Clinical predictors of survival in men with castration-resistant prostate cancer

Evidence That Gleason Score 6 Cancer Can Evolve to Lethal Disease

Authors

  • Ahmed El-Shater Bosaily MB BCh, MSc,

    1. Department of Urology, Division of Surgery and Interventional Science, University College London, London, United Kingdom
    Search for more papers by this author
  • Manit Arya MBChB, MD(Res), FRCS, FRCS(Urol),

    1. Department of Urology, Division of Surgery and Interventional Science, University College London, London, United Kingdom
    2. Barts Cancer Institute, London, United Kingdom
    Search for more papers by this author
  • Hashim Ahmed BM BCh, FRCS(Urol)

    1. Department of Urology, Division of Surgery and Interventional Science, University College London, London, United Kingdom
    Search for more papers by this author

We would like to thank the authors for producing this informative, data-rich work.[1] However, their specific highlighting of a small part of those data referring to cancer of Gleason score 6 developing into a lethal disease might lead to ongoing unnecessary overtreatment of patients with localized cancer.[2] Although, at face value, 7 deaths occurring among patients with a Gleason score ≤ 6 confirmed on radical prostatectomy may support their proposition, it is important to examine the problems in methodology before making or accepting such a conclusion.

First, the processing technique used on the prostatectomy specimen was not detailed. Were these whole-mount, 3-mm step-sections? Were all slices examined or were alternate slices donated for basic research, as is often practiced in tertiary research centers? Second, although not all biopsy and prostatectomy cases were reviewed by the same pathologist, it is not stated whether the 7 deaths from apparently pure Gleason score ≤ 6 disease were part of the 27 cases that were not centrally reviewed. This error can be significant because there is moderate interobserver pathology variability. Third, the local biopsy processing and particularly biopsy sectioning were not given, because sectioning at different levels affects whether an area with a Gleason score ≥ 7 is found on biopsy. Fourth, there is growing evidence that lesion volume is a predictor of treatment failure,[3-5] which is not considered in the report by Nakabayashi et al. Fifth, there are no details provided regarding the biopsy technique (density of sampling) used to derive the histological grading. Were they targeted or randomly acquired? Did an experienced operator perform them? Transrectal ultrasound-guided biopsies can undergrade disease in approximately 30% of cases due to random error.

Although low-grade tumors may rarely progress, to the best of our knowledge the current data do not strongly support this theory. Therefore, the ongoing treatment of men with accurately characterized Gleason score 6 disease just because it might very rarely metastasize can only lead to a lack of correction in the current pathway. There is an urgent need to address the overdiagnosis and overtreatment burdens inherent in the current cancer pathway through the greater and judicious use of active surveillance in men with well-characterized Gleason score 6 disease.

CONFLICT OF INTEREST DISCLOSURES

Dr. Ahmed has received a grant from UKHIFU, AMD SAS for a trial in focal therapy and imaging. In the past, he received consulting fees from UKHIFU, Sonacare, and GE Healthcare/Oncura. He has also received support for travel to meetings from UKHIFU and Sonacare and has received royalties from Wiley Blackwell for editing 2 books on uro-oncology.

  • Ahmed El-Shater Bosaily, MB BCh, MSc1

  • Manit Arya, MBChB, MD(Res), FRCS, FRCS(Urol)1,2

  • Hashim Ahmed, BM BCh, FRCS(Urol)1

  • 1Department of Urology

  • Division of Surgery and Interventional Science,

  • University College London

  • 2Barts Cancer Institute,

  • University College London

Ancillary