Gleason Score 6 Adenocarcinoma: Should It Be Labeled As Cancer?
Author(s) -
H. Ballentine Carter,
Alan W. Partin,
Patrick C. Walsh,
Bruce J. Trock,
Robert W. Veltri,
William G. Nelson,
Donald S. Coffey,
Eric A. Singer,
Jonathan I. Epstein
Publication year - 2012
Publication title -
journal of clinical oncology
Language(s) - English
Resource type - Journals
SCImago Journal Rank - 10.482
H-Index - 548
eISSN - 1527-7755
pISSN - 0732-183X
DOI - 10.1200/jco.2012.44.0586
Subject(s) - medicine , prostate cancer , cancer , disease , intensive care medicine , management of prostate cancer , oncology , gynecology
Overtreatment of low-grade prostate cancer (Gleason score ≤ 6) is a recognized problem today, with systematic prostate gland sampling triggered by prostate-specific antigen (PSA) measurements.1 The extent to which overtreatment is caused by fear of death resulting from cancer, fear of litigation from undertreatment, and misaligned incentives that reimburse more for treating rather than monitoring when appropriate is not known. Nevertheless, fear of death resulting from cancer likely plays some role, and removing the label “cancer” could reduce unnecessary treatment of low-grade disease.2,3 On the other hand, undertreatment of prostate cancer and a missed opportunity for cure in those who could benefit is a real risk of relabeling a cancer as noncancer. We have decided on an alternative modification of the Gleason scoring system and herein present the arguments for and against removing the label of cancer from Gleason 6 tumors. We believe that our alternative approach may help: one, ensure that patients receive the proper counseling/treatment; two, reduce the risk of overtreatment and its associated harms; and three, improve shared decision making.
Accelerating Research
Robert Robinson Avenue,
Oxford Science Park, Oxford
OX4 4GP, United Kingdom
Address
John Eccles HouseRobert Robinson Avenue,
Oxford Science Park, Oxford
OX4 4GP, United Kingdom