Gleason grade grouping of prostate cancer is of prognostic value in Asian men

被引:13
|
作者
Yeong, Joe [1 ,2 ]
Sultana, Rehena [3 ]
Teo, Jonathan [4 ]
Huang, Hong Hong [4 ]
Yuen, John [4 ]
Tan, Puay Hoon [5 ]
Khor, Li Yan [1 ]
机构
[1] Singapore Gen Hosp, Dept Anat Pathol, Singapore, Singapore
[2] ASTAR, Singapore Immunol Network SIgN, Singapore, Singapore
[3] DUKE NUS Med Sch, Ctr Quantitat Med, Singapore, Singapore
[4] Singapore Gen Hosp, Dept Urol, Singapore, Singapore
[5] Singapore Gen Hosp, Div Pathol, Singapore, Singapore
关键词
2005; INTERNATIONAL-SOCIETY; ISUP CONSENSUS CONFERENCE; RADICAL PROSTATECTOMY; BIOCHEMICAL RECURRENCE; CORE BIOPSIES; SYSTEM; CARCINOMA; ADENOCARCINOMA; VALIDATION; SPECIMENS;
D O I
10.1136/jclinpath-2016-204276
中图分类号
R36 [病理学];
学科分类号
100104 ;
摘要
Aim The International Society of Urological Pathology made recommendations for the use of Grade Groups (GG) originally described by Epstein and colleagues over Gleason score (GS) alone in 2014, which was subsequently adopted by the WHO classification in 2016. The majority of studies validating this revision have been in Caucasian populations. We therefore asked whether the new GG system was retrospectively associated with biochemical disease-free survival in a mixed-ethnicity cohort of Asian men. Methods A total of 680 radical prostatectomies (RPs) from 2005 to 2014 were included. GS from initial biopsy and RP were compared and used to allocate cases to GG, defined as: 1 (GS <= 6); 2 (GS 3+4=7); 3 (GS 4+3=7); 4 (GS 4+4=8/5+3=8/3+5=8) and 5 (GS 9-10). Biochemical recurrence was defined as two consecutive post-RP prostate-specific antigen (PSA) levels of >0.2 ng/mL after post-RP PSA reaching the nadir of <0.1 ng/mL. Results Our data showed that Kaplan-Meier analysis revealed significant differences in biochemical recurrence within Gleason GG based on either biopsy or prostatectomy scoring. Multivariate analysis further confirmed that a higher GG was significantly associated with risk of biochemical recurrence. This GG system had a higher prognostic discrimination for both initial biopsy and RP than GS. Conclusions Our study validates the use of the revised and updated GG system in a mixed-ethnicity population of Asian men. Higher GG was significantly associated with increased risk of biochemical recurrence. We therefore recommend its use to inform clinical management for patients with prostate cancer.
引用
收藏
页码:745 / 753
页数:9
相关论文
共 50 条
  • [41] Prostate adenocarcinoma Gleason grade five morphological patterns' prognostic significance
    Franklin, Anthony
    Yaxley, John
    BJU INTERNATIONAL, 2022, 129 : 129 - 130
  • [42] Focal Therapy Should Not Be Considered for Men with Gleason Grade Group 3-5 Prostate Cancer
    Johnson, David C.
    Reiter, Robert E.
    EUROPEAN UROLOGY FOCUS, 2020, 6 (02): : 203 - 204
  • [43] The prognostic significance of Gleason scores in metastatic prostate cancer
    Rusthoven, Chad G.
    Carlson, Julie A.
    Waxweiler, Timothy V.
    Yeh, Norman
    Raben, David
    Flaig, Thomas W.
    Kavanagh, Brian D.
    UROLOGIC ONCOLOGY-SEMINARS AND ORIGINAL INVESTIGATIONS, 2014, 32 (05) : 707 - 713
  • [44] WEIGHTED GLEASON GRADE GROUP (WGGG): A NEW PROSTATE CANCER BIOPSY REPORTING SYSTEM WITH PROGNOSTIC POTENTIAL
    Gul, Zeynep
    Waingankar, Nikhil
    Martini, Alberto
    Griffiths, Luke
    Shah, Paras
    Paulucci, David
    Elmasri, Matthew
    Yaskiv, Oksana
    Lerner, Seth
    Vira, Manish
    Kavoussi, Louis
    Kapoor, Deepak
    Olsson, Carl
    JOURNAL OF UROLOGY, 2019, 201 (04): : E115 - E115
  • [45] Weighted Gleason Grade Group (WGGG): A new prostate cancer biopsy reporting system with prognostic potential
    Waingankar, Nikhil
    Martini, Alberto
    Griffiths, Luke
    Shah, Paras
    Paulucci, David J.
    Kotamarti, Srinath
    Gul, Zeynep
    Elmasri, Matthew
    Yaskiv, Oksana
    Haines, Kenneth
    Lerner, Seth
    Vira, Manish
    Kavoussi, Louis R.
    Tewari, Ashutosh K.
    Kapoor, Deepak A.
    Olsson, Carl A.
    UROLOGIC ONCOLOGY-SEMINARS AND ORIGINAL INVESTIGATIONS, 2020, 38 (03) : 78.e15 - 78.e21
  • [46] Prognostic value of cribriform size, percentage, and intraductal carcinoma in Gleason score 7 prostate cancer with cribriform Gleason pattern 4
    Chen, Zhengshan
    Pham, Huy
    Abreu, Andre
    Amin, Mahul B.
    Sherrod, Andy E.
    Xiao, Guang-Qian
    Aron, Manju
    HUMAN PATHOLOGY, 2021, 118 : 18 - 29
  • [47] Misclassification of Gleason grade and tumor stage in Asian-American patients with low-risk prostate cancer
    Li, Lu
    Xu, Yihang
    Xu, Zicheng
    Qi, Feng
    Li, Xiao
    PRECISION MEDICAL SCIENCES, 2023, 12 (02): : 95 - 103
  • [48] Prognostic factors in Japanese men with high-Gleason metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer
    Nishimoto, Mitsuhisa
    Fujita, Kazutoshi
    Yamamoto, Yutaka
    Hashimoto, Mamoru
    Adomi, Shogo
    Banno, Eri
    Saito, Yoshitaka
    Shimizu, Nobutaka
    Mori, Yasuuori
    Minami, Takafumi
    Nozawa, Masahiro
    Nose, Kazuhiro
    Hirayama, Akihide
    Yoshimura, Kazuhiro
    Uemura, Hirotsugu
    TRANSLATIONAL CANCER RESEARCH, 2022, 11 (08) : 2681 - 2687
  • [49] Consensus Guidelines for Reporting Prostate Cancer Gleason Grade Reply
    Zietman, Anthony
    Klein, Eric
    Droller, Michael J.
    Dasgupta, Prokar
    Catto, James
    Smith, Joseph A., Jr.
    JOURNAL OF UROLOGY, 2016, 196 (04): : 1322 - 1323
  • [50] Transcriptomic Heterogeneity of Gleason Grade Group 5 Prostate Cancer
    Kishan, Amar U.
    Romero, Tahmineh
    Alshalalfa, Mohammed
    Liu, Yang
    Tran, Phuoc T.
    Nickols, Nicholas G.
    Ye, Huihui
    Sajed, Dipti
    Rettig, Matthew B.
    Reiter, Robert E.
    Garraway, Isla P.
    Spratt, Daniel E.
    Freedland, Steven J.
    Zhao, Xin
    Li, Ziwen
    Deek, Matthew
    Livingstone, Julie
    Mahal, Brandon A.
    Nguyen, Paul L.
    Feng, Felix Y.
    Den, Robert B.
    Schaeffer, Edward M.
    Lotan, Tamara L.
    Karnes, R. Jeffrey
    Klein, Eric A.
    Ross, Ashley E.
    Grogan, Tristan
    Davicioni, Elai
    Elashoff, David
    Boutros, Paul C.
    Weidhaas, Joanne B.
    EUROPEAN UROLOGY, 2020, 78 (03) : 327 - 332