Search

Localized prostate cancer (PCa) is a clinically heterogeneous disease, which presents with variability in patient outcomes within the same risk stratification (low, intermediate or high) and even within the same Gleason scores. Genomic tools have been developed with the purpose of stratifying patients affected by this disease to help physicians personalize therapies and follow-up schemes. This review focuses on these tissue-based tools. At present, four genomic tools are commercially available: Decipher™, Oncotype DX®, Prolaris® and ProMark®. Decipher™ is a tool based on 22 genes and evaluates the risk of adverse outcomes (metastasis) after radical prostatectomy (RP). Oncotype DX® is based on 17 genes and focuses on the ability to predict outcomes (adverse pathology) in very low-low and low-intermediate PCa patients, while Prolaris® is built on a panel of 46 genes and is validated to evaluate outcomes for patients at low risk as well as patients who are affected by high risk PCa and post-RP. Finally, ProMark® is based on a multiplexed proteomics assay and predicts PCa aggressiveness in patients found with similar features to Oncotype DX®. These biomarkers can be helpful for post-biopsy decision-making in low risk patients and post-radical prostatectomy in selected risk groups. Further studies are needed to investigate the clinical benefit of these new technologies, the financial ramifications and how they should be utilized in clinics. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: When treating bladder cancer patients, the most significant problems usually concern cases with high-grade non-muscle-invasive carcinoma, and a better understanding of which patients would benefit from early radical cystectomy is urgently needed. The uropathology community is seeking more user-friendly approaches to distinguishing between T1 cancers exhibiting different types of clinical behavior. Methods: After a retrospective review, we selected a group of 314 patients who underwent transurethral resection of the bladder (TURB) and were diagnosed with high-grade urothelial carcinoma staged as T1. Three different substaging systems were applied: one was the anatomy-based T1 a/b; and two involved micrometric thresholds of either 0.5 mm of invasion (as proposed by van Rhijn et al.), or 1 mm of invasion (as proposed in the present study). Early reTUR (repeated transurethral resection) was performed in 250 patients, and the same substaging approaches were applied to cases of T1. Results: It proved feasible to apply the 1 mm substaging system in 100 % of cases, the van Rhijn system in 100 %, and the anatomy-based method (T1 a/b) in 72.3 % of cases. At a mean follow-up of 46 months, the recurrence-free survival rate was significantly better (p < 0.001) in the group that underwent reTUR, while none of the three substaging systems reliably predicted recurrences. The 1 mm did seem promising, however, as a threshold for predicting progression, reaching statistical significance in the Kaplan Meier estimates (p < 0.04). Conclusion: Our study shows that micrometric substaging is feasible in this setting and should be extended to include any early reTUR to complete the substaging done after the first TURB. It can also provide helpful prognostic information. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]