Literature DB >> 24096373

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

Athanase Billis1, 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.   

Abstract

PURPOSE: To compare time and risk to biochemical recurrence (BR) after radical prostatectomy of two chronologically different groups of patients using the standard and the modified Gleason system (MGS).
METHODS: Cohort 1 comprised biopsies of 197 patients graded according to the standard Gleason system (SGS) in the period 1997/2004, and cohort 2, 176 biopsies graded according to the modified system in the period 2005/2011. Time to BR was analyzed with the Kaplan-Meier product-limit analysis and prediction of shorter time to recurrence using univariate and multivariate Cox proportional hazards model.
RESULTS: Patients in cohort 2 reflected time-related changes: striking increase in clinical stage T1c, systematic use of extended biopsies, and lower percentage of total length of cancer in millimeter in all cores. The MGS used in cohort 2 showed fewer biopsies with Gleason score ≤ 6 and more biopsies of the intermediate Gleason score 7. Time to BR using the Kaplan-Meier curves showed statistical significance using the MGS in cohort 2, but not the SGS in cohort 1. Only the MGS predicted shorter time to BR on univariate analysis and on multivariate analysis was an independent predictor.
CONCLUSIONS: The results favor that the 2005 International Society of Urological Pathology modified system is a refinement of the Gleason grading and valuable for contemporary clinical practice.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2013        PMID: 24096373     DOI: 10.1007/s11255-013-0579-8

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Int Urol Nephrol        ISSN: 0301-1623            Impact factor:   2.370


  15 in total

1.  Gleason scoring: a comparison of classical and modified (international society of urological pathology) criteria using nadir PSA as a clinical end point.

Authors:  Brett Delahunt; David S Lamb; John R Srigley; Judy D Murray; Chantelle Wilcox; Hemamali Samaratunga; Christopher Atkinson; Nigel A Spry; David Joseph; James W Denham
Journal:  Pathology       Date:  2010-06       Impact factor: 5.306

Review 2.  The 2005 International Society of Urological Pathology (ISUP) Consensus Conference on Gleason Grading of Prostatic Carcinoma.

Authors:  Jonathan I Epstein; William C Allsbrook; Mahul B Amin; Lars L Egevad
Journal:  Am J Surg Pathol       Date:  2005-09       Impact factor: 6.394

3.  Changes in prognostic significance and predictive accuracy of Gleason grading system throughout PSA era: impact of grade migration in prostate cancer.

Authors:  Robert E Mitchell; Jay B Shah; Manisha Desai; Mahesh M Mansukhani; Carl A Olsson; Mitchell C Benson; James M McKiernan
Journal:  Urology       Date:  2007-08-20       Impact factor: 2.649

4.  The impact of the 2005 international society of urological pathology consensus conference on standard Gleason grading of prostatic carcinoma in needle biopsies.

Authors:  Athanase Billis; Marbele S Guimaraes; Leandro L L Freitas; Luciana Meirelles; Luis A Magna; Ubirajara Ferreira
Journal:  J Urol       Date:  2008-06-11       Impact factor: 7.450

5.  Prediction of prognosis for prostatic adenocarcinoma by combined histological grading and clinical staging.

Authors:  D F Gleason; G T Mellinger
Journal:  J Urol       Date:  1974-01       Impact factor: 7.450

6.  Classification of prostatic carcinomas.

Authors:  D F Gleason
Journal:  Cancer Chemother Rep       Date:  1966-03

7.  Survival rates of patients with prostatic cancer, tumor stage, and differentiation--preliminary report.

Authors:  J C Bailar; G T Mellinger; D F Gleason
Journal:  Cancer Chemother Rep       Date:  1966-03

8.  The histology and prognosis of prostatic cancer.

Authors:  G T Mellinger; D Gleason; J Bailar
Journal:  J Urol       Date:  1967-02       Impact factor: 7.450

9.  Correlation between tumor extent in radical prostatectomies and preoperative PSA, histological grade, surgical margins, and extraprostatic extension: application of a new practical method for tumor extent evaluation.

Authors:  Athanase Billis; Luís A Magna; Ubirajara Ferreira
Journal:  Int Braz J Urol       Date:  2003 Mar-Apr       Impact factor: 1.541

10.  Major shifts in the treatment and prognosis of prostate cancer due to changes in pathological diagnosis and grading.

Authors:  Daniel M Berney; Gabrielle Fisher; Michael W Kattan; R Timothy D Oliver; Henrik Møller; Paul Fearn; James Eastham; Peter Scardino; Jack Cuzick; Victor E Reuter; Christopher S Foster
Journal:  BJU Int       Date:  2007-12       Impact factor: 5.588

View more
  7 in total

1.  Long-term costs and survival of prostate cancer: a population-based study.

Authors:  Valentin Brodszky; Péter Varga; Judit Gimesi-Országh; Petra Fadgyas-Freyler; Imre Boncz; Péter Nyirády; Péter Riesz; Petra Baji; Márta Péntek; Fanni Rencz; László Gulácsi
Journal:  Int Urol Nephrol       Date:  2017-07-31       Impact factor: 2.370

Review 2.  Comparative Pathobiology of Canine and Human Prostate Cancer: State of the Art and Future Directions.

Authors:  Eduardo de Paula Nascente; Renée Laufer Amorim; Carlos Eduardo Fonseca-Alves; Veridiana Maria Brianezi Dignani de Moura
Journal:  Cancers (Basel)       Date:  2022-05-31       Impact factor: 6.575

3.  Gleason underestimation is predicted by prostate biopsy core length.

Authors:  Leonardo O Reis; Brunno C F Sanches; Gustavo Borges de Mendonça; Daniel M Silva; Tiago Aguiar; Ocivaldo P Menezes; Athanase Billis
Journal:  World J Urol       Date:  2014-08-02       Impact factor: 4.226

Review 4.  The evolving Gleason grading system.

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

5.  Review by urological pathologists improves the accuracy of Gleason grading by general pathologists.

Authors:  Yasushi Nakai; Nobumichi Tanaka; Keiji Shimada; Noboru Konishi; Makito Miyake; Satoshi Anai; Kiyohide Fujimoto
Journal:  BMC Urol       Date:  2015-07-23       Impact factor: 2.264

Review 6.  Prostate imaging features that indicate benign or malignant pathology on biopsy.

Authors:  Catherine Elizabeth Lovegrove; Mudit Matanhelia; Jagpal Randeva; David Eldred-Evans; Henry Tam; Saiful Miah; Mathias Winkler; Hashim U Ahmed; Taimur T Shah
Journal:  Transl Androl Urol       Date:  2018-09

7.  Validation of the WHO 2016 new Gleason score of prostatic carcinoma.

Authors:  Vishal Rao; Gowri Garudadri; Arya Sahithi Shilpa; Daphne Fonseca; S Murthy Sudha; Rakesh Sharma; T Rao Subramanyeshwar; Sundaram Challa
Journal:  Urol Ann       Date:  2018 Jul-Sep
  7 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.