No AccessJournal of UrologyAdult Urology1 Feb 2014

Population Based Study of Predictors of Adverse Pathology among Candidates for Active Surveillance with Gleason 6 Prostate Cancer

    View All Author Information


    Approximately a third of prostate cancer cases with a Gleason score of 6 are upgraded at radical prostatectomy. We studied trends and predictors of upgrading and up staging among men with Gleason 6 prostate cancer who were potential candidates for active surveillance in a population based cohort.

    Materials and Methods:

    From 2007 to 2011, 13,159 men were diagnosed with Gleason 6, clinical stage T1c/T2 prostate cancer in the NPCR (National Prostate Cancer Register of Sweden). Of these men 4,500 underwent radical prostatectomy, including 2,205 with data on the extent of prostate cancer in the biopsy cores. Logistic regression was used to examine variables associated with adverse pathology (defined as upgrading to Gleason 7 or greater, or up staging to pT3 or greater) in the full group and in potential candidates for active surveillance using 6 current published protocols.


    Among Swedish men with clinically localized Gleason 6 prostate cancer approximately 50% had adverse pathology at radical prostatectomy. Of the men who met the study inclusion criteria of 6 different active surveillance protocols, adverse pathology was present in 33% to 45%. Predictors of adverse pathology were older age, higher prostate specific antigen, prostate specific antigen density greater than 0.15 ng/ml/cm3, palpable disease and extent of cancer greater than 4 mm on biopsy. Larger prostate volume had an inverse relationship with adverse pathology.


    More than a third of men meeting the most stringent active surveillance criteria had adverse pathology at radical prostatectomy in this population based cohort. Active surveillance programs should consider prostate specific antigen density and extent of cancer on biopsy for patient selection.


    • 1 : Upgrading and downgrading of prostate cancer from biopsy to radical prostatectomy: incidence and predictive factors using the modified Gleason grading system and factoring in tertiary grades. Eur Urol2012; 61: 1019. Google Scholar
    • 2 : Active surveillance for prostate cancer: a systematic review of the literature. Eur Urol2012; 62: 976. Google Scholar
    • 3 : NIH State-of-the-Science Conference Statement: role of active surveillance in the management of men with localized prostate cancer. NIH Consens State Sci Statements2011; 28: 1. Google Scholar
    • 4 : Cohort Profile: The National Prostate Cancer Register of Sweden and Prostate Cancer data Base Sweden 2.0. Int J Epidemiol2013; 42: 956. Google Scholar
    • 5 : Comorbidity, treatment and mortality: a population based cohort study of prostate cancer in PCBaSe Sweden. J Urol2011; 185: 833. LinkGoogle Scholar
    • 6 : Risk assessment for prostate cancer metastasis and mortality at the time of diagnosis. J Natl Cancer Inst2009; 101: 878. Google Scholar
    • 7 : Expectant management of prostate cancer with curative intent: an update of the Johns Hopkins experience. J Urol2007; 178: 2359. LinkGoogle Scholar
    • 8 : Clinical results of long-term follow-up of a large, active surveillance cohort with localized prostate cancer. J Clin Oncol2010; 28: 126. Google Scholar
    • 9 : Active surveillance for the management of prostate cancer in a contemporary cohort. Cancer2008; 112: 2664. Google Scholar
    • 10 : Short-term outcomes of the prospective multicentre ‘Prostate Cancer Research International: Active Surveillance’ study. BJU Int2010; 105: 956. Google Scholar
    • 11 : Pathological upgrading and up staging with immediate repeat biopsy in patients eligible for active surveillance. J Urol2008; 180: 1964. LinkGoogle Scholar
    • 12 : Careful selection and close monitoring of low-risk prostate cancer patients on active surveillance minimizes the need for treatment. Eur Urol2010; 58: 831. Google Scholar
    • 13 : International multicentre study examining selection criteria for active surveillance in men undergoing radical prostatectomy. Br J Cancer2012; 107: 1467. Google Scholar
    • 14 : PSA density is superior than PSA and Gleason score for adverse pathologic features prediction in patients with clinically localized prostate cancer. Can Urol Assoc J2012; 6: 46. Google Scholar
    • 15 : Risk stratification of men choosing surveillance for low risk prostate cancer. J Urol2010; 183: 1779. LinkGoogle Scholar
    • 16 : Detailed biopsy pathologic features as predictive factors for initial reclassification in prostate cancer patients eligible for active surveillance. Urol Oncol2013; 31: 1060. Google Scholar
    • 17 : Smaller prostate gland size and older age predict Gleason score upgrading. Urol Oncol2013; 31: 1033. Google Scholar
    • 18 : Continued undertreatment of older men with localized prostate cancer. Urology2003; 62: 860. Google Scholar
    • 19 : Comorbidity and competing risks for mortality in men with prostate cancer. Cancer2011; 117: 4642. Google Scholar
    • 20 : Optimal biopsy strategies for the diagnosis and staging of prostate cancer. Curr Opin Urol2009; 19: 232. Google Scholar
    • 21 : Histological grade heterogeneity in multifocal prostate cancer. Biological and clinical implications. J Pathol1996; 180: 295. Google Scholar
    • 22 : Standard and saturation transrectal prostate biopsy techniques are equally accurate among prostate cancer active surveillance candidates. Int J Urol2013; 20: 860. Google Scholar
    • 23 : Risk of Gleason grade inaccuracies in prostate cancer patients eligible for active surveillance. Urology2012; 80: 661. Google Scholar
    • 24 : Is repeat prostate biopsy associated with a greater risk of hospitalization? Data from SEER-Medicare. J Urol2013; 189: 867. LinkGoogle Scholar
    • 25 : Association of [-2]proPSA with biopsy reclassification during active surveillance for prostate cancer. J Urol2012; 188: 1131. LinkGoogle Scholar
    • 26 : Magnetic resonance imaging for predicting prostate biopsy findings in patients considered for active surveillance of clinically low risk prostate cancer. J Urol2012; 188: 1732. LinkGoogle Scholar
    • 27 : Outcomes in localized prostate cancer: National Prostate Cancer Register of Sweden follow-up study. J Natl Cancer Inst2010; 102: 950. Google Scholar
    • 28 : Outcome following active surveillance of men with screen-detected prostate cancer. Results from the Goteborg randomised population-based prostate cancer screening trial. Eur Urol2013; 63: 101. Google Scholar
    • 29 : Long-term outcomes among noncuratively treated men according to prostate cancer risk category in a nationwide, population-based study. Eur Urol2013; 63: 88. Google Scholar
    • 30 : Reproducibility of Gleason grading of prostate cancer can be improved by the use of reference images. Urology2001; 57: 291. Google Scholar