New Prostate Cancer Grading System Predicts Long-term Survival Following Surgery for Gleason Score 8-10 Prostate Cancer

被引:44
|
作者
Ham, Won Sik [1 ,2 ,3 ]
Chalfin, Heather J. [1 ]
Feng, Zhaoyong [1 ]
Trock, Bruce J. [1 ]
Epstein, Jonathan I. [1 ,4 ]
Cheung, Carling [1 ]
Humphreys, Elizabeth [1 ]
Partin, Alan W. [1 ]
Han, Misop [1 ]
机构
[1] Johns Hopkins Med Inst, James Buchanan Brady Urol Inst, Dept Urol, Baltimore, MD 21205 USA
[2] Yonsei Univ, Coll Med, Dept Urol, Seoul, South Korea
[3] Yonsei Univ, Coll Med, Urol Sci Inst, Seoul, South Korea
[4] Johns Hopkins Med Inst, Dept Pathol, Baltimore, MD 21205 USA
关键词
Mortality; Prostate cancer; Gleason score; 2005; INTERNATIONAL-SOCIETY; ISUP CONSENSUS CONFERENCE; RADICAL PROSTATECTOMY; EAU GUIDELINES; CARCINOMA; RISK;
D O I
10.1016/j.eururo.2016.11.006
中图分类号
R5 [内科学]; R69 [泌尿科学(泌尿生殖系疾病)];
学科分类号
1002 ; 100201 ;
摘要
Background: The newly proposed five-tiered prostate cancer grading system (PCGS) divides Gleason score (GS) 8-10 disease into GS 8 and GS 9-10 on the basis of biochemical recurrence (BCR) following radical prostatectomy (RP) as an outcome. However, BCR does not necessarily portend worse survival outcomes. Objective: To assess the significance of distinguishing GS 8 versus 9-10 disease in terms of long-term survival outcomes for both the preoperative setting using biopsy (Bx) GS and the postoperative setting with RP GS. Design, setting, and participants: Of 23 918 men who underwent RP between 1984 and 2014, there were 721 men with biopsy GS 8-10, and 1047 men with RP GS 8-10. Outcome measures and statistical analysis: Clinicopathologic characteristics were compared between men with GS 8 and those with GS 9-10. We compared all-cause mortality (ACM) and prostate cancer-specific mortality (PCSM) risk between the groups using Cox regression and competing-risks analyses, adjusting for other perioperative variables and death from other causes as the competing event. Results and limitations: Compared to men with GS 8, men with GS 9-10 had later RP year and higher pathologic stage. Among men with Bx GS 8-10, 115 died (82 due to PC) with median follow-up of 3 yr (interquartile range [IQR] 1-7) for both overall and cancer-specific survival. Of men with RP GS 8-10, 221 died (151 due to PC) with median follow-up of 4 yr (IQR 2-8) and 4 yr (IQR 2-9) for overall and cancer-specific survival, respectively. PC-specific survival rates were significantly lower for men with GS 9-10 compared to men with GS 8 for both Bx (hazard ratio [HR] 2.13, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.37-3.30; p < 0.01) and RP GS (HR 2.38, 95% CI 1.74-3.28; p < 0.01). This association persisted in multivariable models after adjusting for perioperative variables. Conclusions: Men with GS 9-10 had higher ACM and PCSM rates compared to those with GS 8. GS 8 and GS 9-10 PC should be considered separately in both the preoperative and postoperative setting as suggested by the new PCGS. Patient summary: The prostate cancer grading system can predict mortality risk after radical prostatectomy (RP) for men with Gleason score 8-10 disease based on both biopsy and RP Gleason scores. There are significant differences in all-cause mortality and prostate cancer-specific mortality following surgery between men with Gleason score 8 and those with Gleason score 9-10 disease. (C) 2016 European Association of Urology. Published by Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.
引用
收藏
页码:907 / 912
页数:6
相关论文
共 50 条
  • [1] Differences in survival of prostate cancer Gleason 8-10 disease and the establishment of a new Gleason survival grading system
    Zhou, Yuan
    Lin, Changming
    Hu, Zhihua
    Yang, Cheng
    Zhang, Rentao
    Ding, Yinman
    Wang, Zhengquan
    Tao, Sha
    Qin, Yanmei
    [J]. CANCER MEDICINE, 2021, 10 (01): : 87 - 97
  • [2] Cause-specific survival is high following radiotherapy or surgery for Gleason score 8-10 prostate cancer
    Hamstra, DA
    Dunn, R
    Wei, J
    Montie, J
    Sanda, M
    Sandler, H
    [J]. INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF RADIATION ONCOLOGY BIOLOGY PHYSICS, 2004, 60 (01): : S232 - S233
  • [3] Re: Won Sik Ham, Heather J. Chalfin, Zhaoyong Feng, et al. New Prostate Cancer Grading System Predicts Long-term Survival Following Surgery for Gleason Score 8-10 Prostate Cancer. Eur Urol 2017;71:907-12
    Fankhauser, Christian Daniel
    Mucci, Lorelei A.
    Gerke, Travis A.
    [J]. EUROPEAN UROLOGY, 2017, 72 (01) : E9 - E10
  • [4] Long-term prognostic significance of primary Gleason pattern in patients with Gleason score 7 prostate cancer: Impact on prostate cancer specific survival
    Tollefson, MK
    Leibovich, BC
    Slezak, JM
    Zincke, H
    Blute, ML
    [J]. JOURNAL OF UROLOGY, 2006, 175 (02): : 547 - 551
  • [5] Racial Disparities in Prostate Cancer-Specific Survival After Definitive Treatment for Gleason 8-10 Localized Prostate Cancer
    Wang, C.
    Wang, J.
    Pennington, J. D. D.
    Kupelian, P. A.
    Steinberg, M. L.
    Kamrava, M.
    [J]. INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF RADIATION ONCOLOGY BIOLOGY PHYSICS, 2016, 96 (02): : E247 - E247
  • [6] Clinical significance of minute foci of Gleason score 8-10 prostate cancer on needle biopsy
    Fine, SW
    Epstein, JI
    [J]. MODERN PATHOLOGY, 2006, 19 : 136A - 136A
  • [7] TARGETED 3-D BRACHYTHERAPY FOR GLEASON S SCORE 8-10 PROSTATE CANCER
    Koutrouvelis, P.
    Fried, D.
    Lailas, N.
    Monjazeb, A.
    Sehn, J.
    Sideris, G.
    Hendricks, F.
    Katz, S.
    [J]. RADIOTHERAPY AND ONCOLOGY, 2009, 91 : S39 - +
  • [8] Outcomes in patients with Gleason score 8-10 prostate cancer: relation to preoperative PSA level
    McGuire, Barry B.
    Helfand, Brian T.
    Loeb, Stacy
    Hu, Qiaoyan
    O'Brien, Daniel
    Cooper, Phillip
    Yang, Ximing
    Catalona, William J.
    [J]. BJU INTERNATIONAL, 2012, 109 (12) : 1764 - 1769
  • [9] Clinical significance of minute foci of Gleason score 8-10 prostate cancer on needle biopsy
    Fine, SW
    Epstein, JI
    [J]. LABORATORY INVESTIGATION, 2006, 86 : 136A - 136A
  • [10] Clinical significance of minute foci of Gleason score 8-10 prostate cancer on needle biopsy
    Fine, SW
    Epstein, JI
    [J]. JOURNAL OF UROLOGY, 2006, 175 (04): : 534 - 534