Literature DB >> 21191597

Should we abstain from Gleason score 2-4 in the diagnosis of prostate cancer? Results of a German multicentre study.

Sabine Brookman-May1, Matthias May, Wolf-Ferdinand Wieland, Steffen Lebentrau, Sven Gunia, Stefan Koch, Christian Gilfrich, Jan Roigas, Bernd Hoschke, Maximilian Burger.   

Abstract

PURPOSE: The present study analysed the loss of prognostic information related to the abandonment of Gleason score (GS) 2-4 by the International Society of Urological Pathology (ISUP-2005).
METHODS: Within a 10-year period prior to the modification of GS, 856 patients (mean age 64.2 years) underwent radical prostatectomy (RP). The grade of agreement between GS in biopsy and definitive histology was calculated by Kappa statistics (κ). Univariable and multivariable influence of different preoperatively available parameters on disease-free survival (DFS) were assessed. The mean follow-up period was 39 months.
RESULTS: Concordance between GS in biopsy versus RP samples was 58% (κ-value 0.354) and was improved by an increased number of biopsy cores. Undergrading in biopsy was present in 38% and not significantly enhanced by an extended time-period between biopsy and RP (threshold 90 d). PSA level, clinical tumour stage, fraction of positive cores (dichotomized at 34%), cases of RP per year and institution (dichotomized at 75), and GS independently influenced DFS. An upgrading to GS ≥ 7 was found in only 5.7% of patients presenting with GS 2-4 in the biopsy. Independent from definitive histology, patients with GS 2-4 had a significantly better prognosis compared to patients with a higher GS.
CONCLUSIONS: The present study shows an independent prognostic impact of GS in biopsy samples classified according to the previous classification. The elimination of GS 2-4 by the ISUP 2005 results in a considerable loss of pretherapeutic prognostic information and therefore should be questioned in particular with regard to the increasing demand for active surveillance regimens.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2010        PMID: 21191597     DOI: 10.1007/s00345-010-0632-5

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  World J Urol        ISSN: 0724-4983            Impact factor:   4.226


  26 in total

1.  The significance of modified Gleason grading of prostatic carcinoma in biopsy and radical prostatectomy specimens.

Authors:  Burkhard Helpap; Lars Egevad
Journal:  Virchows Arch       Date:  2006-11-08       Impact factor: 4.064

2.  A preoperative nomogram for disease recurrence following radical prostatectomy for prostate cancer.

Authors:  M W Kattan; J A Eastham; A M Stapleton; T M Wheeler; P T Scardino
Journal:  J Natl Cancer Inst       Date:  1998-05-20       Impact factor: 13.506

3.  Predicting prostate specific antigen outcome preoperatively in the prostate specific antigen era.

Authors:  A V D'Amico; R Whittington; S B Malkowicz; M Weinstein; J E Tomaszewski; D Schultz; M Rhude; S Rocha; A Wein; J P Richie
Journal:  J Urol       Date:  2001-12       Impact factor: 7.450

Review 4.  Histologic grading of prostate cancer: a perspective.

Authors:  D F Gleason
Journal:  Hum Pathol       Date:  1992-03       Impact factor: 3.466

5.  Gleason score 7 prostate cancer on needle biopsy: is the prognostic difference in Gleason scores 4 + 3 and 3 + 4 independent of the number of involved cores?

Authors:  Danil V Makarov; Harriete Sanderson; Alan W Partin; Jonathan I Epstein
Journal:  J Urol       Date:  2002-06       Impact factor: 7.450

6.  The University of California, San Francisco Cancer of the Prostate Risk Assessment score: a straightforward and reliable preoperative predictor of disease recurrence after radical prostatectomy.

Authors:  Matthew R Cooperberg; David J Pasta; Eric P Elkin; Mark S Litwin; David M Latini; Janeen Du Chane; Peter R Carroll
Journal:  J Urol       Date:  2005-06       Impact factor: 7.450

7.  Prostate biopsy clinical and pathological variables that predict significant grading changes in patients with intermediate and high grade prostate cancer.

Authors:  Ayman S Moussa; Jianbo Li; Meghan Soriano; Eric A Klein; Fei Dong; J Stephen Jones
Journal:  BJU Int       Date:  2008-09-08       Impact factor: 5.588

8.  Gleason score and lethal prostate cancer: does 3 + 4 = 4 + 3?

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

9.  A nomogram for predicting upgrading in patients with low- and intermediate-grade prostate cancer in the era of extended prostate sampling.

Authors:  Ayman S Moussa; Michael W Kattan; Ryan Berglund; Changhong Yu; Khaled Fareed; J Stephen Jones
Journal:  BJU Int       Date:  2009-08-13       Impact factor: 5.588

10.  Testing the most stringent criteria for selection of candidates for active surveillance in patients with low-risk prostate cancer.

Authors:  Nazareno Suardi; Alberto Briganti; Andrea Gallina; Andrea Salonia; Pierre I Karakiewicz; Umberto Capitanio; Massimo Freschi; Andrea Cestari; Giorgio Guazzoni; Patrizio Rigatti; Francesco Montorsi
Journal:  BJU Int       Date:  2009-11-13       Impact factor: 5.588

View more
  3 in total

1.  The influence of expertise of the surgical pathologist to undergrading, upgrading, and understaging of prostate cancer in patients undergoing subsequent radical prostatectomy.

Authors:  Attila Majoros; Attila Marcell Szász; Péter Nyirády; Eszter Székely; Péter Riesz; Attila Szendrői; Attila Keszthelyi; Janina Kulka; Imre Romics
Journal:  Int Urol Nephrol       Date:  2013-08-30       Impact factor: 2.370

2.  Temporal changes in the pathologic assessment of prostate cancer.

Authors:  M Scott Lucia; Adrie van Bokhoven
Journal:  J Natl Cancer Inst Monogr       Date:  2012-12

3.  The new ISUP 2014/WHO 2016 prostate cancer grade group system: first résumé 5 years after introduction and systemic review of the literature.

Authors:  A Offermann; M C Hupe; V Sailer; A S Merseburger; S Perner
Journal:  World J Urol       Date:  2019-04-02       Impact factor: 4.226

  3 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.