Autopsy studies have shown the presence of a large reservoir of latent prostate cancers in adult men. Serum PSA testing of asymptomatic men leads to the detection of a proportion of these latent prostate cancers. The unequivocal demonstration of a substantial (30–50%) risk of overdiagnosis by the two largest randomized population-based screening trials has led to a growing awareness of this unwanted effect. Unsurprisingly, active surveillance is now becoming the favoured strategy for deferring active treatment in men diagnosed with low-risk prostate cancer and reducing their risk of overtreatment. Almost all eligibility criteria for active surveillance refer to a strict pathological definition of insignificant prostate cancer, based on two landmark studies published about 20 years ago. However, current epidemiological data suggest that this original pathological definition of insignificant prostate cancer is too restrictive. In addition, the International Society of Urological Pathology (ISUP) 2005 modification to the Gleason grading system might have resulted in a marked upgrading of biopsy-diagnosed prostate cancers, reducing the number of men eligible for active surveillance. An updated definition of insignificant prostate cancer should reflect the optimal trade-off between reducing the risk of underestimating a significant prostate cancer and including as many men as possible in active surveillance programmes.
Contemporary autopsy and cystoprostatectomy studies reveal a 10% prevalence of high-grade (Gleason score ≥7) prostate cancers in the latent prostate cancer reservoir
The kinetics of progression of Gleason score ≤6 (3 + 3) prostate cancers (with a 20–30% prevalence in the latent pool of men aged 40–50 years) is not well understood
A shift in the histopathological prognosticators of prostate cancer over the past decade has necessitated a review of the current histopathological definition of insignificant prostate cancer
Epidemiological calculations tend to underestimate PSA-induced overdiagnosis of prostate cancer because of the unclear definition of clinical prostate cancer
The current pathological definition of insignificant prostate cancer is too restrictive and should probably include all organ-confined prostate cancers with a Gleason score ≤6 (3 + 3)
Subscribe to Journal
Get full journal access for 1 year
only $4.92 per issue
All prices are NET prices.
VAT will be added later in the checkout.
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.
Rent or Buy article
Get time limited or full article access on ReadCube.
All prices are NET prices.
Esserman, L., Shieh, Y. & Thompson, I. Rethinking screening for breast cancer and prostate cancer. JAMA 302, 1685–1692 (2009).
Schröder, F. H. et al. Screening and prostate-cancer mortality in a randomized European study. N. Engl. J. Med. 360, 1320–1328 (2009).
Andriole, G. L. et al. Mortality results from a randomized prostate-cancer screening trial. N. Engl. J. Med. 360, 1310–1319 (2009).
Loeb, S., Carter, H. B., Berndt, S. I., Ricker, W. & Schaeffer, E. M. Complications after prostate biopsy: data from SEER-Medicare. J. Urol. 186, 1830–1834 (2011).
Ploussard, G. et al. The contemporary concept of significant versus insignificant prostate cancer. Eur. Urol. 60, 291–303 (2011).
Epstein, J. I., Walsh, P. C., Carmicheal, M. & Brendler, C. B. Pathologic and clinical findings to predict tumor extent of nonpalpable (stage T1c) prostate cancer. JAMA 271, 368–374 (1994).
Chun, F. K. et al. Assessment of pathological prostate cancer characteristics in men with favorable biopsy features on predominantly sextant biopsy. Eur. Urol. 55, 617–628 (2009).
Beauval, J. B. et al. Pathologic findings in radical prostatectomy specimens from patients eligible for active surveillance with highly selective criteria: a multicenter study. Urology 80, 656–660 (2012).
Delongchamps, N. B. & Haas, G. P. Saturation biopsies for prostate cancer: current uses and future prospects. Nat. Rev. Urol. 6, 645–652 (2009).
Noguchi, M., Stamey, T. A., McNeal, J. E. & Yemoto, C. M. Relationship between systematic biopsies and histological features of 222 radical prostatectomy specimens: lack of prediction of tumor significance for men with nonpalpable prostate cancer. J. Urol. 166, 104–109 (2001).
Van der Kwast, T. H. et al. Guidelines for processing and reporting of prostatic needle biopsies. J. Clin. Pathol. 56, 336–340 (2003).
Egevad, L. et al. Standardization of Gleason grading among 337 European pathologists. Histopathology (in press).
Langer, D. L. et al. Intermixed normal tissue within prostate cancer: effect on MR imaging measurements of apparent diffusion coefficient and T2--sparse versus dense cancers. Radiology 249, 900–908 (2008).
Vargas, H. A. et al. Performance characteristics of MR imaging in the evaluation of clinically low-risk prostate cancer: a prospective study. Radiology (in press).
Hankey, B. F. et al. Cancer surveillance series: interpreting trends in prostate cancer--part I: Evidence of the effects of screening in recent prostate cancer incidence, mortality, and survival rates. J. Natl Cancer Inst. 91, 1017–1024 (1999).
Postma, R., Van Leenders, A. G., Roobol, M. J., Schröder, F. H. & Van der Kwast, T. H. Tumour features in the control and screening arm of a randomized trial of prostate cancer. Eur. Urol. 50, 70–75 (2006).
Etzioni, R. et al. Quantifying the role of PSA screening in the US prostate cancer mortality decline. Cancer Causes Control 19, 175–181 (2008).
Dong, F. et al. Impact on the clinical outcome of prostate cancer by the 2005 international society of urological pathology modified Gleason grading system. Am. J. Surg. Pathol. 36, 838–843 (2012).
Welch, H. G. & Black, W. C. Overdiagnosis in cancer. J. Natl Cancer Inst. 102, 605–613 (2010).
Alberran, J. & Hallé, N. Hypertrophie et néoplasies épitheliales de la prostate. Ann. des Mal. Org. Gen-Urin. 17, 797–801 (1898).
Breslow, N. et al. Latent carcinoma of prostate at autopsy in seven areas. The International Agency for Research on Cancer, Lyons, France. Int. J. Cancer 20, 680–688 (1977).
Franks, L. M. Latent carcinoma of the prostate. J. Pathol. Bacteriol. 68, 603–616 (1954).
Sakr, W. A. et al. High grade prostatic intraepithelial neoplasia (HGPIN) and prostatic adenocarcinoma between the ages of 20–69: an autopsy study of 249 cases. In Vivo 8, 439–443 (1994).
Sakr, W. A., Haas, G. P., Cassin, B. F., Pontes, J. E. & Crissman, J. D. The frequency of carcinoma and intraepithelial neoplasia of the prostate in young male patients. J. Urol. 150, 379–385 (1993).
Watanabe, M., Nakayama, T., Shiraishi, T., Stemmermann, G. N. & Yatani, R. Comparative studies of prostate cancer in Japan versus the United States. A review. Urol. Oncol. 5, 274–283 (2000).
Erbersdobler, A., Bardenhagen, P. & Henke, R. P. Numerical chromosomal anomalies in latent adenocarcinomas of the prostate. Prostate 38, 92–99 (1999).
Soos, G. et al. The prevalence of prostate carcinoma and its precursor in Hungary: an autopsy study. Eur. Urol. 48, 739–744 (2005).
Haas, G. P. et al. Needle biopsies on autopsy prostates: sensitivity of cancer detection based on true prevalence. J. Natl Cancer Inst. 99, 1484–1489 (2007).
Stamatiou, K., Alevizos, A., Agapitos, E. & Sofras, F. Incidence of impalpable carcinoma of the prostate and of non-malignant and precarcinomatous lesions in Greek male population: an autopsy study. Prostate 66, 1319–1328 (2006).
Zlotta, A. R. et al. Prevalence of prostate carcinoma and its precursor lesions in Russian Caucasian and Japanese men in autopsy specimens: A prospective comparative international study with central pathology review. Eur. Urol. 11, e1122 (2012).
Sánchez-Chapado, M., Olmedilla, G., Cabeza, M., Donat, E. & Ruiz, A. Prevalence of prostate cancer and prostatic intraepithelial neoplasia in Caucasian Mediterranean males: an autopsy study. Prostate 54, 238–247 (2003).
Grönberg, H. Prostate cancer epidemiology. Lancet 361, 859–864 (2003).
Weischenfeldt, J. et al. Integrative genomic analyses reveal an androgen-driven somatic alteration landscape in early-onset prostate cancer. Cancer Cell 23, 159–170 (2013).
Kellen, E. et al. Occurrence of both bladder and prostate cancer in five cancer registries in Belgium, The Netherlands and the United Kingdom. Eur. J. Cancer 43, 1694–1700 (2007).
Damiano, R. et al. Clinicopathologic features of prostate adenocarcinoma incidentally discovered at the time of radical cystectomy: an evidence-based analysis. Eur. Urol. 52, 648–657 (2007).
Mazzucchelli, R. et al. Is incidentally detected prostate cancer in patients undergoing radical cystoprostatectomy clinically significant? Am. J. Clin. Pathol. 131, 279–283 (2009).
Rocco, B. et al. Sensitivity and detection rate of a 12-core trans-perineal prostate biopsy: preliminary report. Eur. Urol. 49, 827–833 (2006).
Pettus, J. A. et al. Risk assessment of prostatic pathology in patients undergoing radical cystoprostatectomy. Eur. Urol. 53, 370–375 (2008).
Ruffion, A. et al. Preservation of prostate during radical cystectomy: evaluation of prevalence of prostate cancer associated with bladder cancer. J. Urol. 65, 703–707 (2005).
Revelo, M. P. et al. Incidence and location of prostate and urothelial carcinoma in prostates from cystoprostatectomies: implications for possible apical sparing surgery. J. Urol. 171, 646–651 (2004).
Wolters, T. et al. Comparison of incidentally detected prostate cancer with screen-detected prostate cancer treated by prostatectomy. Prostate 72, 108–115 (2012).
Konety, B. R., Bird, V. Y., Deorah, S. & Dahmoush, L. Comparison of the incidence of latent prostate cancer detected at autopsy before and after the prostate specific antigen era. J. Urol. 174, 1785–1788 (2005).
Hoedemaeker, R. F. et al. Pathologic features of prostate cancer found at population-based screening with a four-year interval. J. Natl Cancer Inst. 93, 1153–1158 (2001).
Li, J. R., Yang, C. R., Wang, J., Ou, Y. C., Ho, H. C. & Cheng, C. L. Unsuspected prostate cancer after cystoprostatectomy: A comparison between two periods in Taiwan. J. Form. Ass. 108, 409–413 (2009).
Van der Cruijsen-Koeter, I. W. et al. Tumor characteristics and prognostic factors in two subsequent screening rounds with four-year interval within prostate cancer screening trial, ERSPC Rotterdam. Urology 68, 615–620 (2006).
Postma, R. et al. Cancer detection and cancer characteristics in the European Randomized Study of Screening for Prostate Cancer (ERSPC)--Section Rotterdam. A comparison of two rounds of screening. Eur. Urol. 52, 89–97 (2007).
Stamey, T. A. et al. Localized prostate cancer. Relationship of tumor volume to clinical significance for treatment of prostate cancer. Cancer 7, 933–938 (1993).
Martin, R. M., Vatten, L., Gunnell, D., Romundstad, P. & Nilsen, T. I. Lower urinary tract symptoms and risk of prostate cancer: the HUNT 2 Cohort, Norway. Int. J. Cancer 123, 1924–1928 (2008).
Samaratunga, H. & Letizia, B. Prostatic ductal adenocarcinoma presenting as a urethral polyp: a clinicopathological study of eight cases of a lesion with the potential to be misdiagnosed as a benign prostatic urethral polyp. Pathology 39, 476–481 (2007).
Schröder, F. H. et al. Evaluation of the digital rectal examination as a screening test for prostate cancer. Rotterdam section of the European Randomized Study of Screening for Prostate Cancer. J. Natl Cancer Inst. 90, 1817–1823 (1998).
Cremers, R. G. et al. Prostate cancer: trends in incidence, survival and mortality in the Netherlands, 1989–2006. Eur. J. Cancer 46, 2077–2087 (2010).
Draisma, G. et al. Lead time and overdiagnosis in prostate-specific antigen screening: importance of methods and context. J. Natl Cancer Inst. 101, 374–383 (2009).
Etzioni, R. et al. Overdiagnosis due to prostate-specific antigen screening: lessons from U.S. prostate cancer incidence trends. J. Natl Cancer Inst. 94, 981–990 (2002).
McGregor, M., Hanley, J. A., Boivin, J. F. & McLean, R. G. Screening for prostate cancer: estimating the magnitude of overdetection. CMAJ 159, 1368–1372 (1998).
Draisma, G. et al. Lead times and overdetection due to prostate-specific antigen screening: estimates from the European Randomized Study of Screening for Prostate Cancer. J. Natl Cancer Inst. 95, 868–878 (2003).
Parker, C., Muston, D., Melia, J., Moss, S. & Dearnaley, D. A model of the natural history of screen-detected prostate cancer, and the effect of radical treatment on overall survival. Br. J. Cancer 94, 1361–1368 (2006).
Pashayan, N. et al. Mean sojourn time, overdiagnosis, and reduction in advanced stage prostate cancer due to screening with PSA: implications of sojourn time on screening. Br. J. Cancer 100, 1198–1204 (2009).
Gulati, R. et al. What if I don't treat my PSA-detected prostate cancer? Answers from three natural history models. Cancer Epidemiol. Biomarkers Prev. 20, 740–750 (2011).
Whittemore, A. S., Keller, J. B. & Betensky, R. Low-grade, latent prostate cancer volume: predictor of clinical cancer incidence? J. Natl Cancer Inst. 83, 1231–1235 (1991).
Carter, H. B., Piantadosi, S. & Isaacs, J. T. Clinical evidence for and implications of the multistep development of prostate cancer. J. Urol. 143, 742–746 (1990).
Johansson, J. E. et al. Natural history of early, localized prostate cancer. JAMA 291, 2713–2719 (2004).
Albertsen, P. C., Hanley, J. A. & Fine, J. 20-year outcomes following conservative management of clinically localized prostate cancer. JAMA 293, 2095–2101 (2005).
Draisma, G., Postma, R., Schröder, F. H., Van der Kwast, T. H. & De Koning, H. J. Gleason score, age and screening: modeling dedifferentiation in prostate cancer. Int. J. Cancer 119, 2366–2371 (2006).
Sowalsky, A. G., Ye, H., Bubley, G. J. & Balk, S. P. Clonal progression of prostate cancers from Gleason grade 3 to grade 4. Cancer Res. 73, 1050–1055 (2013).
Cooperberg, M. R., Carroll, P. R. & Klotz, L. Active surveillance for prostate cancer: progress and promise. J. Clin. Oncol. 29, 3669–3676 (2011).
Hoedemaeker, R. F., Rietbergen, J. B. W., Kranse, R., Van der Kwast, T. H. & Schröder, F. H. Comparison of pathological characteristics of T1c and non-T1c cancers detected in a population-based screening study, the European Randomized Study of Screening for Prostate Cancer. World J. Urol. 15, 339–345 (1997).
Dugan, J. A., Bostwick, D. G., Myers, R. P., Qian, J., Bergstralh, E. J. & Oesterling, J. E. The definition and preoperative prediction of clinically insignificant prostate cancer. JAMA 275, 288–294 (1996).
Bostwick, D. G. et al. Staging of early prostate cancer: a proposed tumor volume-based prognostic index. Urology 41, 403–411 (1993).
Stamey, T. A. Editorial: More information on prostate specific antigen and prostate cancer. J. Urol. 170, 457–458 (2003).
Winkler, M. H., Livni, N., Mannion, E. M., Hrouda, D. & Christmas, T. Characteristics of incidental prostatic adenocarcinoma in contemporary radical cystoprostatectomy specimens. Br. J. Urol. Int. 99, 554–558 (2007).
Wolters, T. et al. A critical analysis of the tumor volume threshold for clinically insignificant prostate cancer using a data set of a randomized screening trial. J. Urol. 185, 121–125 (2011).
Van der Kwast, T. H. 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. 24, 16–25 (2011).
Roobol, M. J. et al. Prostate cancer mortality reduction by prostate-specific antigen-based screening adjusted for nonattendance and contamination in the European Randomised Study of Screening for Prostate Cancer (ERSPC). Eur. Urol. 56, 584–591 (2009).
Bangma, C. H. et al. Active surveillance for low-risk prostate cancer. Crit. Rev. Oncol. Hematol. (in press).
Epstein, J. I. et al. The 2005 International Society of Urological Pathology (ISUP) consensus conference on Gleason grading of prostatic carcinoma. Am. J. Surg. Pathol. 29, 1228–1242 (2005).
Helpap, B. & Egevad, L. The significance of modified Gleason grading of prostatic carcinoma in biopsy and radical prostatectomy specimens. Virchows Arch. 449, 622–627 (2006).
Billis, A. et al. The impact of the 2005 International Society of Urological Pathology Consensus Conference on standard Gleason grading of prostatic carcinoma in needle biopsies. J. Urol. 180, 548–553 (2008).
Epstein, J., Feng, Z., Trock, B. J. & Pierorazio, P. M. 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. Urol. 61, 1019–1024 (2012).
Albertsen, P. C. et al. Prostate cancer and the Will Rogers phenomenon. J. Natl Cancer Inst. 97, 1248–1253 (2005).
Cheng, L. et al. The combined percentage of Gleason patterns 4 and 5 is the best predictor of cancer progression after radical prostatectomy. J. Clin. Oncol. 23, 2911–2917 (2005).
Vis, A. N., Roemeling, S., Kranse, R., Schröder, F. H. & Van der Kwast, T. H. Should we replace the Gleason score with the amount of high-grade prostate cancer? Eur. Urol. 51, 931–939 (2007).
Guo, C. C., Gonzalgo, M. L., Magheli, A., Loeb, S. & Epstein, J. I. Tertiary Gleason patterns and biochemical recurrence after prostatectomy: Proposal for a modified Gleason scoring system. J. Urol. 182, 1364–1370 (2009).
Servoll, E. et al. Impact of a tertiary Gleason pattern 4 or 5 on clinical failure and mortality after radical prostatectomy for clinically localized prostate cancer. Br. J. Urol. Int. 109, 1489–1494 (2012).
Ross, H. M. et al. Do adenocarcinomas of the prostate with Gleason score (GS)≤6 have the potential to metastasize to lymph nodes? Am. J. Surg. Pathol. 36, 1346–1352 (2012).
Wilt, T. J. et al. Radical prostatectomy versus observation for localized prostate cancer. N. Engl. J. Med. 367, 203–213 (2012).
Abern, M. R. et al. Delayed radical prostatectomy for intermediate-risk prostate cancer is associated with biochemical recurrence: Possible implications for active surveillance from the SEARCH database. Prostate (in press).
Iremashvili, V. et al. Pathological prostate cancer characteristics in patients eligible for active surveillance: A head-to-head comparison of contemporary protocols. Eur. Urol. (in press).
The authors declare no competing financial interests.
About this article
Cite this article
Van der Kwast, T., Roobol, M. Defining the threshold for significant versus insignificant prostate cancer. Nat Rev Urol 10, 473–482 (2013). https://doi.org/10.1038/nrurol.2013.112
Japanese Journal of Clinical Oncology (2021)
The GÖTEBORG prostate cancer screening 2 trial: a prospective, randomised, population-based prostate cancer screening trial with prostate-specific antigen testing followed by magnetic resonance imaging of the prostate
Scandinavian Journal of Urology (2021)
Urologia Journal (2020)
International Journal of Urology (2020)
En‐face optical coherence tomography for the detection of cancer in prostatectomy specimens: Quantitative analysis in 20 patients
Journal of Biophotonics (2020)