Some ways of improvement of detection of hormone-naive non-metastatic high-risk prostate cancer




prostate cancer, high-risk prostate cancer, risk stratification


Purpose: To confirm additional criteria (not including standard Tumor-Node-Metastasis (TNM) classification, prostate specific antigen (PSA) and Gleasson score) to improve stratification of hormone-naпve non-metastatic high-risk prostate cancer. Materials and methods: Detailed literature analysis with utilization of Pubmed data had been performed, and additional approaches to standard classification had been found. Conclusions: – specific criteria of high-risk prostate cancer periodically change in appropriate guidelines and clinical researches, according to different prospects in “risk” detection between different experts in oncourology and radiation oncology; – except modern classification, new data obtained concerning measurement of the tumor size can provide additional diagnostic value; – more clear visualization, exactly, multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging, can also provide appropriate information about stage and size of the tumor and, thereby, helps to identify high-risk prostate cancer; – specified definition of non-metastatic high-risk prostate cancer had been confirmed; – in high risk group patients with multiple criteria of specified condition have higher risk of cancer-specific mortality.


Ерstein M.M., Edgren G., Rider J.R., Mucci L.A., Adami H.O. Temporal trends in cause of death among Sweadish and US men with prostate cancer. J Natl Cancer Inst. 2012. Vol. 104. P. 1335–1342.

D’Amico A.V., Whittington R., Malcowicz S.B. et al. Biochemical outcome after radical prostatectomy, external beam radiation therapy, or interstitial radiation therapy for clinically localized prostate cancer. JAMA. 1998. Vol. 280. P. 969–974.

Bill-Axelson A., Holmberg L., Filen F. et al. Radical prostatectomy versus watchful waiting in localized prostate cancer: the Scandinavian prostate cancer group-4 randomized trial. J Natl Cancer Inst. 2008. Vol. 100. P. 1144–1154.

Wilt T.J., Brawer M.K., Jones K.M. et al. Radical prostatectomy versus observation for localized prostate cancer. N Engl J Med. 2012. Vol. 367. P. 203–213.

Taverna G., Benecchi L., Grizzi F. et al. Can a Gleason 6 or less microfocus of prostate cancer in one biopsy and prostate-specific antigen level <10 ng/mL be defined as the archetype of low-risk prostate disease? J Oncol. 2012.

Roach M., Waldman F., Pollack A. Predictive models in external beam radiotherapy for clinically localized prostate cancer. Cancer. 2009. Vol. 115. P. 3112–3120.

Beauval J.B., Ploussard G., Soulie M. et al. Pathologic findings in radical prostatectomy specimens from patients eligible for active surveillance with highly selective criteria: a multicenter study. Urology. 2012. Vol. 80. P. 656–660.

Collette L. Prostate-specific antigen (PSA) as a surrogate end point for survival in prostate cancer clinical trials. Eur Urol. 2008. Vol. 53. P. 6–9.

Peeters S.T., Heemsbergen W.D., Koper P.C. et al. Dose-response in radiotherapy for localized prostate cancer: results of the Dutch multicenter randomized phase III trial comparing 68 Gy of radiotherapy with 78 Gy. J Clin Oncol. 2006. Vol. 24. P. 1990–1996.

Dearnaley D.P., Jovic G., Syndikus I. et al. Escalated-dose conformal radiotherapy for localized prostate cancer: long-term overall survival results from the MRC RT01 randomised controlled trial, on behalf of the Rt01 investigators. Proccedings of the European Multidisciplinary Cancer Congress. (Sweden, Stockholm, 24–27 September 2011). Stockholm, 2012.

Thompson I.M., Targen C.M., Paradelo J. et al. Adjuvant radiotherapy for pathological T3N0M0 prostate cancer significantly reduces risk of metastases and improves survival: long-term follow-up of a randomized clinical trial. J Urol. 2009. Vol. 181. P. 956–962.

Bolla M., van Poppel H., Collette L. et al. Postoperative radiotherapy after radical prostatectomy: a randomized controlled trial (EORTC trial 22911). Lancet. 2005. Vol. 366. P. 572–578.

Wiegel T., Bottke D., Steiner U. et al. Phase III postoperative adjuvant radiotherapy after radical prostatectomy compared with radical prostatectomy alone in pT3 prostate cancer with postoperative undetectable prostate-specific antigen: ARO 96-02/AUO AP 09/95. J Clin Oncol. 2009. Vol. 27. P. 2924–2930.

Bastian P.J., Boorjian S.A., Bossi A. et al. High-risk prostate cancer: from definition to contemporary management. Eur Urol. 2012. Vol. 61. P. 1096–1106.

Rosental S.A., Sandler H.M. Treatment strategies for high-risk locally advanced prostate cancer. Nat Rev Urol. 2010. Vol. 7. P. 31–38.

Horwich A., Parker C., Bangma C., Kataja V. Prostate cancer: ESMO Clinical Practice Guidelines for diagnosis, treatment and follow-up. Ann Oncol. 2010. Vol. 21. P. 129–133.

Heidenteich A., Bastian P.J., Bellmunt J. et al. Guidelines on prostate Cancer. Arnhem: European Association of Urology, 2013.

Spahn M., Joniau S., Gontero P. et al. Outcome predictors of radical prostatectomy in patients with prostate-specific antigen greater than 20 ng/ml: a European multi-institutional study of 712 patients. Eur Urol. 2010. Vol. 58. P. 1–7.

Briganti A., Joniau S., Gontero P. et al. Identifying the best candidate for radical prostatectomy among patients with high-risk prostate cancer. Eur Urol. 2012. Vol. 61. P. 584–592.

Hsu C.Y., Joniau S., Oyen R., Roskams T., van Poppel H. Outcome of surgery for clinical unilateral T3a prostate cancer: a single-institution experience. Eur Urol. 2007. Vol. 51. P. 121–128.

Huang J., Vicini F.A., Williams S.G. et al. Percentage of positive biopsy cores: a better risk stratification model for prostate cancer? Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2012. Vol. 83. P. 1141–1148.

Mohler J., Bahnson R.R., Boston B. et al. NCCN clinical practice guidelines in oncology: prostate cancer. J Natl Compr Canc Netw. 2010. Vol. 8. P. 162–200.

National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence. Prostate cancer: Diagnosis and Treatment. London, 2008. URL:

Heidenreich A., Bellmunt J., Bolla M. et al. EAU guidelines on prostate cancer. Part1: screening, diagnosis, and treatment of clinically localized disease. Eur Urol. 2011. Vol. 59. P. 61–71.

Rosenthal S.A., Bae K., Pienta K.J. et al. Phase III multi-institutional trial of adjuvant chemotherapy with paclitaxel, estramustine, and oral etoposide combined with long-term androgen suppression therapy and radiotherapy versus long-term androgen suppression plus radiotherapy alone for high-risk prostate cancer: preliminary toxicity analysis of RTOG 99-02. Int J Radiol Oncol Biol Phys. 2009. Vol. 73. P. 672–678.

James N.D., Sydes M.R., Clarke N.W. et al. Systemic therapy for advancing or metastatic prostate cancer (STAMPEDE): a multi-arm, multistage randomized controlled trial. BJU Int. 2009. Vol. 103. P. 464–469.

Bolla M., Hannoun-Levi J.M., Ferrero J.M. et al. Concurrent and adjuvant docetaxel with three-dimensional conformal radiation therapy plus androgen deprivation for high-risk prostate cancer: preliminary results of a multicentre phase II trial. Radiother Oncol. 2010. Vol. 97. P. 312–317.

Spahn M., Weiss C., Bader P. et al. Long-term outcome of patients with high-risk prostate cancer following radical prostatectomy and stage-dependent adjuvant androgen deprivation. Urol Int. 2010. Vol. 84. P. 164–173.

Ploussard G., Masson-Lecomte A., Beuval J.B. et al. Radical prostatectomy for high-risk prostate cancer defined by preoperative criteria: oncologic follow-up in national multicenter study in 813 patients and assessment of easy-to-use prognostic substratification. Urology. 2011. Vol. 78. P. 607–613.

Alcaraz A., Burgos F.J., Cozar J.M. et al. Prostate cancer in Spain: from guidelines to clinical practice. BJU Int. 2011. Vol. 108. P. 61–66.

Lughezzani G., Briganti A., Karakiewicz P.I. et al. Predictive and prognostic models in radical prostatectomy candidates: a critical analysis of the literature. Eur Urol. 2010. Vol. 58. P. 687–700.

Stephenson A.J., Kattan M.W., Eastham J.A. et al. Prostate cancer-specific mortality after radical prostatectomy for patients treated in the prostate-specific antigen era. J Clin Oncol. 2009. Vol. 27. P. 4300–4305.

Ficarra V., Novara G., Secco S. et al. Prediction of positive surgical margins after laparoscopic robot assisted radical prostatectomy. J Urol. 2009. Vol. 182. P. 2682–2688.

Chalfin H.J., Dinizo M., Trock B.J. et al. Impact of surgical margin status on prostate-cancer specific mortality. BJU Int. 2012. Vol. 110. P. 1684–1689.

Cooperberg M.R., Pasta D.J., Elkin E.P. et al. The University of California, san Francisko Cancer of the Prostate Risk Assessment score: a straightforward and reliable preoperative predictor of disease recurrence after radical prostatectomy. J Urol. 2005. Vol. 173. P. 1938–1942.

Cooperberg M.R., Broering J.M., Carrol P.R. Risk assessment for prostate cancer metastasis and mortality at the time of diagnosis. J Natl Cancer Inst. 2009. Vol. 101. P. 878–887.

Yokomizo A., Murai M., Baba S. et al. Percentage of positive biopsy cores, preoperative prostate-specific antigen (PSA) level, pT and Gleason score as prediction of PSA recurrence after radical prostatectomy: a multi-institutional outcome study in Japan. BJU Int. 2006. Vol. 98. P. 549–553.

Briganti A., Larcher A., Abdollah F. et al. Updated nomogram predicting lymph node invasion in patients with prostate cancer undergoing extending pelvic lymph node dissection: the essentional importance of positive cores. Eur Urol. 2012. Vol. 61. P. 480–487.

Vance S.M., Stenmark M.H., Blas K., Halverson S., Hamstra D.A., Feng F.Y. Percentage of cancer volume in biopsy cores is prognostic for prostate cancer death and overall survival in patients treated with dose-escalated external beam radiotherapy. Int J Radiol Oncol Biol Phys. 2012. Vol. 83. P. 940–946.

Amin A., Partin A., Epstein J.I. Gleason score 7 prostate cancer on needle biopsy: relation of primary pattern 3 or 4 to pathological stage and progression after radical prostatectomy. J Urol. 2011. Vol. 186. P. 1286–1290.

Hayashi N., Urashima M., Kuruma H. et al. The maximum tumor length in biopsy cores as a predictor of outcome after radical prostatectomy. BJU Int. 2008. Vol. 101. P. 175–180.

D’Amico A.V., Whittington R., Malkowicz S.B. et al. A multivariable analysis of clinical factors predicting for pathological features associated with local failure after radical prostatectomy for prostate cancer. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 1994. Vol. 30. P. 293–302.

Dickinson L., Ahmed H.U., Allen C. et al. Magnetic resonance imaging for the detection, localisation, and characterisation for prostate cancer: recommendations from a European consensus meeting. Eur Urol. 2011. Vol. 59. P. 477–494.

Barentsz J.O., Richenberg J., Clements R. et al. ESUR prostate MR guidelines 2012. Eur Radiol. 2012. Vol. 22. P. 746–757.

Yakar D., Debats O.A., Bomers J.G. et al. Predictive value of MRI in the localization, staging, volume estimation, assessment of aggressiveness, and guidance of radiotherapy and biopsies in prostate cancer. J Magn Reson Imaging. 2012. Vol. 35. P. 20–31.

Hambrock T., Hoeks C., Hulsbergen-van de Kaa C. et al. Prospective assessment of prostate cancer aggressiveness using 3-T diffusion-weighted magnetic resonance imaging-guided biopsies versus a systematic 10-core transrectal ultrasound prostate biopsy cohort. Eur Urol. 2012. Vol. 61. P. 177–184.

Latchamsetty K.C., Borden L.S. Jr, Porter C.R. et al. Experience improves staging accuracy of endorectal magnetic resonance imaging in prostate cancer: what is the learning curve? Can J Urol. 2007. Vol. 14. P. 3429–3434.

Heidenreich A. Consensus criteria for the use magnetic resonance imaging in the diagnosis and staging of prostate cancer: not ready for routine use. Eur Urol. 2011. Vol. 59. P. 495–497.

Xylinas E., Yates D.R., Renard-Penna R. et al. Role of pelvic phased array magnetic resonance imaging in staging of prostate cancer specifically in patients diagnosed with clinically locally advanced tumors by digital rеctal examination. World I Urol. 2013. Vol. 31. P. 881–886.

Futterer J.J., Engelbrech M.R., Jager G.J. et al. Prostate cancer: comparison of local staging accuracy of pelvic phased-array coil alone versus integrated endorectal-pelvic phased-array coils. Local staging accuracy of prostate cancer using endorectal coil MR imaging. Eur Radiol. 2007. Vol. 17. P. 1055–1065.

Futterer J.J., Heijmink S.W., Scheenen T.W. et al. Prostate cancer: local staging at 3-T endorectal MR imaging-early experience. Radiology. 2006. Vol. 238. P. 184–191.

Heijmink S.W., Futterer J.J., Hambrock T. et al. Prostate cancer: body-array versus endorectal coil MR imaging et 3 T-comparison of imagine quality, localization, and staging performance. Radiology. 2007. Vol. 244. P. 184–195.

Zhang J.Q., Loughlin K.R., Zou K.H., Haker S., Tempany C.M. Role of endorectal coil magnetic resonance imaging in treatment of patients with prostate cancer and in determining radical prostatectomy surgical margin status: report of a single surgeon’s practice. Urology. 2007. Vol. 69. P. 1134–1137.

Roethke M.C., Lichy M.P., Kniess M. et al. Accuracy of preoperative endorectal MRI in predicting extracapsular expansion and influence on neurovascular bundle sparing in radical prostatectomy. World J Urol. 2013. Vol. 31. P. 1111–1116.

Mossannen M., Nepple K.G., Grubb R.L. 3rd et al. Heterogenety in definitions of high-risk prostate cancer and varying on mortality rates after radical prostatectomy. Eur Urol Oncol. 2018. Vol. 122. P. 143–148.

Chang A.J., Autio K.A., Scher H.I. «High-risk» prostate cancer: classification and therapy. Nat Rev Clin Oncol. 2014. Vol. 11(6). P. 308–323.

Nguen T., Boldt R.G., Rodrigues G. Prognostic factors of prostate cancer endpoints following biochemical failure: a review of literature. Cures. 2015. Vol. 7(1). P. 238.