BACKGROUND: The objectives of the current study were to examine time trends in the prevalence of Gleason grades of prostate cancer on radical retropubic prostatectomy (RRP) specimens and to assess the resultant impact on prognosis. METHODS: The authors examined the prevalence over time of each grade and Gleason score (GS) on RRP specimens from 8750 patients who were treated between 1989 and 2001. Biochemical recurrence-free survival (BRFS), which was estimated by using Kaplan-Meier methodology, was examined in subgroups of patients defined by tumor grade and era of surgery. RESULTS: The prevalence of Grade 3 prostate cancers increased (86% vs. 49% for primary Gleason grade and 71% vs. 47% for secondary Gleason grade; 1999-2001 vs. 1989-1990, respectively), whereas the prevalence of Grade 2 tumors decreased (0.4% vs. 38% for primary Gleason grade and 1.3% vs. 28% for secondary Gleason grade, respectively) over the study period, leading to fewer GS 4 and 5 tumors and more GS 6 and 7 tumors. BRFS improved over time for patients who had GS 5 tumors (hazards ratio [HR], 0.92 per year; P = .003) and GS 6 tumors (HR, 0.93; P < .001) but remained unchanged for GS 7 tumors (HR 0.99; P = .462) and GS 8-10 tumors (HR 1.02; P = .360). Patients who were treated in the recent era (1997-2001) had greater differentiation of BRFS based on GS or Gleason grade compared with patients who were treated earlier (1989-1991). CONCLUSIONS: The current results confirmed that there were changes in the prevalence of Gleason grades on RRP specimens between 1989 and 2001. A chronological change in pathologic grading classification is suggested by evolving prognostic implications, which must be accounted for when comparing outcomes from different eras. Copyright 2006 American Cancer Society.
BACKGROUND: The objectives of the current study were to examine time trends in the prevalence of Gleason grades of prostate cancer on radical retropubic prostatectomy (RRP) specimens and to assess the resultant impact on prognosis. METHODS: The authors examined the prevalence over time of each grade and Gleason score (GS) on RRP specimens from 8750 patients who were treated between 1989 and 2001. Biochemical recurrence-free survival (BRFS), which was estimated by using Kaplan-Meier methodology, was examined in subgroups of patients defined by tumor grade and era of surgery. RESULTS: The prevalence of Grade 3 prostate cancers increased (86% vs. 49% for primary Gleason grade and 71% vs. 47% for secondary Gleason grade; 1999-2001 vs. 1989-1990, respectively), whereas the prevalence of Grade 2 tumors decreased (0.4% vs. 38% for primary Gleason grade and 1.3% vs. 28% for secondary Gleason grade, respectively) over the study period, leading to fewer GS 4 and 5 tumors and more GS 6 and 7 tumors. BRFS improved over time for patients who had GS 5 tumors (hazards ratio [HR], 0.92 per year; P = .003) and GS 6 tumors (HR, 0.93; P < .001) but remained unchanged for GS 7 tumors (HR 0.99; P = .462) and GS 8-10 tumors (HR 1.02; P = .360). Patients who were treated in the recent era (1997-2001) had greater differentiation of BRFS based on GS or Gleason grade compared with patients who were treated earlier (1989-1991). CONCLUSIONS: The current results confirmed that there were changes in the prevalence of Gleason grades on RRP specimens between 1989 and 2001. A chronological change in pathologic grading classification is suggested by evolving prognostic implications, which must be accounted for when comparing outcomes from different eras. Copyright 2006 American Cancer Society.
Authors: Andrew J Vickers; Caroline J Savage; Fernando J Bianco; Eric A Klein; Michael W Kattan; Fernando P Secin; Bertrand D Guilloneau; Peter T Scardino Journal: Int J Cancer Date: 2010-06-09 Impact factor: 7.396
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
Authors: Carolina D'Elia; Maria Angela Cerruto; Antonio Cioffi; Giovanni Novella; Stefano Cavalleri; Walter Artibani Journal: Mol Clin Oncol Date: 2014-08-05
Authors: Daniel J Schaid; Janet L Stanford; Shannon K McDonnell; Miia Suuriniemi; Laura McIntosh; Danielle M Karyadi; Erin E Carlson; Kerry Deutsch; Marta Janer; Lee Hood; Elaine A Ostrander Journal: Hum Genet Date: 2007-05-08 Impact factor: 4.132
Authors: Jennifer R Stark; Sven Perner; Meir J Stampfer; Jennifer A Sinnott; Stephen Finn; Anna S Eisenstein; Jing Ma; Michelangelo Fiorentino; Tobias Kurth; Massimo Loda; Edward L Giovannucci; Mark A Rubin; Lorelei A Mucci Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2009-05-11 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: Reina Haque; Stephanie Reading; Michael R Irwin; Lie Hong Chen; Jeff Slezak Journal: Cancer Causes Control Date: 2022-09-09 Impact factor: 2.532
Authors: Patrick Leo; Robin Elliott; Natalie N C Shih; Sanjay Gupta; Michael Feldman; Anant Madabhushi Journal: Sci Rep Date: 2018-10-08 Impact factor: 4.379