Literature DB >> 16935413

Should we replace the Gleason score with the amount of high-grade prostate cancer?

André N Vis1, Stijn Roemeling, Ries Kranse, Fritz H Schröder, Theo H van der Kwast.   

Abstract

OBJECTIVES: The stage and grade shift of currently diagnosed prostate cancer has led to a diminished prognostic power of the Gleason score system. We investigated the predictive value of the amount of high-grade cancer (Gleason growth patterns 4/5) in the biopsy for prostate-specific antigen (PSA) and clinical relapse after radical prostatectomy.
METHODS: PSA-tested participants (N=281) of the European Randomized Study of Screening for Prostate Cancer (ERSPC) who underwent radical prostatectomy were analyzed. Besides clinical features, and serum-PSA, histopathologic features as determined in the diagnostic biopsy and matching radical prostatectomy specimen were related to patient outcome.
RESULTS: At a median follow-up of 7 yr, 39 (13.9%), 24 (8.5%), and 12 (4.3%) patients had PSA >/=0.1 ng/ml, PSA >/=1.0 ng/ml, and clinical relapse after radical prostatectomy, respectively. Using Cox proportional hazards, PSA level (p=0.002), length of tumour (p=0.040), and length of high-grade cancer (p=0.006) in the biopsy, but not Gleason score, were independent prognostic factors for biochemical relapse (PSA >/=0.1 ng/ml) when assessed as continuous variables. In radical prostatectomies, the proportion of high-grade cancer (p<0.001) was most predictive of relapse (PSA >/=0.1 ng/ml). For PSA >/=1.0 ng/ml and clinical relapse, the amount of high-grade cancer, both in the biopsy specimen (p=0.016 and p=0.004, respectively) and radical prostatectomy specimen (p=0.002 and p=0.005, respectively), but not Gleason score, was an independent predictor.
CONCLUSIONS: In biopsy and radical prostatectomy specimens of surgically treated prostate cancer, the amount of high-grade cancer is superior to the Gleason grading system in predicting patient outcome. We propose that, in addition to the Gleason score, the amount of Gleason growth patterns 4/5 in the biopsy (whether absolute length or proportion) should be mentioned in the pathology report.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2006        PMID: 16935413     DOI: 10.1016/j.eururo.2006.07.051

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Eur Urol        ISSN: 0302-2838            Impact factor:   20.096


  11 in total

1.  Interactive digital slides with heat maps: a novel method to improve the reproducibility of Gleason grading.

Authors:  Lars Egevad; Ferran Algaba; Daniel M Berney; Liliane Boccon-Gibod; Eva Compérat; Andrew J Evans; Rainer Grobholz; Glen Kristiansen; Cord Langner; Gina Lockwood; Antonio Lopez-Beltran; Rodolfo Montironi; Pedro Oliveira; Matthias Schwenkglenks; Ben Vainer; Murali Varma; Vincent Verger; Philippe Camparo
Journal:  Virchows Arch       Date:  2011-06-23       Impact factor: 4.064

2.  Presence of invasive cribriform or intraductal growth at biopsy outperforms percentage grade 4 in predicting outcome of Gleason score 3+4=7 prostate cancer.

Authors:  Charlotte F Kweldam; Intan P Kümmerlin; Daan Nieboer; Ewout W Steyerberg; Chris H Bangma; Luca Incrocci; Theodorus H van der Kwast; Monique J Roobol; Geert J van Leenders
Journal:  Mod Pathol       Date:  2017-05-19       Impact factor: 7.842

3.  An exploratory study of endorectal magnetic resonance imaging and spectroscopy of the prostate as preoperative predictive biomarkers of biochemical relapse after radical prostatectomy.

Authors:  Kristen L Zakian; Hedvig Hricak; Nicole Ishill; Victor E Reuter; Steven Eberhardt; Chaya S Moskowitz; Amita Shukla-Dave; Liang Wang; Peter T Scardino; James A Eastham; Jason A Koutcher
Journal:  J Urol       Date:  2010-10-16       Impact factor: 7.450

Review 4.  Defining the threshold for significant versus insignificant prostate cancer.

Authors:  Theo H Van der Kwast; Monique J Roobol
Journal:  Nat Rev Urol       Date:  2013-05-28       Impact factor: 14.432

5.  Impact of Gleason pattern 5 including tertiary pattern 5 on outcomes of salvage treatment for biochemical recurrence in pT2-3N0M0 prostate cancer.

Authors:  Satoru Taguchi; Kenshiro Shiraishi; Hiroshi Fukuhara; Keiichi Nakagawa; Teppei Morikawa; Akihiro Naito; Shigenori Kakutani; Yuta Takeshima; Hideyo Miyazaki; Tohru Nakagawa; Tetsuya Fujimura; Haruki Kume; Yukio Homma
Journal:  Int J Clin Oncol       Date:  2016-04-20       Impact factor: 3.402

6.  Guidelines on processing and reporting of prostate biopsies: the 2013 update of the pathology committee of the European Randomized Study of Screening for Prostate Cancer (ERSPC).

Authors:  T Van der Kwast; L Bubendorf; C Mazerolles; M R Raspollini; G J Van Leenders; C-G Pihl; P Kujala
Journal:  Virchows Arch       Date:  2013-08-06       Impact factor: 4.064

7.  Size-adjusted Quantitative Gleason Score as a Predictor of Biochemical Recurrence after Radical Prostatectomy.

Authors:  Fang-Ming Deng; Nicholas M Donin; Ruth Pe Benito; Jonathan Melamed; Julien Le Nobin; Ming Zhou; Sisi Ma; Jinhua Wang; Herbert Lepor
Journal:  Eur Urol       Date:  2015-10-30       Impact factor: 20.096

8.  Prognostic factors for failure after prostatectomy.

Authors:  Gregory P Swanson; Joseph W Basler
Journal:  J Cancer       Date:  2010-12-07       Impact factor: 4.207

Review 9.  Prognostic histopathological and molecular markers on prostate cancer needle-biopsies: a review.

Authors:  A Marije Hoogland; Charlotte F Kweldam; Geert J L H van Leenders
Journal:  Biomed Res Int       Date:  2014-08-27       Impact factor: 3.411

10.  Difference of opinion - Active surveillance in intermediate risk prostate cancer: is it safe? Opinion: Yes.

Authors:  Henk G van der Poel; Roderick C N van den Bergh
Journal:  Int Braz J Urol       Date:  2016 May-Jun       Impact factor: 1.541

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.