0020,003
Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict)0,0000,000
Méta-épidémiologie (sens large)0,0010,000
Bibliométrie0,0000,001
Études des sciences et des technologies0,0000,001
Communication savante0,0010,001
Science ouverte0,0010,001
Intégrité de la recherche0,0010,001
Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger)0,0070,001

Scores machine (provisoires)

Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.

Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.

Tête enseignante Opus0,017
Tête enseignante GPT0,268
Écart entre enseignants0,251 · la distance entre les deux têtes enseignantes sur ce seul travail
Statut de validationscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découle

Classification

machine, non validée

Prédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), pas un consensus.

Les modèles n’ont appliqué aucune catégorie : rien dans la taxonomie ne correspondait à ce travail.
Devis d'étudeSans objet
Domainenon disponible
GenreCommentaire

Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».

En bref

Citations16
Publié2015
Routes d'admission1
Résumé présentoui

Explorer davantage

Même revueBritish Journal of UrologyMême sujetProstate Cancer Diagnosis and TreatmentTravaux en français237 207