Official reprint from UpToDate®
www.uptodate.com ©2017 UpToDate, Inc. and/or its affiliates. All Rights Reserved.

Prostate cancer: Risk stratification and choice of initial treatment

Eric A Klein, MD
Section Editors
Nicholas Vogelzang, MD
W Robert Lee, MD, MS, MEd
Jerome P Richie, MD, FACS
Deputy Editor
Michael E Ross, MD


Prostate cancer is the second most common cancer in men worldwide, with an estimated 1,100,000 cases and 307,000 deaths in 2012 [1]. In developed areas, prostate cancer is increasingly being diagnosed when the tumor is confined to the prostate, due at least in part, to screening with prostate specific antigen (PSA). However, prostate cancers confined to the gland may become less frequent than more invasive tumors as PSA screening rates fall [2].

For men with newly diagnosed prostate cancer, the most important factors in selecting the initial treatment include the following:

Anatomic extent of disease (tumor, node, metastasis stage)

Histologic grade (Gleason score/grade group) of the tumor

Serum PSA level

To continue reading this article, you must log in with your personal, hospital, or group practice subscription. For more information on subscription options, click below on the option that best describes you:

Subscribers log in here

Literature review current through: Nov 2017. | This topic last updated: Aug 08, 2017.
The content on the UpToDate website is not intended nor recommended as a substitute for medical advice, diagnosis, or treatment. Always seek the advice of your own physician or other qualified health care professional regarding any medical questions or conditions. The use of this website is governed by the UpToDate Terms of Use ©2017 UpToDate, Inc.
  1. Humphrey PA. Cancers of the male reproductive organs. In: World Cancer Report, Stewart BW, Wild CP (Eds), World Health Organization, Lyon 2014.
  2. Barry MJ, Nelson JB. Patients Present with More Advanced Prostate Cancer since the USPSTF Screening Recommendations. J Urol 2015; 194:1534.
  3. Epstein JI, Zelefsky MJ, Sjoberg DD, et al. A Contemporary Prostate Cancer Grading System: A Validated Alternative to the Gleason Score. Eur Urol 2016; 69:428.
  4. Caster JM, Falchook AD, Hendrix LH, Chen RC. Risk of Pathologic Upgrading or Locally Advanced Disease in Early Prostate Cancer Patients Based on Biopsy Gleason Score and PSA: A Population-Based Study of Modern Patients. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 2015; 92:244.
  5. Winters BR, Wright JL, Holt SK, et al. Extreme Gleason Upgrading From Biopsy to Radical Prostatectomy: A Population-based Analysis. Urology 2016; 96:148.
  6. Thompson I, Thrasher JB, Aus G, et al. Guideline for the management of clinically localized prostate cancer: 2007 update. J Urol 2007; 177:2106.
  7. National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN). NCCN Clinical practice guidelines in oncology. http://www.nccn.org/professionals/physician_gls/f_guidelines.asp (Accessed on February 27, 2016).
  8. Hamdy FC, Donovan JL, Lane JA, et al. 10-Year Outcomes after Monitoring, Surgery, or Radiotherapy for Localized Prostate Cancer. N Engl J Med 2016; 375:1415.
  9. Donovan JL, Hamdy FC, Lane JA, et al. Patient-Reported Outcomes after Monitoring, Surgery, or Radiotherapy for Prostate Cancer. N Engl J Med 2016; 375:1425.
  10. Ellis CL, Partin AW, Han M, Epstein JI. Adenocarcinoma of the prostate with Gleason score 9-10 on core biopsy: correlation with findings at radical prostatectomy and prognosis. J Urol 2013; 190:2068.
  11. Tsao CK, Gray KP, Nakabayashi M, et al. Patients with Biopsy Gleason 9 and 10 Prostate Cancer Have Significantly Worse Outcomes Compared to Patients with Gleason 8 Disease. J Urol 2015; 194:91.
  12. http://uroweb.org/wp-content/uploads/EAU-Guidelines-Prostate-Cancer-2016.pdf.
  13. Cooperberg MR, Vickers AJ, Broering JM, Carroll PR. Comparative risk-adjusted mortality outcomes after primary surgery, radiotherapy, or androgen-deprivation therapy for localized prostate cancer. Cancer 2010; 116:5226.
  14. Boorjian SA, Karnes RJ, Viterbo R, et al. Long-term survival after radical prostatectomy versus external-beam radiotherapy for patients with high-risk prostate cancer. Cancer 2011; 117:2883.
  15. Wallis CJ, Saskin R, Choo R, et al. Surgery Versus Radiotherapy for Clinically-localized Prostate Cancer: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis. Eur Urol 2016; 70:21.
  16. Zelefsky MJ, Eastham JA, Cronin AM, et al. Metastasis after radical prostatectomy or external beam radiotherapy for patients with clinically localized prostate cancer: a comparison of clinical cohorts adjusted for case mix. J Clin Oncol 2010; 28:1508.
  17. Kishan AU, Shaikh T, Wang PC, et al. Clinical outcomes for patients with Gleason score 9-10 prostate adenocarcinoma treated with radiotherapy or radical prostatectomy: a multi-institutional comparative analysis. Eur Urol 2016.
  18. D'Amico AV, Whittington R, Malkowicz SB, et al. Clinical utility of the percentage of positive prostate biopsies in defining biochemical outcome after radical prostatectomy for patients with clinically localized prostate cancer. J Clin Oncol 2000; 18:1164.
  19. Lee AK, Schultz D, Renshaw AA, et al. Optimizing patient selection for prostate monotherapy. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 2001; 49:673.
  20. D'Amico AV, Schultz D, Silver B, et al. The clinical utility of the percent of positive prostate biopsies in predicting biochemical outcome following external-beam radiation therapy for patients with clinically localized prostate cancer. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 2001; 49:679.
  21. Grossfeld GD, Latini DM, Lubeck DP, et al. Predicting disease recurrence in intermediate and high-risk patients undergoing radical prostatectomy using percent positive biopsies: results from CaPSURE. Urology 2002; 59:560.
  22. D'Amico AV, Keshaviah A, Manola J, et al. Clinical utility of the percentage of positive prostate biopsies in predicting prostate cancer-specific and overall survival after radiotherapy for patients with localized prostate cancer. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 2002; 53:581.
  23. Freedland SJ, Aronson WJ, Csathy GS, et al. Comparison of percentage of total prostate needle biopsy tissue with cancer to percentage of cores with cancer for predicting PSA recurrence after radical prostatectomy: results from the SEARCH database. Urology 2003; 61:742.
  24. Greene KL, Elkin EP, Karapetian A, et al. Prostate biopsy tumor extent but not location predicts recurrence after radical prostatectomy: results from CaPSURE. J Urol 2006; 175:125.
  25. D'Amico AV, Whittington R, Malkowicz SB, et al. Calculated prostate cancer volume greater than 4.0 cm3 identifies patients with localized prostate cancer who have a poor prognosis following radical prostatectomy or external-beam radiation therapy. J Clin Oncol 1998; 16:3094.
  26. Lee SH, Park KK, Choi KH, et al. Is endorectal coil necessary for the staging of clinically localized prostate cancer? Comparison of non-endorectal versus endorectal MR imaging. World J Urol 2010; 28:667.
  27. Chabanova E, Balslev I, Logager V, et al. Prostate cancer: 1.5 T endo-coil dynamic contrast-enhanced MRI and MR spectroscopy--correlation with prostate biopsy and prostatectomy histopathological data. Eur J Radiol 2011; 80:292.
  28. D'Amico AV, Wu Y, Chen MH, et al. Perineural invasion as a predictor of biochemical outcome following radical prostatectomy for select men with clinically localized prostate cancer. J Urol 2001; 165:126.
  29. Anderson PR, Hanlon AL, Patchefsky A, et al. Perineural invasion and Gleason 7-10 tumors predict increased failure in prostate cancer patients with pretreatment PSA <10 ng/ml treated with conformal external beam radiation therapy. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 1998; 41:1087.
  30. O'Malley KJ, Pound CR, Walsh PC, et al. Influence of biopsy perineural invasion on long-term biochemical disease-free survival after radical prostatectomy. Urology 2002; 59:85.
  31. Ng JC, Koch MO, Daggy JK, Cheng L. Perineural invasion in radical prostatectomy specimens: lack of prognostic significance. J Urol 2004; 172:2249.
  32. Donovan MJ, Hamann S, Clayton M, et al. Systems pathology approach for the prediction of prostate cancer progression after radical prostatectomy. J Clin Oncol 2008; 26:3923.
  33. Cheville JC, Karnes RJ, Therneau TM, et al. Gene panel model predictive of outcome in men at high-risk of systemic progression and death from prostate cancer after radical retropubic prostatectomy. J Clin Oncol 2008; 26:3930.
  34. Klein EA, Stephenson AJ, Raghavan D, Dreicer R. Systems pathology and predicting outcome after radical prostatectomy. J Clin Oncol 2008; 26:3916.
  35. Shariat SF, Karakiewicz PI, Suardi N, Kattan MW. Comparison of nomograms with other methods for predicting outcomes in prostate cancer: a critical analysis of the literature. Clin Cancer Res 2008; 14:4400.
  36. Shariat SF, Karakiewicz PI, Roehrborn CG, Kattan MW. An updated catalog of prostate cancer predictive tools. Cancer 2008; 113:3075.