PURPOSE: We investigated the relationship between the tertiary Gleason component in radical prostatectomy specimens and biochemical recurrence in what is to our knowledge the largest single institution cohort to date. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We evaluated data on 3,230 men who underwent radical prostatectomy at our institution from 2000 to 2005. Tertiary Gleason component was defined as Gleason grade pattern 4 or greater for Gleason score 6 and Gleason grade pattern 5 for Gleason score 7 or 8. RESULTS: Biochemical recurrence curves for cancer with tertiary Gleason component were intermediate between those of cancer without a tertiary Gleason component in the same Gleason score category and cancer in the next higher Gleason score category. The only exception was that Gleason score 4 + 3 = 7 with a tertiary Gleason component behaved like Gleason score 8. The tertiary Gleason component independently predicted recurrence when factoring in radical prostatectomy Gleason score, radical prostatectomy stage and prostate specific antigen (HR 1.45, p = 0.029). Furthermore, the magnitude of the tertiary Gleason component effect on recurrence did not differ by Gleason score category (p = 0.593). CONCLUSIONS: Although the tertiary Gleason component is frequently included in pathology reports, it is routinely omitted in other situations, such as predictive nomograms, research studies and patient counseling. The current study adds to a growing body of evidence highlighting the importance of the tertiary Gleason component in radical prostatectomy specimens. Accordingly consideration should be given to a modified radical prostatectomy Gleason scoring system that incorporates tertiary Gleason component in intuitive fashion, including Gleason score 6, 6.5 (Gleason score 6 with tertiary Gleason component), 7 (Gleason score 3 + 4 = 7), 7.25 (Gleason score 3 + 4 = 7 with tertiary Gleason component), 7.5 (Gleason score 4 + 3), 8 (Gleason score 4 + 3 with tertiary Gleason component or Gleason score 8), 8.5 (Gleason score 8 with tertiary Gleason component), 9 (Gleason score 4 + 5 or 5 + 4) and 10.
PURPOSE: We investigated the relationship between the tertiary Gleason component in radical prostatectomy specimens and biochemical recurrence in what is to our knowledge the largest single institution cohort to date. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We evaluated data on 3,230 men who underwent radical prostatectomy at our institution from 2000 to 2005. Tertiary Gleason component was defined as Gleason grade pattern 4 or greater for Gleason score 6 and Gleason grade pattern 5 for Gleason score 7 or 8. RESULTS: Biochemical recurrence curves for cancer with tertiary Gleason component were intermediate between those of cancer without a tertiary Gleason component in the same Gleason score category and cancer in the next higher Gleason score category. The only exception was that Gleason score 4 + 3 = 7 with a tertiary Gleason component behaved like Gleason score 8. The tertiary Gleason component independently predicted recurrence when factoring in radical prostatectomy Gleason score, radical prostatectomy stage and prostate specific antigen (HR 1.45, p = 0.029). Furthermore, the magnitude of the tertiary Gleason component effect on recurrence did not differ by Gleason score category (p = 0.593). CONCLUSIONS: Although the tertiary Gleason component is frequently included in pathology reports, it is routinely omitted in other situations, such as predictive nomograms, research studies and patient counseling. The current study adds to a growing body of evidence highlighting the importance of the tertiary Gleason component in radical prostatectomy specimens. Accordingly consideration should be given to a modified radical prostatectomy Gleason scoring system that incorporates tertiary Gleason component in intuitive fashion, including Gleason score 6, 6.5 (Gleason score 6 with tertiary Gleason component), 7 (Gleason score 3 + 4 = 7), 7.25 (Gleason score 3 + 4 = 7 with tertiary Gleason component), 7.5 (Gleason score 4 + 3), 8 (Gleason score 4 + 3 with tertiary Gleason component or Gleason score 8), 8.5 (Gleason score 8 with tertiary Gleason component), 9 (Gleason score 4 + 5 or 5 + 4) and 10.
Authors: Hong Gee Sim; Donatello Telesca; Stephen H Culp; William J Ellis; Paul H Lange; Lawrence D True; Daniel W Lin Journal: J Urol Date: 2008-03-17 Impact factor: 7.450
Authors: Darren E Whittemore; Eric J Hick; Mark R Carter; Judd W Moul; Alejandro J Miranda-Sousa; Wade J Sexton Journal: J Urol Date: 2008-02 Impact factor: 7.450
Authors: Daniel A Hamstra; Stephanie L Pugh; Herbert Lepor; Seth A Rosenthal; Kenneth J Pienta; Leonard Gomella; Christopher Peters; David Paul D'Souza; Kenneth L Zeitzer; Christopher U Jones; William A Hall; Eric Horwitz; Thomas M Pisansky; Luis Souhami; Alan C Hartford; Michael Dominello; Felix Feng; Howard M Sandler Journal: Radiother Oncol Date: 2019-09-17 Impact factor: 6.280
Authors: Chirag Doshi; Michael Vacchio; Kristopher Attwood; Christine Murekeyisoni; Diana C Mehedint; Shervin Badkhshan; Gissou Azabdaftari; Norbert Sule; Khurshid A Guru; James L Mohler; Eric C Kauffman Journal: Prostate Date: 2016-02-16 Impact factor: 4.104
Authors: Jonathan I Epstein; Michael J Zelefsky; Daniel D Sjoberg; Joel B Nelson; Lars Egevad; Cristina Magi-Galluzzi; Andrew J Vickers; Anil V Parwani; Victor E Reuter; Samson W Fine; James A Eastham; Peter Wiklund; Misop Han; Chandana A Reddy; Jay P Ciezki; Tommy Nyberg; Eric A Klein Journal: Eur Urol Date: 2015-07-10 Impact factor: 20.096
Authors: Zachary B Koloff; Daniel A Hamstra; John T Wei; Jeffrey S Montgomery; Scott A Tomlins; Angela J Wu; Todd M Morgan; Javed Siddiqui; Kellie Paich; Arul M Chinnaiyan; Felix Y Feng; Alon Z Weizer; Lakshmi P Kunju; Brent K Hollenbeck; David C Miller; Ganesh S Palapattu; Rohit Mehra Journal: Asian J Urol Date: 2015-04-16
Authors: Geert J L H van Leenders; Theodorus H van der Kwast; David J Grignon; Andrew J Evans; Glen Kristiansen; Charlotte F Kweldam; Geert Litjens; Jesse K McKenney; Jonathan Melamed; Nicholas Mottet; Gladell P Paner; Hemamali Samaratunga; Ivo G Schoots; Jeffry P Simko; Toyonori Tsuzuki; Murali Varma; Anne Y Warren; Thomas M Wheeler; Sean R Williamson; Kenneth A Iczkowski Journal: Am J Surg Pathol Date: 2020-08 Impact factor: 6.298