Should Gleason 6 be labeled as cancer?

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Abstract

Pupose of review The review covers arguments for and against removing the label of 'cancer' in Gleason score 6 prostate tumors. Recent findings While there are a number of factors that determine whether men elect active surveillance, the most powerful predictor remains the Gleason score. Gleason grading remains a robust and powerful predictor of outcome in patients with prostate cancer. A pure Gleason score 6 (GS6) tumor is exceedingly unlikely to cause harm in the near term, and there have been discussions regarding whether the term cancer should still be applied. In this review, we update the largely clinico-pathological arguments that have led to the suggestion to remove the cancer label from GS6 tumors, and we provide counter arguments on the basis of practical matters of needle biopsy sampling, classical histopathology, and molecular biology findings. Summary The implications are that by retaining the label of cancer and implementing the recently proposed concept of prognostic groups, with patients harboring GS6 tumors placed into the lowest category, there is still a strong rationale in support of the choice of active surveillance or watchful waiting for most patients with GS6 lesions.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)238-245
Number of pages8
JournalCurrent Opinion in Urology
Volume25
Issue number3
DOIs
StatePublished - May 27 2015

Fingerprint

Neoplasm Grading
Neoplasms
Watchful Waiting
Needle Biopsy
Prostate
Molecular Biology
Prostatic Neoplasms

Keywords

  • active surveillance
  • Gleason score
  • prostate cancer

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Urology

Cite this

Should Gleason 6 be labeled as cancer? / Kulac, Ibrahim; Haffner, Michael C.; Yegnasubramanian, S; Epstein, Jonathan Ira; Demarzo, Angelo Michael.

In: Current Opinion in Urology, Vol. 25, No. 3, 27.05.2015, p. 238-245.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

@article{6c7e260d9dfc4781bf9325aa7729e6c2,
title = "Should Gleason 6 be labeled as cancer?",
abstract = "Pupose of review The review covers arguments for and against removing the label of 'cancer' in Gleason score 6 prostate tumors. Recent findings While there are a number of factors that determine whether men elect active surveillance, the most powerful predictor remains the Gleason score. Gleason grading remains a robust and powerful predictor of outcome in patients with prostate cancer. A pure Gleason score 6 (GS6) tumor is exceedingly unlikely to cause harm in the near term, and there have been discussions regarding whether the term cancer should still be applied. In this review, we update the largely clinico-pathological arguments that have led to the suggestion to remove the cancer label from GS6 tumors, and we provide counter arguments on the basis of practical matters of needle biopsy sampling, classical histopathology, and molecular biology findings. Summary The implications are that by retaining the label of cancer and implementing the recently proposed concept of prognostic groups, with patients harboring GS6 tumors placed into the lowest category, there is still a strong rationale in support of the choice of active surveillance or watchful waiting for most patients with GS6 lesions.",
keywords = "active surveillance, Gleason score, prostate cancer",
author = "Ibrahim Kulac and Haffner, {Michael C.} and S Yegnasubramanian and Epstein, {Jonathan Ira} and Demarzo, {Angelo Michael}",
year = "2015",
month = "5",
day = "27",
doi = "10.1097/MOU.0000000000000165",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "25",
pages = "238--245",
journal = "Current Opinion in Urology",
issn = "0963-0643",
publisher = "Lippincott Williams and Wilkins",
number = "3",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Should Gleason 6 be labeled as cancer?

AU - Kulac, Ibrahim

AU - Haffner, Michael C.

AU - Yegnasubramanian, S

AU - Epstein, Jonathan Ira

AU - Demarzo, Angelo Michael

PY - 2015/5/27

Y1 - 2015/5/27

N2 - Pupose of review The review covers arguments for and against removing the label of 'cancer' in Gleason score 6 prostate tumors. Recent findings While there are a number of factors that determine whether men elect active surveillance, the most powerful predictor remains the Gleason score. Gleason grading remains a robust and powerful predictor of outcome in patients with prostate cancer. A pure Gleason score 6 (GS6) tumor is exceedingly unlikely to cause harm in the near term, and there have been discussions regarding whether the term cancer should still be applied. In this review, we update the largely clinico-pathological arguments that have led to the suggestion to remove the cancer label from GS6 tumors, and we provide counter arguments on the basis of practical matters of needle biopsy sampling, classical histopathology, and molecular biology findings. Summary The implications are that by retaining the label of cancer and implementing the recently proposed concept of prognostic groups, with patients harboring GS6 tumors placed into the lowest category, there is still a strong rationale in support of the choice of active surveillance or watchful waiting for most patients with GS6 lesions.

AB - Pupose of review The review covers arguments for and against removing the label of 'cancer' in Gleason score 6 prostate tumors. Recent findings While there are a number of factors that determine whether men elect active surveillance, the most powerful predictor remains the Gleason score. Gleason grading remains a robust and powerful predictor of outcome in patients with prostate cancer. A pure Gleason score 6 (GS6) tumor is exceedingly unlikely to cause harm in the near term, and there have been discussions regarding whether the term cancer should still be applied. In this review, we update the largely clinico-pathological arguments that have led to the suggestion to remove the cancer label from GS6 tumors, and we provide counter arguments on the basis of practical matters of needle biopsy sampling, classical histopathology, and molecular biology findings. Summary The implications are that by retaining the label of cancer and implementing the recently proposed concept of prognostic groups, with patients harboring GS6 tumors placed into the lowest category, there is still a strong rationale in support of the choice of active surveillance or watchful waiting for most patients with GS6 lesions.

KW - active surveillance

KW - Gleason score

KW - prostate cancer

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=84928569631&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=84928569631&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1097/MOU.0000000000000165

DO - 10.1097/MOU.0000000000000165

M3 - Article

C2 - 25730327

AN - SCOPUS:84928569631

VL - 25

SP - 238

EP - 245

JO - Current Opinion in Urology

JF - Current Opinion in Urology

SN - 0963-0643

IS - 3

ER -