Related Experiment Video
Updated: Aug 1, 2025
Microarray-based Identification of Individual HERV Loci Expression: Application to Biomarker Discovery in Prostate Cancer
Published on: November 2, 2013
Prognostic Value of the Intermediate-risk Feature in Men with Favorable Intermediate-risk Prostate Cancer:
Michael V Sherer1,2, Austin J Leonard3, Tyler J Nelson1,2
1Department of Radiation Medicine and Applied Sciences, University of California San Diego, La Jolla, CA, USA.
Background:
Guidelines suggest that active surveillance (AS) may be considered for select patients with favorable intermediate-risk (fIR) prostate cancer.
Objective:
To compare the outcomes between fIR prostate cancer patients included by Gleason score (GS) or prostate-specific antigen (PSA). Most patients are classified with fIR disease due to either a 3 + 4 = 7 GS (fIR-GS) or a PSA level of 10-20 ng/ml (fIR-PSA). Previous research suggests that inclusion by GS 7 may be associated with worse outcomes.
Design Setting And Participants:
We conducted a retrospective cohort study of US veterans diagnosed with fIR prostate cancer from 2001 to 2015.
Outcome Measurements And Statistical Analysis:
We compared the incidence of metastatic disease, prostate cancer-specific mortality (PCSM), all-cause mortality (ACM), and receipt of definitive treatment between fIR-PSA and fIR-GS patients managed with AS. Outcomes were compared with those of a previously published cohort of patients with unfavorable intermediate-risk disease using cumulative incidence function and Gray's test for statistical significance.
Results And Limitations:
The cohort included 663 men; 404 had fIR-GS (61%) and 249 fIR-PSA (39%). There was no evidence of difference in the incidence of metastatic disease (8.6% vs 5.8%, p = 0.77), receipt of definitive treatment (77.6% vs 81.5%, p = 0.43), PCSM (5.7% vs 2.5%, p = 0.274), and ACM (16.8% vs 19.1%, p = 0.14) between the fIR-PSA and fIR-GS groups at 10 yr. On multivariate regression, unfavorable intermediate-risk disease was associated with higher rates of metastatic disease, PCSM, and ACM. Limitations included varying surveillance protocols.
Conclusions:
There is no evidence of difference in oncological and survival outcomes between men with fIR-PSA and fIR-GS prostate cancer undergoing AS. Thus, presence of GS 7 disease alone should not exclude patients from consideration of AS. Shared decision-making should be utilized to optimize management for each patient.
Patient Summary:
In this report, we compared the outcomes of men with favorable intermediate-risk prostate cancer in the Veterans Health Administration. We found no significant difference between survival and oncological outcomes.
