Literature DB >> 14501722

Prostate cancer grade assignment: the effect of chronological, interpretive and translation bias.

Filippos I Kondylis1, Richard P Moriarty, David Bostwick, Paul F Schellhammer.   

Abstract

PURPOSE: Surveillance, Epidemiology and End Results (SEER) data reveal an increasing incidence in the detection of moderately differentiated prostate cancer and a stable or decreasing incidence in well and poorly differentiated cancer. Plausible reasons for this phenomenon include the decrease in transurethral resections performed and an increase in the number of prostate specific antigen triggered ultrasound guided needle biopsies. We examined additional explanations for the grade shift with time and addresses the impact of this grade shift on clinical end points.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: Archived slides from 100 patients (82 needle biopsy specimens and 18 transurethral resection specimens) treated for prostate cancer between 1975 and 1985 were reexamined. Current grades were assigned using the WHO and the Gleason grading systems, and they were compared with the original grade assignments. Current Gleason score was translated to WHO grade by operational SEER criteria (2 to 4-well, 5 to 7-moderately and 8 to 10-poorly differentiated). Analysis of the 100 specimens by life table methodology calculated cancer specific survival according to the era of grade assignment.
RESULTS: There was significant upward grade migration from the historic to the current WHO grade and from the translation by SEER methodology of the current Gleason score to WHO grade (p <0.0001). Interpretive and chronological bias caused expansion of the moderately differentiated category at the expense of well differentiated cancer and significant deviation in cancer specific survival curves (p <0.013). SEER translation bias resulted in expansion of the moderately differentiated grade category at the expense of poorly differentiated cancer and eliminated the significant difference in cancer specific survival between Gleason 5/6 and 7 (p <0.006).
CONCLUSIONS: Contemporary understanding of Gleason grading has lowered the threshold for assignment to higher grade. While a change in tumor biology may be partially responsible for the trend toward higher grade assignment, grade migration as described is also a significant contributing factor in reported histological trends for newly diagnosed prostate cancer and it significantly compromises efforts at historical comparisons.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2003        PMID: 14501722     DOI: 10.1097/01.ju.0000085675.96097.76

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


  9 in total

1.  Reduction in physician reimbursement and use of hormone therapy in prostate cancer.

Authors:  Sean P Elliott; Stephanie L Jarosek; Timothy J Wilt; Beth A Virnig
Journal:  J Natl Cancer Inst       Date:  2010-12-03       Impact factor: 13.506

Review 2.  Prostate cancer screening: current status and future perspectives.

Authors:  Seth A Strope; Gerald L Andriole
Journal:  Nat Rev Urol       Date:  2010-09       Impact factor: 14.432

3.  Genetic variation in DNA repair genes and prostate cancer risk: results from a population-based study.

Authors:  Ilir Agalliu; Erika M Kwon; Claudia A Salinas; Joseph S Koopmeiners; Elaine A Ostrander; Janet L Stanford
Journal:  Cancer Causes Control       Date:  2009-11-10       Impact factor: 2.506

4.  Do prostatic transition zone tumors have a distinct morphology?

Authors:  Joaquin J Garcia; Hikmat A Al-Ahmadie; Anuradha Gopalan; Satish K Tickoo; Peter T Scardino; Victor E Reuter; Samson W Fine
Journal:  Am J Surg Pathol       Date:  2008-11       Impact factor: 6.394

5.  Contemporary risk profile of prostate cancer in the United States.

Authors:  Yu-Hsuan Shao; Kitaw Demissie; Weichung Shih; Amit R Mehta; Mark N Stein; Calpurnyia B Roberts; Robert S Dipaola; Grace L Lu-Yao
Journal:  J Natl Cancer Inst       Date:  2009-08-27       Impact factor: 13.506

6.  Adjuvant radiotherapy for pathological T3N0M0 prostate cancer significantly reduces risk of metastases and improves survival: long-term followup of a randomized clinical trial.

Authors:  Ian M Thompson; Catherine M Tangen; Jorge Paradelo; M Scott Lucia; Gary Miller; Dean Troyer; Edward Messing; Jeffrey Forman; Joseph Chin; Gregory Swanson; Edith Canby-Hagino; E David Crawford
Journal:  J Urol       Date:  2009-01-23       Impact factor: 7.450

7.  A model of the natural history of screen-detected prostate cancer, and the effect of radical treatment on overall survival.

Authors:  C Parker; D Muston; J Melia; S Moss; D Dearnaley
Journal:  Br J Cancer       Date:  2006-05-22       Impact factor: 7.640

8.  Quality assurance guidance for scoring and reporting for pathologists and laboratories undertaking clinical trial work.

Authors:  Max Robinson; Jacqueline James; Gareth Thomas; Nicholas West; Louise Jones; Jessica Lee; Karin Oien; Alex Freeman; Clare Craig; Philip Sloan; Philip Elliot; Maggie Cheang; Manuel Rodriguez-Justo; Clare Verrill
Journal:  J Pathol Clin Res       Date:  2018-11-29

9.  Long-term outcome among men with conservatively treated localised prostate cancer.

Authors:  J Cuzick; G Fisher; M W Kattan; D Berney; T Oliver; C S Foster; H Møller; V Reuter; P Fearn; J Eastham; P Scardino
Journal:  Br J Cancer       Date:  2006-11-06       Impact factor: 7.640

  9 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.