Skip to main content

Thank you for visiting nature.com. You are using a browser version with limited support for CSS. To obtain the best experience, we recommend you use a more up to date browser (or turn off compatibility mode in Internet Explorer). In the meantime, to ensure continued support, we are displaying the site without styles and JavaScript.

Prostate cancer

Is prostatectomy for Gleason score 6 a treatment failure?

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.

Access options

Rent or Buy article

Get time limited or full article access on ReadCube.

from$8.99

All prices are NET prices.

References

  1. 1

    Schiffmann, J. et al. Tumour volume in insignificant prostate cancer: increasing threshold gains increasing risk. Prostate http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/pros.22889.

  2. 2

    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).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. 3

    Van der Kwast, T. H. & Roobol, M. J. Defining the threshold for significant versus insignificant prostate cancer. Nat. Rev. Urol. 10, 473–482 (2013).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. 4

    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).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. 5

    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).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. 6

    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.

  7. 7

    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).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. 8

    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).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. 9

    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.

Download references

Author information

Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Theodorus H. van der Kwast.

Ethics declarations

Competing interests

The authors declare no competing financial interests.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

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

Download citation

Further reading

Search

Quick links

Nature Briefing

Sign up for the Nature Briefing newsletter — what matters in science, free to your inbox daily.

Get the most important science stories of the day, free in your inbox. Sign up for Nature Briefing