Literature DB >> 11992053

Gleason score 7 prostate cancer on needle biopsy: is the prognostic difference in Gleason scores 4 + 3 and 3 + 4 independent of the number of involved cores?

Danil V Makarov1, Harriete Sanderson, Alan W Partin, Jonathan I Epstein.   

Abstract

PURPOSE: We addressed whether Gleason score 3 + 4 = 7 and 4 + 3 = 7 cancers on needle biopsy behave differently and whether this behavior is independent of the number of cores involved by cancer. If it is not an independent predictor of prognosis, one may report Gleason score 7 cancer with the number of positive cores without regard to whether the primary pattern was 3 or 4. This practice would remove a source of poor interobserver reproducibility when grading prostate cancer on needle biopsy.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: We identified 537 patients with Gleason score 7 tumors on biopsy. The results of patient preoperative digital rectal examination, serum prostate specific antigen (PSA) measurement and age were used to predict 4 outcomes based on assessment of the corresponding radical prostatectomy specimens, including 1) pathological stage (organ confined, focal extraprostatic extension, nonfocal extraprostatic extension or seminal vesicle-lymph node involvement), 2) organ confinement (yes/no), 3) Gleason score and 4) surgical margin status (positive/negative)
RESULTS: Multivariate regression of postoperative Gleason score groups against all 5 input variables (3 + 4 versus 4 + 3, number of positive cores, PSA, age and digital rectal examination) yielded a statistically significant positive correlation with preoperative PSA (p <0.001) and preoperative Gleason scores of 4 + 3 versus 3 + 4 on biopsy (p <0.001). Pathological stage correlated with preoperative PSA (p <0.001), Gleason score 4 + 3 disease (p = 0.016), positive digital rectal examination (p <0.001) and 3 or more positive cores (p = 0.016). Positive surgical margins were predicted only by preoperative PSA (p = 0.001).
CONCLUSIONS: Because the biological behavior of biopsy Gleason score 3 + 4 or 4 + 3 of Gleason score 7 cancer differs regardless of the number of cores involved, future nomograms predicting pathological stage would benefit from examining 3 + 4 and 4 + 3 disease separately.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2002        PMID: 11992053

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Urol        ISSN: 0022-5347            Impact factor:   7.450


  23 in total

Review 1.  Histopathology reporting of prostate needle biopsies. 2005 update.

Authors:  Rodolfo Montironi; Remigio Vela Navarrete; Antonio Lopez-Beltran; Roberta Mazzucchelli; Gregor Mikuz; Aldo V Bono
Journal:  Virchows Arch       Date:  2006-04-22       Impact factor: 4.064

2.  Should we abstain from Gleason score 2-4 in the diagnosis of prostate cancer? Results of a German multicentre study.

Authors:  Sabine Brookman-May; Matthias May; Wolf-Ferdinand Wieland; Steffen Lebentrau; Sven Gunia; Stefan Koch; Christian Gilfrich; Jan Roigas; Bernd Hoschke; Maximilian Burger
Journal:  World J Urol       Date:  2010-12-30       Impact factor: 4.226

3.  [The 2014 consensus conference of the ISUP on Gleason grading of prostatic carcinoma].

Authors:  G Kristiansen; L Egevad; M Amin; B Delahunt; J R Srigley; P A Humphrey; J I Epstein
Journal:  Pathologe       Date:  2016-02       Impact factor: 1.011

Review 4.  Current practice of Gleason grading of prostate carcinoma.

Authors:  Antonio Lopez-Beltran; Gregor Mikuz; Rafael J Luque; Roberta Mazzucchelli; Rodolfo Montironi
Journal:  Virchows Arch       Date:  2005-11-23       Impact factor: 4.064

Review 5.  One is the new six: The International Society of Urological Pathology (ISUP) patient-focused approach to Gleason grading.

Authors:  John R Srigley; Brett Delahunt; Lars Egevad; Hemamali Samaratunga; John Yaxley; Andrew J Evans
Journal:  Can Urol Assoc J       Date:  2016 Sep-Oct       Impact factor: 1.862

6.  The effect of Rapid Access Prostate Clinics on the outcomes of Gleason 7 prostate cancer: does earlier diagnosis lead to better outcomes?

Authors:  M P Broe; J C Forde; M S Inder; D J Galvin; D W Mulvin; D M Quinlan
Journal:  Ir J Med Sci       Date:  2017-03-09       Impact factor: 1.568

7.  Gleason score 6 adenocarcinoma: should it be labeled as cancer?

Authors:  H Ballentine Carter; Alan W Partin; Patrick C Walsh; Bruce J Trock; Robert W Veltri; William G Nelson; Donald S Coffey; Eric A Singer; Jonathan I Epstein
Journal:  J Clin Oncol       Date:  2012-10-01       Impact factor: 44.544

8.  Updated nomogram to predict pathologic stage of prostate cancer given prostate-specific antigen level, clinical stage, and biopsy Gleason score (Partin tables) based on cases from 2000 to 2005.

Authors:  Danil V Makarov; Bruce J Trock; Elizabeth B Humphreys; Leslie A Mangold; Patrick C Walsh; Jonathan I Epstein; Alan W Partin
Journal:  Urology       Date:  2007-06       Impact factor: 2.649

9.  Risk stratification of men with Gleason score 7 to 10 tumors by primary and secondary Gleason score: results from the SEARCH database.

Authors:  David E Kang; Nicholas J Fitzsimons; Joseph C Presti; Christopher J Kane; Martha K Terris; William J Aronson; Christopher L Amling; Stephen J Freedland
Journal:  Urology       Date:  2007-08       Impact factor: 2.649

Review 10.  Pathologic basis of focal therapy for early-stage prostate cancer.

Authors:  Vladimir Mouraviev; Janice M Mayes; Thomas J Polascik
Journal:  Nat Rev Urol       Date:  2009-04       Impact factor: 14.432

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.