Incidence of Extraprostatic Extension at Radical Prostatectomy with Pure Gleason Score 3 + 3 = 6 (Grade Group 1) Cancer: Implications for Whether Gleason Score 6 Prostate Cancer Should be Renamed "Not Cancer" and for Selection Criteria for Active Surveillance.

Abstract

We assessed the risk of locally aggressive behavior in pure Gleason score 6 (Grade Group 1) prostate cancer using contemporary grading criteria. To our knowledge this has been studied in only 1 prior cohort. We evaluated consecutive radical prostatectomy specimens from an academic institution, including those from 3,291 men with Gleason score 6 and 4,202 with Gleason score 3 + 4 = 7 (Grade Group 2) disease between 2005 and 2016. For dichotomous variables the Pearson chi-square test was used. Of the 3,288 Gleason score 6 cancer cases 128 (3.9%) showed focal extraprostatic extension compared to 593 of the 4,202 (14.1%) with Gleason score 3 + 4 = 7 (p <0.0001). Of the 3,288 Gleason score 6 cancer cases 79 (2.4%) showed nonfocal extraprostatic extension compared to 639 of the 4,202 (15.2%) with Gleason score 3 + 4 = 7 (p <0.0001). The incidence of focal extraprostatic extension with Gleason score 3 + 4 = 7 with less than 5% Gleason pattern 4 was 129 of 1,147 cases (11.2%), which was between Gleason scores 6 and 3 + 4 = 7 with greater than 5% Gleason pattern 4. The incidence of nonfocal extraprostatic extension in Gleason score 3 + 4 = 7 with less than 5% Gleason pattern 4 was 96 of 1,147 cases (8.4%), which was between Gleason scores 6 and 3 + 4 = 7 with greater than 5% Gleason pattern 4. One of the 3,290 Gleason score 6 cases (0.03%) showed seminal vesicle invasion compared to 93 of the 4,202 (2.2%) of Gleason score 3 + 4 = 7 (p <0.0001). A limitation of our study was its retrospective design. It is not rare for pure Gleason score 6 prostate cancer to locally extend out of the prostate 3.9% focally and 2.4% nonfocally. In extremely rare cases Gleason score 6 can be associated with seminal vesicle invasion and yet not lymph node metastases. Our overall findings support the argument for continuing to use the term cancer for these tumors.