Naming debate and management strategies for Gleason score 3+3 prostate cancer

Ma Jinduo,Cao Yudong,Wang Shuo,Du Peng
DOI: https://doi.org/10.20020/j.CNKI.1674-7410.2022.04.03
2022-01-01
Abstract:Prostate cancer is one of the most common cancers in men.Worldwide,more than half of all new prostate cancer cases are low-grade prostate cancers with a Gleason score of 3+3=6(GS6).GS6 prostate cancer has a good prognosis,with very few distant metastases,and the preferred treatment and management approach abroad is active surveillance.In recent years,some scholars within the field of urology have argued that GS6 prostate cancer should no longer be called cancer based on its prevalence,extremely low metastasis rate,excellent prognosis,near precancerous screening and treatment management modalities,and that renaming it as non-cancerous would alleviate patient anxiety and reduce the toxic side effects and financial burden associated with overtreatment.Others have argued against it,arguing that whether metastasis will occur should not be the only criterion to determine whether a tumor is malignant or not.In clinical practice,GS6 prostate cancer patients have the possibility of postoperative pathological upgrading,and multiple clinical factors should be integrated to determine the nature and risk degree of the tumor.In addition,renaming of GS6 prostate cancer may result in reduced patient compliance,so it should not be renamed.This article summaries recent relevant views and arguments and reviewed the management strategies of GS6 prostate cancer.
What problem does this paper attempt to address?