Advertisement

Blood Prostate-specific Antigen by Volume of Benign, Gleason Pattern 3 and 4 Prostate Tissue

      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 access
      One-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 Urology
      Already a print subscriber? Claim online access
      Already an online subscriber? Sign in
      Institutional Access: Sign in to ScienceDirect

      References

        • Vickers AJ
        • Savage CJ
        • Bianco FJ
        • et al.
        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
        • Pierorazio PM
        • Walsh PC
        • Partin AW
        • Epstein JI.
        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
        • Epstein JI
        • Zelefsky MJ
        • Sjoberg DD
        • et al.
        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
        • Dean LW
        • Assel M
        • Sjoberg DD
        • et al.
        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
        • Sauter G
        • Steurer S
        • Clauditz TS
        • et al.
        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
        • Epstein JI
        • Amin MB
        • Reuter VE
        • Humphrey PA.
        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
        • Epstein JI
        • Egevad L
        • Amin MB
        • et al.
        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
        • van der Kwast TH
        • Amin MB
        • Billis A
        • et al.
        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
        • Stamey TA
        • McNeal JE
        • Yemoto CM
        • Sigal BM
        • Johnstone IM.
        Biological determinants of cancer progression in men with prostate cancer.
        JAMA. 1999; 281: 1395-1400https://doi.org/10.1001/jama.281.15.1395
        • Ito Y
        • Udo K
        • Vertosick EA
        • et al.
        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
        • Vickers AJ
        • Fine SW.
        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
        • Aihara M
        • Lebovitz RM
        • Wheeler TM
        • Kinner BM
        • Ohori M
        • Scardino PT.
        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
        • Hamdy FC
        • Donovan JL
        • Lane JA
        • et al.
        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
        • Eggener SE
        • Scardino PT
        • Walsh PC
        • et al.
        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
        • Ross HM
        • Kryvenko ON
        • Cowan JE
        • Simko JP
        • Wheeler TM
        • Epstein JI.
        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
        • Ahmed HU
        • Arya M
        • Freeman A
        • Emberton M
        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
        • Eggener SE
        • Badani K
        • Barocas DA
        • et al.
        Gleason 6 prostate cancer: translating biology into population health.
        J Urol. 2015; 194: 626-634https://doi.org/10.1016/j.juro.2015.01.126
        • Carter HB
        • Partin AW
        • Walsh PC
        • et al.
        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
        • Labbate CV
        • Paner GP
        • Eggener SE.
        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
        • Dudka I
        • Thysell E
        • Lundquist K
        • et al.
        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
        • Rubin MA
        • Girelli G
        • Demichelis F.
        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
        • Giri VN
        • Knudsen KE
        • Kelly WK
        • et al.
        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
        • Williams SA
        • Singh P
        • Isaacs JT
        • Denmeade SR.
        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
        • Lavery HJ
        • Droller MJ.
        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
        • Hanahan D
        • Weinberg RA.
        Hallmarks of cancer: the next generation.
        Cell. 2011; 144: 646-674https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cell.2011.02.013
        • Mahal BA
        • Yang DD
        • Wang NQ
        • et al.
        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
        • Stephenson AJ
        • Scardino PT
        • Eastham JA
        • et al.
        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
        • Stamey TA
        • Johnstone IM
        • McNeal JE
        • Lu AY
        • Yemoto CM.
        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