Abstract
Objective
To evaluate how blood levels of prostate-specific antigen (PSA) relate to prostate
volume of benign tissue, Gleason pattern 3 (GP3) and Gleason pattern 4 (GP4) cancer.
Methods
The cohort included 2209 consecutive men undergoing radical prostatectomy at 2 academic
institutions with pT2N0, Grade Group 1-4 prostate cancer and an undetectable postoperative
PSA. Volume of benign, GP3, and GP4 were estimated. The primary analysis evaluated
the association between PSA and volume of each type of tissue using multivariable
linear regression. R2, a measure of explained variation, was calculated using a multivariable model.
Results
Estimated contribution to PSA was 0.04/0.06 ng/mL/cc for benign, 0.08/0.14 ng/mL/cc
for GP3, and 0.62/0.80 ng/ml/cc for GP4 for the 2 independent cohorts, respectively.
GP4 was associated with 6 to 8-fold more PSA per cc compared to GP3 and 15-fold higher
compared to benign tissue. We did not observe a difference between PSA per cc for
GP3 vs. benign tissue (P = 0.2). R2 decreased only slightly when removing age (0.006/0.018), volume of benign tissue
(0.051/0.054) or GP3 (0.014/0.023) from the model. When GP4 was removed, R2 decreased 0.051/0.310. PSA density (PSA divided by prostate volume) was associated
with volume of GP4 but not GP3, after adjustment for benign volume.
Conclusion
Gleason pattern 4 cancer contributes considerably more to PSA and PSA density per
unit volume compared to GP3 and benign tissue. Contributions from GP3 and benign are
similar. Further research should examine the utility of determining clinical management
recommendations by absolute volume of GP4 rather than the ratio of GP3 to GP4.
To read this article in full you will need to make a payment
Purchase one-time access:
Academic & Personal: 24 hour online accessCorporate R&D Professionals: 24 hour online accessOne-time access price info
- For academic or personal research use, select 'Academic and Personal'
- For corporate R&D use, select 'Corporate R&D Professionals'
Subscribe:
Subscribe to UrologyAlready a print subscriber? Claim online access
Already an online subscriber? Sign in
Register: Create an account
Institutional Access: Sign in to ScienceDirect
References
- Surgery confounds biology: the predictive value of stage, grade and prostate-specific antigen for recurrence after radical prostatectomy as a function of surgeon experience.Int J Cancer J Int Cancer. 2011; 128: 1697-1702https://doi.org/10.1002/ijc.25502
- Prognostic Gleason grade grouping: data based on the modified Gleason scoring system.BJU Int. 2013; 111: 753-760https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1464-410X.2012.11611.x
- A contemporary prostate cancer grading system: a validated alternative to the gleason score.Eur Urol. 2016; 69: 428-435https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eururo.2015.06.046
- Clinical usefulness of total length of gleason pattern 4 on biopsy in men with grade group 2 prostate cancer.J Urol. 2019; 201: 77-82https://doi.org/10.1016/j.juro.2018.07.062
- Clinical utility of quantitative gleason grading in prostate biopsies and prostatectomy specimens.Eur Urol. 2016; 69: 592-598https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eururo.2015.10.029
- Contemporary Gleason Grading of Prostatic Carcinoma: An Update With Discussion on Practical Issues to Implement the 2014 International Society of Urological Pathology (ISUP) Consensus Conference on Gleason Grading of Prostatic Carcinoma.Am J Surg Pathol. 2017; 41: e1-e7https://doi.org/10.1097/PAS.0000000000000820
- The 2014 International Society of Urological Pathology (ISUP) Consensus Conference on Gleason Grading of Prostatic Carcinoma: Definition of Grading Patterns and Proposal for a New Grading System.Am J Surg Pathol. 2016; 40: 244-252https://doi.org/10.1097/PAS.0000000000000530
- International Society of Urological Pathology (ISUP) Consensus Conference on Handling and Staging of Radical Prostatectomy Specimens. Working group 2: T2 substaging and prostate cancer volume.Mod Pathol Off J U S Can Acad Pathol Inc. 2011; 24: 16-25https://doi.org/10.1038/modpathol.2010.156
- Biological determinants of cancer progression in men with prostate cancer.JAMA. 1999; 281: 1395-1400https://doi.org/10.1001/jama.281.15.1395
- Clinical utility of prostate and tumor volume-related parameters following radical prostatectomy for localized prostate cancer.J Urol. 2019; 201: 535-540https://doi.org/10.1016/j.juro.2018.09.060
- Three things about gleason grading that just about everyone believes but that are almost certainly wrong.Urology. 2020; 143: 16-19https://doi.org/10.1016/j.urology.2020.03.042
- Prostate specific antigen and gleason grade: an immunohistochemical study of prostate cancer.J Urol. 1994; 151: 1558-1564https://doi.org/10.1016/s0022-5347(17)35302-8
- 10-Year outcomes after monitoring, surgery, or radiotherapy for localized prostate cancer.N Engl J Med. 2016; 375: 1415-1424https://doi.org/10.1056/NEJMoa1606220
- Predicting 15-year prostate cancer specific mortality after radical prostatectomy.J Urol. 2011; 185: 869-875https://doi.org/10.1016/j.juro.2010.10.057
- Do adenocarcinomas of the prostate with Gleason score (GS) ≤6 have the potential to metastasize to lymph nodes?.Am J Surg Pathol. 2012; 36: 1346-1352https://doi.org/10.1097/PAS.0b013e3182556dcd
- Do low-grade and low-volume prostate cancers bear the hallmarks of malignancy?.Lancet Oncol. 2012; 13: e509-e517https://doi.org/10.1016/S1470-2045(12)70388-1
- Gleason 6 prostate cancer: translating biology into population health.J Urol. 2015; 194: 626-634https://doi.org/10.1016/j.juro.2015.01.126
- Gleason score 6 adenocarcinoma: should it be labeled as cancer?.J Clin Oncol Off J Am Soc Clin Oncol. 2012; 30: 4294-4296https://doi.org/10.1200/JCO.2012.44.0586
- Should Grade Group 1 (GG1) be called cancer?.World J Urol. 2021; (Published online January 11)https://doi.org/10.1007/s00345-020-03583-4
- Comprehensive metabolomics analysis of prostate cancer tissue in relation to tumor aggressiveness and TMPRSS2-ERG fusion status.BMC Cancer. 2020; 20: 437https://doi.org/10.1186/s12885-020-06908-z
- Genomic correlates to the newly proposed grading prognostic groups for prostate cancer.Eur Urol. 2016; 69: 557-560https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eururo.2015.10.040
- Implementation of germline testing for prostate cancer: philadelphia prostate cancer consensus conference 2019.J Clin Oncol Off J Am Soc Clin Oncol. 2020; 38: 2798-2811https://doi.org/10.1200/JCO.20.00046
- Does PSA play a role as a promoting agent during the initiation and/or progression of prostate cancer?.The Prostate. 2007; 67: 312-329https://doi.org/10.1002/pros.20531
- Do gleason patterns 3 and 4 prostate cancer represent separate disease states?.J Urol. 2012; 188: 1667-1675https://doi.org/10.1016/j.juro.2012.07.055
- Hallmarks of cancer: the next generation.Cell. 2011; 144: 646-674https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cell.2011.02.013
- Clinical and genomic characterization of low-prostate-specific antigen, high-grade prostate cancer.Eur Urol. 2018; 74: 146-154https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eururo.2018.01.043
- Preoperative nomogram predicting the 10-year probability of prostate cancer recurrence after radical prostatectomy.J Natl Cancer Inst. 2006; 98: 715-717https://doi.org/10.1093/jnci/djj190
- Preoperative serum prostate specific antigen levels between 2 and 22 ng./ml. correlate poorly with post-radical prostatectomy cancer morphology: prostate specific antigen cure rates appear constant between 2 and 9 ng./ml.J Urol. 2002; 167: 103-111
Article info
Publication history
Published online: August 16, 2022
Accepted:
August 4,
2022
Received:
July 12,
2022
Identification
Copyright
© 2022 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.
