Literature DB >> 24518778

A tertiary Gleason pattern in the prostatectomy specimen and its association with adverse outcome after radical prostatectomy.

Meike Adam1, Amir Hannah2, Lars Budäus2, Thomas Steuber2, Georg Salomon2, Uwe Michl2, Alexander Haese2, Margit Fisch3, Corinna Wittmer4, Stefan Steurer4, Sarah Minner4, Hans Heinzer2, Hartwig Huland2, Markus Graefen2, Guido Sauter4, Thorsten Schlomm2, Hendrik Isbarn5.   

Abstract

PURPOSE: The prognostic significance of a tertiary Gleason pattern in the radical prostatectomy specimen is controversial. We tested the impact of a tertiary Gleason pattern on adverse histopathological features and biochemical recurrence rates after radical prostatectomy.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: We assessed data on 11,226 consecutive patients treated with radical prostatectomy at our institution between June 2007 and February 2013. We compared 2,396 patients with (22.4%) and 8,260 without (77.5%) a tertiary Gleason pattern for adverse histopathological features (extraprostatic extension, seminal vesicle invasion, positive surgical margins and lymph node invasion) using the chi-square test. The effect of a tertiary Gleason pattern on biochemical recurrence was tested in univariable and multivariable models. Subanalyses were then done for different radical prostatectomy Gleason groups (6 or less, 3 + 4 and 4 + 3).
RESULTS: A tertiary Gleason pattern was statistically significantly associated with all evaluated histopathological parameters (each p <0.001). It was an independent predictor of biochemical recurrence (HR 1.43, p <0.001). On subanalysis only a tertiary Gleason pattern independently predicted biochemical recurrence in the patient cohort with a radical prostatectomy Gleason score of 3 + 4 and 4 + 3. However, it failed to attain independent predictor status in patients with a radical prostatectomy Gleason score of 6 or less.
CONCLUSIONS: A tertiary Gleason pattern is a significant and independent predictor of biochemical recurrence after radical prostatectomy with the strongest prognostic effect in cases with Gleason scores 3 + 4 and 4 + 3. Therefore, a tertiary Gleason pattern should be recorded in the pathological report.
Copyright © 2014 American Urological Association Education and Research, Inc. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

Entities:  

Keywords:  local; neoplasm grading; neoplasm recurrence; prostate; prostatectomy; prostatic neoplasms

Mesh:

Year:  2014        PMID: 24518778     DOI: 10.1016/j.juro.2014.01.029

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Urol        ISSN: 0022-5347            Impact factor:   7.450


  11 in total

1.  Prostate cancer: Effects of tertiary Gleason pattern 5 on oncological outcome.

Authors:  Sean R Williamson; Liang Cheng
Journal:  Nat Rev Urol       Date:  2015-01-20       Impact factor: 14.432

2.  The effect of Rapid Access Prostate Clinics on the outcomes of Gleason 7 prostate cancer: does earlier diagnosis lead to better outcomes?

Authors:  M P Broe; J C Forde; M S Inder; D J Galvin; D W Mulvin; D M Quinlan
Journal:  Ir J Med Sci       Date:  2017-03-09       Impact factor: 1.568

3.  Multiparametric 3T MRI for the prediction of pathological downgrading after radical prostatectomy in patients with biopsy-proven Gleason score 3 + 4 prostate cancer.

Authors:  Tatsuo Gondo; Hedvig Hricak; Evis Sala; Junting Zheng; Chaya S Moskowitz; Melanie Bernstein; James A Eastham; Hebert Alberto Vargas
Journal:  Eur Radiol       Date:  2014-08-07       Impact factor: 5.315

Review 4.  Grading of Prostate Cancer: Past, Present, and Future.

Authors:  Andres Matoso; Jonathan I Epstein
Journal:  Curr Urol Rep       Date:  2016-03       Impact factor: 3.092

5.  Gleason Score 7 Prostate Cancers Emerge through Branched Evolution of Clonal Gleason Pattern 3 and 4.

Authors:  Adam G Sowalsky; Haydn T Kissick; Sean J Gerrin; Rachel J Schaefer; Zheng Xia; Joshua W Russo; M Simo Arredouani; Glenn J Bubley; Martin G Sanda; Wei Li; Huihui Ye; Steven P Balk
Journal:  Clin Cancer Res       Date:  2017-01-24       Impact factor: 12.531

6.  Impact of Gleason pattern 5 including tertiary pattern 5 on outcomes of salvage treatment for biochemical recurrence in pT2-3N0M0 prostate cancer.

Authors:  Satoru Taguchi; Kenshiro Shiraishi; Hiroshi Fukuhara; Keiichi Nakagawa; Teppei Morikawa; Akihiro Naito; Shigenori Kakutani; Yuta Takeshima; Hideyo Miyazaki; Tohru Nakagawa; Tetsuya Fujimura; Haruki Kume; Yukio Homma
Journal:  Int J Clin Oncol       Date:  2016-04-20       Impact factor: 3.402

7.  Clinical role of pathological downgrading after radical prostatectomy in patients with biopsy confirmed Gleason score 3 + 4 prostate cancer.

Authors:  Tatsuo Gondo; Bing Ying Poon; Kazuhiro Matsumoto; Melanie Bernstein; Daniel D Sjoberg; James A Eastham
Journal:  BJU Int       Date:  2014-08-13       Impact factor: 5.588

8.  Clinical significance of prospectively assigned Gleason tertiary pattern 4 in contemporary Gleason score 3+3=6 prostate cancer.

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

9.  Quantification of the individual risk of each Gleason pattern, including tertiary Gleason pattern 5, after radical prostatectomy: development of the modified Gleason grade grouping (mGGG) model.

Authors:  Satoru Taguchi; Yukari Uemura; Tetsuya Fujimura; Teppei Morikawa; Akihiro Naito; Taketo Kawai; Motofumi Suzuki; Haruki Kume; Hiroshi Fukuhara
Journal:  BMC Cancer       Date:  2020-05-01       Impact factor: 4.430

10.  The 2019 International Society of Urological Pathology (ISUP) Consensus Conference on Grading of Prostatic Carcinoma.

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

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.