Literature DB >> 18963536

Comparison of biochemical relapse-free survival between primary Gleason score 3 and primary Gleason score 4 for biopsy Gleason score 7 prostate cancer.

Michael J Burdick1, Chandana A Reddy, James Ulchaker, Kenneth Angermeier, Andrew Altman, Nabil Chehade, Arul Mahadevan, Patrick A Kupelian, Eric A Klein, Jay P Ciezki.   

Abstract

PURPOSE: To determine whether the primary grade (PG) of biopsy Gleason score (GS) 7 prostate cancer (CaP) was predictive for biochemical relapse-free survival (bRFS). Most of the present data regarding the PG of GS7 CaP refer to surgical specimens. Our goal was to determine whether the biopsy GS used at the time of medical decision making predicted for the biochemical outcome. METHODS AND MATERIALS: We reviewed the data from 705 patients with biopsy GS7 CaP, from a prospectively maintained database, who had been treated at our institution between September 1996 and March 2005 with radical prostatectomy (n = 310), external beam radiotherapy (n = 268), or prostate radioactive seed implantation (n = 127). The bRFS rates were estimated using the Kaplan-Meier method. Cox proportional hazards regression analysis was used for univariate and multivariate analyses examining these factors in relation to bRFS: PG of biopsy GS, initial prostate-specific antigen level, clinical T stage, use of androgen deprivation, risk group (high or intermediate), and treatment modality.
RESULTS: The 5-year bRFS rate was 78% and 71% (p = 0.0108) for biopsy GS7 PG3 CaP and biopsy GS7 PG4 CaP, respectively. Comparing PG3 and PG4 within treatment modalities, only prostate implantation patients had a significant difference in the 5-year bRFS rate, 88% vs. 76%, respectively (p = 0.0231). On multivariate analysis, the PG of biopsy GS remained an independent predictor of bRFS, with PG3 having better bRFS than PG4 (relative risk, 0.655; 95% confidence interval, 0.472-0.909; p = 0.0113).
CONCLUSION: Biopsy GS7 PG4 CaP carries a worse bRFS than biopsy GS7 PG3 CaP.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2008        PMID: 18963536     DOI: 10.1016/j.ijrobp.2008.07.033

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys        ISSN: 0360-3016            Impact factor:   7.038


  16 in total

1.  Evidence-based guideline recommendations on low-dose rate brachytherapy in patients with low- or intermediate-risk prostate cancer.

Authors:  George Rodrigues; Xiaomei Yao; D Andrew Loblaw; Michael Brundage; Joseph L Chin
Journal:  Can Urol Assoc J       Date:  2013 May-Jun       Impact factor: 1.862

2.  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

3.  Usefulness of the top-scoring pairs of genes for prediction of prostate cancer progression.

Authors:  H Zhao; C J Logothetis; I P Gorlov
Journal:  Prostate Cancer Prostatic Dis       Date:  2010-04-13       Impact factor: 5.554

Review 4.  Low-dose rate brachytherapy for patients with low- or intermediate-risk prostate cancer: A systematic review.

Authors:  George Rodrigues; Xiaomei Yao; D Andrew Loblaw; Michael Brundage; Joseph L Chin
Journal:  Can Urol Assoc J       Date:  2013-11       Impact factor: 1.862

5.  Prognostic value of the new Grade Groups in Prostate Cancer: a multi-institutional European validation study.

Authors:  R Mathieu; M Moschini; B Beyer; K M Gust; T Seisen; A Briganti; P Karakiewicz; C Seitz; L Salomon; A de la Taille; M Rouprêt; M Graefen; S F Shariat
Journal:  Prostate Cancer Prostatic Dis       Date:  2017-01-10       Impact factor: 5.554

6.  The prostate cancer susceptibility variant rs2735839 near KLK3 gene is associated with aggressive prostate cancer and can stratify gleason score 7 patients.

Authors:  Jeri Kim; Xifeng Wu; Yonggang He; Jian Gu; Sara Strom; Christopher J Logothetis
Journal:  Clin Cancer Res       Date:  2014-10-01       Impact factor: 12.531

7.  The clinical impact of pathological review on selection the treatment modality for localized prostate cancer in candidates for brachytherapy monotherapy.

Authors:  Ryo Kishimoto; Takashi Saika; Kensuke Bekku; Hiroyuki Nose; Fernando Abarzua; Yasuyuki Kobayashi; Motoo Araki; Hiroyuki Yanai; Yasutomo Nasu; Hiromi Kumon
Journal:  World J Urol       Date:  2011-08-17       Impact factor: 4.226

8.  Prognostic Gleason grade grouping: data based on the modified Gleason scoring system.

Authors:  Phillip M Pierorazio; Patrick C Walsh; Alan W Partin; Jonathan I Epstein
Journal:  BJU Int       Date:  2013-03-06       Impact factor: 5.588

9.  The utility of ADC parameters in the diagnosis of clinically significant prostate cancer by 3.0-Tesla diffusion-weighted magnetic resonance imaging.

Authors:  Aylin Altan Kus
Journal:  Pol J Radiol       Date:  2021-05-05

Review 10.  Grading of prostatic adenocarcinoma: current state and prognostic implications.

Authors:  Jennifer Gordetsky; Jonathan Epstein
Journal:  Diagn Pathol       Date:  2016-03-09       Impact factor: 2.644

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.