Literature DB >> 22592143

Impact on the clinical outcome of prostate cancer by the 2005 international society of urological pathology modified Gleason grading system.

Fei Dong1, Chaofu Wang, A Brad Farris, Shulin Wu, Hang Lee, Aria F Olumi, W Scott McDougal, Robert H Young, Chin-Lee Wu.   

Abstract

The 2005 International Society of Urological Pathology (ISUP) Consensus Conference modified the Gleason grading system for prostate cancer. In the modified criteria, ill-defined glands with poorly formed lumina and large cribriform glands with smooth borders, classically described as Gleason pattern 3 adenocarcinoma, were redefined as Gleason pattern 4. To evaluate the clinical outcome of patients upgraded by the ISUP criteria, the histologic slides of 1240 consecutive radical prostatectomy specimens at a single institution were reviewed, and each case of adenocarcinoma was graded on the basis of the original and modified Gleason criteria. A total of 806 patients with prostate cancer of classical Gleason score 3+3=6 or 3+4=7 and modified Gleason score 6 to 8 were analyzed with a median overall follow-up of 12.6 years. In the study population, 34% of patients with classical Gleason score 3+3=6 prostate cancer were upgraded to modified Gleason score 7 or 8 by the ISUP criteria. Compared to patients with modified Gleason score 3+3=6 and patients with classical Gleason score 3+4=7, the upgraded patients were at intermediate risk for biochemical progression (paired log-rank P≤0.003) and metastasis (paired log-rank P≤0.04) after radical prostatectomy. The hazard ratio for upgrading was 1.60 (95% confidence interval, 1.09-2.35, P=0.02) for biochemical recurrence and 5.02 (95% confidence interval, 1.77-14.2, P=0.003) for metastasis. These results validate the prognostic value of the modified Gleason grading system and suggest that the recognition of an intermediate-risk histological pattern may be useful in the prognosis of patients with prostate cancer.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2012        PMID: 22592143     DOI: 10.1097/PAS.0b013e3182486faf

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Am J Surg Pathol        ISSN: 0147-5185            Impact factor:   6.394


  18 in total

Review 1.  Gleason 6 Prostate Cancer: Translating Biology into Population Health.

Authors:  Scott E Eggener; Ketan Badani; Daniel A Barocas; Glen W Barrisford; Jed-Sian Cheng; Arnold I Chin; Anthony Corcoran; Jonathan I Epstein; Arvin K George; Gopal N Gupta; Matthew H Hayn; Eric C Kauffman; Brian Lane; Michael A Liss; Moben Mirza; Todd M Morgan; Kelvin Moses; Kenneth G Nepple; Mark A Preston; Soroush Rais-Bahrami; Matthew J Resnick; M Minhaj Siddiqui; Jonathan Silberstein; Eric A Singer; Geoffrey A Sonn; Preston Sprenkle; Kelly L Stratton; Jennifer Taylor; Jeffrey Tomaszewski; Matt Tollefson; Andrew Vickers; Wesley M White; William T Lowrance
Journal:  J Urol       Date:  2015-04-04       Impact factor: 7.450

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.  Are 10-, 10-12-, or > 12-mm prostate biopsy core quality control cutoffs reasonable?

Authors:  Brunno C F Sanches; Ana Luiza Lalli; Wilmar Azal Neto; Athanase Billis; Leonardo Oliveira Reis
Journal:  World J Urol       Date:  2018-03-01       Impact factor: 4.226

4.  The value of the 2005 International Society of Urological Pathology (ISUP) modified Gleason grading system as a predictor of biochemical recurrence after radical prostatectomy.

Authors:  Athanase Billis; Maisa M Q Quintal; Luciana Meirelles; Leandro L L Freitas; Larissa B E Costa; João F L Bonfitto; Betina L Diniz; Paola H Poletto; Luís A Magna; Ubirajara Ferreira
Journal:  Int Urol Nephrol       Date:  2013-10-06       Impact factor: 2.370

Review 5.  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

6.  The Significance of Accurate Determination of Gleason Score for Therapeutic Options and Prognosis of Prostate Cancer.

Authors:  Burkhard Helpap; Daniel Ringli; Jens Tonhauser; Immanuel Poser; Jürgen Breul; Heidrun Gevensleben; Hans-Helge Seifert
Journal:  Pathol Oncol Res       Date:  2015-11-12       Impact factor: 3.201

7.  Developing a model for forecasting Gleason score ≥7 in potential prostate cancer patients to reduce unnecessary prostate biopsies.

Authors:  Xiao Li; Yongsheng Pan; Yuan Huang; Jun Wang; Cheng Zhang; Jie Wu; Gong Cheng; Chao Qin; Lixin Hua; Zengjun Wang
Journal:  Int Urol Nephrol       Date:  2016-01-25       Impact factor: 2.370

Review 8.  The evolving Gleason grading system.

Authors:  Ni Chen; Qiao Zhou
Journal:  Chin J Cancer Res       Date:  2016-02       Impact factor: 5.087

9.  [Diagnostic histopathology of prostate cancer].

Authors:  G Kristiansen
Journal:  Urologe A       Date:  2013-07       Impact factor: 0.639

10.  Does Gleason score at initial diagnosis predict efficacy of abiraterone acetate therapy in patients with metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer? An analysis of abiraterone acetate phase III trials.

Authors:  K Fizazi; T W Flaig; M Stöckle; H I Scher; J S de Bono; D E Rathkopf; C J Ryan; T Kheoh; J Li; M B Todd; T W Griffin; A Molina; C H Ohlmann
Journal:  Ann Oncol       Date:  2015-11-25       Impact factor: 32.976

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.