Dataset Information

Should all prostate needle biopsy Gleason score 4 + 4 = 8 prostate cancers be high risk? Implications for shared decision-making and patient counselling.

ABSTRACT:

Objectives

To estimate the probability of downgrading to Gleason score ≤7 at radical prostatectomy for men with a prostate needle biopsy demonstrating Gleason score 8 (4 + 4).

Methods

This is a retrospective review of men with Gleason score 8 (4 + 4) prostate cancer on needle biopsy who then underwent a radical prostatectomy at the Karmanos Cancer Institute or the University of Michigan. Men with any pattern 5 on the diagnostic biopsy were excluded. The objective was to estimate the proportion of patients whose tumors were downgraded to Gleason score ≤7 at radical prostatectomy and to identify clinical and biopsy parameters associated with downgrading.

Results

Median age of our cohort was 63 years (IQR: 59, 67.5) and median follow-up was 15 months (IQR: 7, 37). Of the 105 men that met inclusion criteria, 59% (62/105) were downgraded to Gleason score ≤7 at radical prostatectomy. Having ≤2 cores demonstrating Gleason score 8, ≤50% maximal tumor involvement of any individual core positive for Gleason score 8, or the presence of Gleason pattern 3 (such as 3 + 4, 4 + 3, or 3 + 3) in other biopsy cores were all independently associated with downgrading in our multivariable model. Depending on the absence, presence, or combination of these 3 factors, patients had an estimated 6% to 82% probability of having their tumor downgraded at radical prostatectomy.

Conclusions

Men with low volume Gleason 8 (4 + 4) and/or the presence Gleason pattern 3 on prostate needle biopsy often have their tumors downgraded at radical prostatectomy. The presence of these preoperative biopsy parameters could affect pretreatment counseling and impact patient management.

SUBMITTER: Ginsburg K

PROVIDER: S-EPMC7054147 | biostudies-literature | 2020 Mar

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Should all prostate needle biopsy Gleason score 4 + 4 = 8 prostate cancers be high risk? Implications for shared decision-making and patient counselling.

Ginsburg Kevin K Cole Adam I AI Silverman Michael E ME Livingstone Joan J Smith Daryn W DW Heilbrun Lance K LK Shi Dongping D Mehra Rohit R Sakr Wael A WA Morgan Todd M TM Cher Michael L ML

Urologic oncology 20191129 3

<h4>Objectives</h4>To estimate the probability of downgrading to Gleason score ≤7 at radical prostatectomy for men with a prostate needle biopsy demonstrating Gleason score 8 (4 + 4).<h4>Methods</h4>This is a retrospective review of men with Gleason score 8 (4 + 4) prostate cancer on needle biopsy who then underwent a radical prostatectomy at the Karmanos Cancer Institute or the University of Michigan. Men with any pattern 5 on the diagnostic biopsy were excluded. The objective was to estimate t ...[more]

PMID: 31791703

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundA birth plan (BP) is a written document in which the pregnant woman explains her wishes and expectations about childbirth to the health professionals and aims to facilitate her decision-making. Midwives' support to women during the development of the BP is essential, but it's unknown if shared decision making (SDM) is effective in birth plan counselling. We hypothesized that women who receive counselling based on SDM during their pregnancy are more likely to present their BP to the hospital, more satisfied with the childbirth experience, and have better obstetric outcomes than women who receive standard counselling. We also aimed to identify if women who presented BP to the hospital have better obstetric outcomes and more satisfied with the childbirth experience.MethodsThis was a randomised cluster trial involving four Primary Care Units. Midwives provided BP counselling based on SDM to the women in the intervention group (IG) during their pregnancy, along with a leaflet with evidence-based recommendations. Women in the control group (CG) only received the standard birth plan counselling from midwives. The primary outcomes were birth plan presentation to the hospital, obstetrics outcomes and satisfaction with childbirth experience. The Mackey Satisfaction with Childbirth Scale (MCSRS) was used to measure childbirth satisfaction.ResultsA total of 461 (95.5%) pregnant women received BP counselling (IG n = 214 and CG n = 247). Fewer women in the intervention group presented their BP to the hospital compared to those in the control group (57.8% vs 75.1%; p <0.001). Mean satisfaction with childbirth experience was high in the IG as well as the CG: 150.2 (SD:22.6) vs. 153.4 (SD:21.8); p = 0.224). The information received about childbirth during pregnancy was high in both groups (95.1% vs 94.8%; p = 1.0). Fewer women in the IG used analgesia epidural compared to those in the CG (84.7% vs 91.7%; p = 0.034); women who combined non-pharmacological and pharmacological methods for pain relief were more in number in the IG (48.9% vs 29.5%; p = 0.001) and women who began breastfeeding in the delivery room were more in number in the IG (83.9% vs 66.3%; p = 0.001). Women who presented their BP had a greater probability of using combined non-pharmacological and pharmacological methods for pain relief aOR = 2.06 (95% CI: 1.30-4.30) and early skin-to-skin contact aOR = 2.08 (95% CI: 1.07-4.04).ConclusionThis counselling intervention was not effective to increase the presentation of the BP to the hospital and women's satisfaction with childbirth; however, it was related to a lower usage of analgesia epidural, a higher combination of pharmacological and non-pharmacological methods for pain relief and the initiation of breastfeeding in the delivery room. Presenting the BP to the hospital increased the likelihood of using pharmacological and non-pharmacological methods for pain relief, and early skin-to-skin contact.

Project description:PurposeThe Knee injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome Survey (KOOS) profile of outcome measures are among the most commonly used outcome measures in knee arthroplasty (KA). The purpose was to develop and externally validate "score maps" (one-page figural depictions of most likely scores) for KOOS Pain and Function subscales to facilitate a variety of clinical decisions related to shared decision making prior to KA.MethodsPresurgical KA data collected within 1 year of surgery and obtained in two independent studies were used in this cross-sectional study. Score maps were designed to be easily understandable, single-page graphical depictions of predicted KOOS Pain, and KOOS Function, daily activity subscales. To create the score maps, individual item scores from one dataset were used to determine the most probable responses for each item for the entire range of possible scores. Predicted KOOS score maps were derived from Osteoarthritis Initiative (OAI) data and externally validated using an independent single site KA cohort study. Score map predicted scores from OAI were compared to actual presurgical KOOS subscale scores using Weighted Kappa (Κw) agreement coefficients and actual versus predicted differences in scores.ResultsThe score maps derived from OAI and applied to actual scores in the validation sample demonstrated moderate to substantial chance-corrected agreement for both KOOS Pain and KOOS Function, daily activity subscale items. For example, KOOS Pain score map scores applied to the external validation dataset showed chance-corrected agreement with Κw ranging from 0.43 to 0.73. Score maps predicted actual item scores within ± 1 point at least 94% of the time. Findings for the KOOS Function, daily activity subscale items were similar.ConclusionsScore maps derived from OAI data agreed with actual KOOS scores obtained on an independent dataset at an acceptable degree of precision. Easy-to-use KOOS Pain and Function, daily activity score maps have potential to facilitate a variety of important clinical decisions during discussions between patients and surgeons prior to KA.Level of evidenceLevel III prognostic study.

Dataset Information

Should all prostate needle biopsy Gleason score 4 + 4 = 8 prostate cancers be high risk? Implications for shared decision-making and patient counselling.

Objectives

Methods

Results

Conclusions

Publications

Should all prostate needle biopsy Gleason score 4 + 4 = 8 prostate cancers be high risk? Implications for shared decision-making and patient counselling.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets

Dataset Information

Should all prostate needle biopsy Gleason score 4 + 4 = 8 prostate cancers be high risk? Implications for shared decision-making and patient counselling.

Objectives

Methods

Results

Conclusions

Publications

Should all prostate needle biopsy Gleason score 4 + 4 = 8 prostate cancers be high risk? Implications for shared decision-making and patient counselling.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets

Should all prostate needle biopsy Gleason score 4 + 4 = 8 prostate cancers be high risk? Implications for shared decision-making and patient counselling.

Should all prostate needle biopsy Gleason score 4 + 4 = 8 prostate cancers be high risk? Implications for shared decision-making and patient counselling.