RESUMO
For a patient suffering from non-metastatic prostate cancer, the individualized recommendation of radiotherapy has to be the fruit of a multidisciplinary approach in the context of a Tumor Board, to be explained carefully to the patient to obtain his informed consent. External beam radiotherapy is now delivered by intensity modulated radiotherapy, considered as the gold standard. From a radiotherapy perspective, low-risk localized prostate cancer is treated by image guided intensity modulated radiotherapy, or brachytherapy if patients meet the required eligibility criteria. Intermediate-risk patients may benefit from intensity modulated radiotherapy combined with 4-6 months of androgen deprivation therapy; intensity modulated radiotherapy alone or combined with brachytherapy can be offered to patients unsuitable for androgen deprivation therapy due to co-morbidities or unwilling to accept it to preserve their sexual health. High-risk prostate cancer, i.e. high-risk localized and locally advanced prostate cancer, requires intensity modulated radiotherapy with long-term (≥2 years) androgen deprivation therapy with luteinizing hormone releasing hormone agonists. Post-operative irradiation, either immediate or early deferred, is proposed to patients classified as pT3pN0, based on surgical margins, prostate-specific antigen values and quality of life. Whatever the techniques and their degree of sophistication, quality assurance plays a major role in the management of radiotherapy, requiring the involvement of physicians, physicists, dosimetrists, radiation technologists and computer scientists. The patients must be informed about the potential morbidity of radiotherapy and androgen deprivation therapy and followed regularly during and after treatment for tertiary prevention and evaluation. A close cooperation is needed with general practitioners and specialists to prevent and mitigate side effects and maintain quality of life.
RESUMO
The Gleason system for grading prostate cancer assigns a score on the basis of the most prevalent and second most prevalent grade. Several studies have investigated the clinical significance of a tertiary grade in radical prostatectomy samples. A systematic search of the published work identified seven studies that reported the prognostic value of a tertiary Gleason grade. Three studies correlated the presence of a tertiary grade with pathological stage, and six with prostate-specific antigen recurrence or clinical progression. In the small number of studies available, the frequency of a tertiary grade was consistently higher in samples characterised with pathological variables of poor outcome, such as extra-prostatic extension and positive surgical margins, but not lymph-node metastases. In five studies the presence of a tertiary grade increased the risk of prostate-specific antigen recurrence after radical prostatectomy by a factor of 2.5. However, modification of the Gleason score to include a tertiary grade in Gleason 4+3 tumours might overestimate the risk of seminal-vesicle or lymph-node invasion. This systematic review has established the association of a tertiary grade with poorer outcome than that associated with no tertiary grade. A tertiary grade should, therefore, be included in the pathological reporting of prostate cancer and be considered in the interpretation and design of clinical trials. However, all studies assessed for this review were retrospective, potentially affected by selection bias, and based on radical prostatectomy samples or transurethral resections rather than biopsy samples. Therefore, more evidence is needed to warrant the adaptation of the Gleason system to account for the presence of a tertiary grade, especially when scoring prostatic biopsies and applying predictive algorithms.