Literature DB >> 19683331

A pathological reassessment of organ-confined, Gleason score 6 prostatic adenocarcinomas that progress after radical prostatectomy.

Hiroshi Miyamoto1, David J Hernandez, Jonathan I Epstein.   

Abstract

Prior studies of radical prostatectomies have reported a small percentage of men with biochemical progression after radical prostatectomy showing organ-confined, Gleason Score 6. One might predict that this should virtually never occur. We identified 2551 (1983-2005) radical prostatectomies coded by the urologists at our institution as pathologically organ-confined, Gleason score 6 cancer with more than 1 year of follow-up. We re-examined histopathogically the serially sectioned and completely embedded radical prostatectomy specimens of 38 men who developed biochemical recurrence defined as a single prostate-specific antigen level of 0.2 ng/mL or greater. In 27 (71%) of 38 of cases, pathology re-review showed higher grade or stage than coded by the urologists. These included 10 cases of organ-confined with Gleason pattern 4 as either the primary or secondary pattern; 9 cases of organ-confined, Gleason score 6 with tertiary pattern 4 (in 4 cases, tertiary pattern 4 was described in the initial pathology report); 5 cases of Gleason score 7 plus extraprostatic extension; 1 case of Gleason score 6 with focal extraprostatic extension; and 2 cases with positive margins due to intraprostatic incision (listed in the initial pathology report). The remaining 11 cases were true organ-confined, Gleason score 6 tumors, but none of the patients developed systemic disease. Most prior reports of organ-confined, Gleason score 6 with progression are undergraded (upgrading with revision of Gleason system), understaged (difficulty recognizing focal extraprostatic extension), or suffer from situations with ambiguous staging (intraprostatic incision) or grading (tertiary pattern 4 or 2 + 4 = 6). Even for the rare true organ-confined, Gleason score 6 (no pattern 4) tumor with supposed biochemical progression, some may be false-positive progression based on low post-radical prostatectomy prostate-specific antigen levels and minute tumors that seem highly improbable to progress. With accurate pathologic evaluation, men with organ-confined, Gleason score 6 (no pattern 4) prostate cancer can be told that their risk of progression is very rare (0.4%).

Entities:  

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2009        PMID: 19683331     DOI: 10.1016/j.humpath.2009.05.001

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Hum Pathol        ISSN: 0046-8177            Impact factor:   3.466


  13 in total

1.  Do adenocarcinomas of the prostate with Gleason score (GS) ≤6 have the potential to metastasize to lymph nodes?

Authors:  Hillary M Ross; Oleksandr N Kryvenko; Janet E Cowan; Jeffry P Simko; Thomas M Wheeler; Jonathan I Epstein
Journal:  Am J Surg Pathol       Date:  2012-09       Impact factor: 6.394

2.  Biopsy Detected Gleason Pattern 5 is Associated with Recurrence, Metastasis and Mortality in a Cohort of Men with High Risk Prostate Cancer.

Authors:  Sean P Stroup; Daniel M Moreira; Zinan Chen; Lauren Howard; Jonathan H Berger; Martha K Terris; William J Aronson; Matthew R Cooperberg; Christopher L Amling; Christopher J Kane; Stephen J Freedland
Journal:  J Urol       Date:  2017-07-11       Impact factor: 7.450

3.  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

Review 4.  Clinical implications of changing definitions within the Gleason grading system.

Authors:  Tamara L Lotan; Jonathan I Epstein
Journal:  Nat Rev Urol       Date:  2010-02-16       Impact factor: 14.432

5.  Association of legumain expression pattern with prostate cancer invasiveness and aggressiveness.

Authors:  Yoshio Ohno; Jun Nakashima; Miki Izumi; Makoto Ohori; Takeshi Hashimoto; Masaaki Tachibana
Journal:  World J Urol       Date:  2012-11-03       Impact factor: 4.226

6.  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

Review 7.  Performance of multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging in the evaluation and management of clinically low-risk prostate cancer.

Authors:  Seyed Saeid Dianat; H Ballentine Carter; Katarzyna J Macura
Journal:  Urol Oncol       Date:  2013-06-17       Impact factor: 3.498

Review 8.  Should Gleason 6 be labeled as cancer?

Authors:  Ibrahim Kulac; Michael C Haffner; Srinivasan Yegnasubramanian; Jonathan I Epstein; Angelo M De Marzo
Journal:  Curr Opin Urol       Date:  2015-05       Impact factor: 2.309

9.  Validation of a contemporary prostate cancer grading system using prostate cancer death as outcome.

Authors:  Daniel M Berney; Luis Beltran; Gabrielle Fisher; Bernard V North; David Greenberg; Henrik Møller; Geraldine Soosay; Peter Scardino; Jack Cuzick
Journal:  Br J Cancer       Date:  2016-04-21       Impact factor: 7.640

10.  Clinical significance of surgical margin status in patients subjected to radical prostatectomy.

Authors:  Jakub Dobruch; Lukasz Nyk; Michał Skrzypczyk; Piotr Chłosta; Tomasz Dzik; Andrzej Borówka
Journal:  Cent European J Urol       Date:  2012-12-11
View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.