Predictive efficacy of the 2014 International Society of Urological Pathology Gleason grading system in initially diagnosed metastatic prostate cancer

被引:2
|
作者
Sun, Guang-Xi [1 ]
Shen, Peng-Fei [1 ]
Zhang, Xing-Ming [1 ]
Gong, Jing [2 ]
Gui, Hao-Jun [1 ]
Shu, Kun-Peng [1 ]
Liu, Jiang-Dong [1 ]
Zhao, Jinge [1 ]
Yang, Yao-Jing [1 ]
Chen, Xue-Qin [2 ]
Chen, Ni [2 ]
Zeng, Hao [1 ]
机构
[1] Sichuan Univ, West China Hosp, Inst Urol, Dept Urol, Chengdu 610041, Sichuan, Peoples R China
[2] Sichuan Univ, West China Hosp, Dept Pathol, Chengdu 610041, Sichuan, Peoples R China
关键词
castration-resistance prostate cancer-free survival; International Society of Urological Pathology grading system; metastasis; overall survival; prostate cancer; ISUP CONSENSUS CONFERENCE; BEAM RADIATION-THERAPY; RADICAL PROSTATECTOMY; PROGNOSTIC-SIGNIFICANCE; SCORE; DISEASE; DEATH; NG/ML;
D O I
10.4103/1008-682X.186184
中图分类号
R69 [泌尿科学(泌尿生殖系疾病)];
学科分类号
摘要
We compared the predictive ability of the 2014 and 2005 Gleason grading systems in 568 patients initially diagnosed with metastatic prostate cancer (PCa). Outcomes included the duration of castration-resistant prostate cancer-free survival (CFS) and overall survival (OS). Univariate analyses and log-rank tests were used to identify prognosis indicators and assess univariable differences in CFS and OS in Gleason score (GS) groups. Cox proportional hazards and area under the curves of receiver operator characteristics methods were used to evaluate the predictive efficacy of the 2005 and 2014 ISUP grading systems. Univariate analyses showed that the 2005 and 2014 grading systems were prognosticators for CFS and OS; both systems could distinguish the clinical outcome of patients with GS 6, GS 7, and GS 8-10. Using the 2014 criteria, no statistical differences in patient survival were observed between GS 3 + 4 and GS 4 + 3 or GS 8 and GS 9-10. The predictive ability of the 2014 and 2005 grading systems was comparable for CFS and OS (P = 0.321). However, the 2014 grading system did not exhibit superior predictive efficacy in patients initially diagnosed with PCa and bone metastasis; trials using larger cohorts are required to confirm its predictive value. To the best of our knowledge, ours is the first study to compare the 2005 and 2014 grading systems in initially diagnosed PCa with bone metastasis. At present, we recommend that both systems should be used to predict the prognosis of patients with metastatic PCa.
引用
收藏
页码:573 / 578
页数:6
相关论文
共 50 条
  • [1] From Gleason to International Society of Urological Pathology (ISUP) grading of prostate cancer
    Samaratunga, Hemamali
    Delahunt, Brett
    Yaxley, John
    Srigley, John R.
    Egevad, Lars
    [J]. SCANDINAVIAN JOURNAL OF UROLOGY, 2016, 50 (05) : 325 - 329
  • [2] The factors predicting upgrading of prostate cancer by using International Society for Urological Pathology (ISUP) 2014 Gleason grading system
    Turan, Turgay
    Gucluer, Berrin
    Efiloglu, Ozgur
    Sendogan, Furkan
    Atis, Ramazan Gokhan
    Caskurlu, Turhan
    Yildirim, Asif
    [J]. TURKISH JOURNAL OF UROLOGY, 2019, 45 : 36 - 41
  • [3] The prognostic significance of the 2014 International Society of Urological Pathology (ISUP) grading system for prostate cancer
    Samaratunga, Hemamali
    Delahunt, Brett
    Gianduzzo, Troy
    Coughlin, Geoff
    Duffy, David
    LeFevre, Ian
    Johannsen, Shulammite
    Egevad, Lars
    Yaxley, John
    [J]. PATHOLOGY, 2015, 47 (06) : 515 - 519
  • [4] Impact of the 2014 International Society of Urological Pathology (ISUP) Modified Gleason Grading on Previously Diagnosed Gleason Score 6 Prostate Cancers in Radical Prostatectomies
    Choy, Bonnie
    Pearce, Shane M.
    Anderson, Blake B.
    Paner, Gladell P.
    [J]. LABORATORY INVESTIGATION, 2017, 97 : 218A - 218A
  • [5] Impact on the Clinical Outcome of Prostate Cancer by the 2005 International Society of Urological Pathology Modified Gleason Grading System
    Dong, Fei
    Wang, Chaofu
    Farris, A. Brad
    Wu, Shulin
    Lee, Hang
    Olumi, Aria F.
    McDougal, W. Scott
    Young, Robert H.
    Wu, Chin-Lee
    [J]. AMERICAN JOURNAL OF SURGICAL PATHOLOGY, 2012, 36 (06) : 838 - 843
  • [6] Impact of the 2014 International Society of Urological Pathology (ISUP) Modified Gleason Grading on Previously Diagnosed Gleason Score 6 Prostate Cancers in Radical Prostatectomies
    Choy, Bonnie
    Pearce, Shane M.
    Anderson, Blake B.
    Paner, Gladell P.
    [J]. MODERN PATHOLOGY, 2017, 30 : 218A - 218A
  • [7] Implications of the International Society of Urological Pathology Modified Gleason Grading System
    Egevad, Lars
    Mazzucchelli, Roberta
    Montironi, Rodolfo
    [J]. ARCHIVES OF PATHOLOGY & LABORATORY MEDICINE, 2012, 136 (04) : 426 - 434
  • [8] International Society of Urological Pathology (ISUP) Grading of Prostate Cancer
    Egevad, Lars
    Delahunt, Brett
    Evans, Andrew J.
    Grignon, David J.
    Kench, James G.
    Kristiansen, Glen
    Leite, Katia R.
    Samaratunga, Hemamali
    Srigley, John R.
    [J]. AMERICAN JOURNAL OF SURGICAL PATHOLOGY, 2016, 40 (06) : 858 - 861
  • [9] Controversial issues in Gleason and International Society of Urological Pathology (ISUP) prostate cancer grading: proposed recommendations for international implementation
    Srigley, John R.
    Delahunt, Brett
    Samaratunga, Hemamali
    Billis, Athanase
    Cheng, Liang
    Clouston, David
    Evans, Andrew
    Furusato, Bungo
    Kench, James
    Leite, Katia
    MacLennan, Gregory
    Moch, Holger
    Pan, Chin-Chen
    Rioux-Leclercq, Nathalie
    Ro, Jae
    Shanks, Jonathan
    Shen, Steven
    Tsuzuki, Toyonori
    Varma, Murali
    Wheeler, Thomas
    Yaxley, John
    Egevad, Lars
    [J]. PATHOLOGY, 2019, 51 (05) : 463 - 473
  • [10] USEFULNESS OF THE 2005 INTERNATIONAL SOCIETY OF UROLOGICAL PATHOLOGY GLEASON GRADING SYSTEM IN PROSTATE BIOPSY AND RADICAL PROSTATECTOMY SPECIMENS
    Trpkov, Kiril
    Zhang, Jianguo
    [J]. BJU INTERNATIONAL, 2009, 104 (05) : 722 - 723