The contemporary plea for a more liberal pathological definition of insignificant prostate cancer was recently challenged by Schiffmann and colleagues, who advocate a return to the original, stringent 0.5 ml tumour volume threshold. This cut-off point would render fewer men eligible for active surveillance programmes.
This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution
Access options
Subscribe to this journal
Receive 12 print issues and online access
$209.00 per year
only $17.42 per issue
Rent or buy this article
Prices vary by article type
from$1.95
to$39.95
Prices may be subject to local taxes which are calculated during checkout
References
Schiffmann, J. et al. Tumour volume in insignificant prostate cancer: increasing threshold gains increasing risk. Prostate http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/pros.22889.
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).
Van der Kwast, T. H. & Roobol, M. J. Defining the threshold for significant versus insignificant prostate cancer. Nat. Rev. Urol. 10, 473–482 (2013).
Wolters, T. et al. A critical analysis of the tumour volume threshold for clinically insignificant prostate cancer using a data set of a randomized screening trial. J. Urol. 185, 121–125 (2011).
Iremashvili, V. et al. Pathologic prostate cancer characteristics in patients eligible for active surveillance: a head-to-head comparison of contemporary protocols. Eur. Urol. 62, 462–428 (2012).
Hong, S. K, Vertosick, E., Sjoberg, D. D., Scardino, P. T. & Eastham, J. A. Insignificant disease among men with intermediate-risk prostate cancer. World J. Urol. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s00345-014-1413–3.
Donin, N. M., Laze, J., Zhou, M., Ren, Q. & Lepor, H. Gleason 6 prostate tumours diagnosed in the PSA era do not demonstrate the capacity for metastatic spread at the time of radical prostatectomy. Urology 82, 148–152 (2013).
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).
Kweldam, C. F., Wildhagen, M. F., Bangma, C. H. & van Leenders, G. J. Disease-specific death and metastasis do not occur in patients with Gleason score ≤6 on radical prostatectomy. BJU Int. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/bju.12879.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Ethics declarations
Competing interests
The authors declare no competing financial interests.
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
van der Kwast, T., Roobol, M. Is prostatectomy for Gleason score 6 a treatment failure?. Nat Rev Urol 12, 10–11 (2015). https://doi.org/10.1038/nrurol.2014.335
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/nrurol.2014.335
This article is cited by
-
Does true Gleason pattern 3 merit its cancer descriptor?
Nature Reviews Urology (2016)
-
Die Aktive Ãœberwachung ist in der Versorgung angekommen
Uro-News (2015)
-
Die Aktive Ãœberwachung ist in der Versorgung angekommen
Im Focus Onkologie (2015)