Chad G Rusthoven1, Julie A Carlson2, Timothy V Waxweiler2, Norman Yeh2, David Raben2, Thomas W Flaig3, Brian D Kavanagh2. 1. Department of Radiation Oncology, University of Colorado-Denver, Aurora, CO. Electronic address: chad.rusthoven@ucdenver.edu. 2. Department of Radiation Oncology, University of Colorado-Denver, Aurora, CO. 3. Department of Medical Oncology, University of Colorado-Denver, Aurora, CO.
Abstract
PURPOSE: Although the majority of metastatic prostate cancer (mPCa) will arise from tumors with Gleason scores (GS) of 8 to 10 existing tumor grade analyses for mPCa have been almost uniformly limited to comparisons of ≤7 vs. ≥8. In this analysis, we comprehensively evaluate the GS as a prognostic factor for mPCa in the era of the updated Gleason grading system. METHODS: The Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER) database was queried for patients with mPCa, GS 6 to 10, diagnosed from 2006 to 2008. GS and primary-secondary Gleason pattern variations were analyzed for overall survival and prostate cancer-specific survival (PCSS). RESULTS: A total of 4,654 patients were evaluable. At 4 years, the overall survival rates were 51%, 45%, 34%, 25%, and 15% and PCSS rates were 69%, 57%, 44%, 33%, and 21% for GS 6, 7, 8, 9, and 10, respectively. Survival differences for GS 7 vs. 8, 8 vs. 9, and 9 vs. 10 were highly significant on both univariate and multivariate analyses accounting for age, prostate-specific antigen level, and T stage (all P<0.001). Gleason pattern 5 was an independent prognostic factor, both overall for patients with GS 6 to 10 and on primary-secondary Gleason pattern comparisons within the GS 8 (4+4 vs. 3+5 and 5+3) and GS 9 (4+5 vs. 5+4) subgroups. No survival differences were observed between 3+4 vs. 4+3. Overall, lower prostate-specific antigen level, younger age, and lower GS were associated with improved survival, with GS being the strongest prognostic factor for PCSS. CONCLUSIONS: In this large population-based cohort, stratified survival outcomes were observed for GS 6 to 10, with sequential comparisons of GS 7 to 10, and the presence and extent of Gleason pattern 5 representing independent prognostic factors in the metastatic setting.
PURPOSE: Although the majority of metastatic prostate cancer (mPCa) will arise from tumors with Gleason scores (GS) of 8 to 10 existing tumor grade analyses for mPCa have been almost uniformly limited to comparisons of ≤7 vs. ≥8. In this analysis, we comprehensively evaluate the GS as a prognostic factor for mPCa in the era of the updated Gleason grading system. METHODS: The Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER) database was queried for patients with mPCa, GS 6 to 10, diagnosed from 2006 to 2008. GS and primary-secondary Gleason pattern variations were analyzed for overall survival and prostate cancer-specific survival (PCSS). RESULTS: A total of 4,654 patients were evaluable. At 4 years, the overall survival rates were 51%, 45%, 34%, 25%, and 15% and PCSS rates were 69%, 57%, 44%, 33%, and 21% for GS 6, 7, 8, 9, and 10, respectively. Survival differences for GS 7 vs. 8, 8 vs. 9, and 9 vs. 10 were highly significant on both univariate and multivariate analyses accounting for age, prostate-specific antigen level, and T stage (all P<0.001). Gleason pattern 5 was an independent prognostic factor, both overall for patients with GS 6 to 10 and on primary-secondary Gleason pattern comparisons within the GS 8 (4+4 vs. 3+5 and 5+3) and GS 9 (4+5 vs. 5+4) subgroups. No survival differences were observed between 3+4 vs. 4+3. Overall, lower prostate-specific antigen level, younger age, and lower GS were associated with improved survival, with GS being the strongest prognostic factor for PCSS. CONCLUSIONS: In this large population-based cohort, stratified survival outcomes were observed for GS 6 to 10, with sequential comparisons of GS 7 to 10, and the presence and extent of Gleason pattern 5 representing independent prognostic factors in the metastatic setting.
Authors: Daniel A Hamstra; Stephanie L Pugh; Herbert Lepor; Seth A Rosenthal; Kenneth J Pienta; Leonard Gomella; Christopher Peters; David Paul D'Souza; Kenneth L Zeitzer; Christopher U Jones; William A Hall; Eric Horwitz; Thomas M Pisansky; Luis Souhami; Alan C Hartford; Michael Dominello; Felix Feng; Howard M Sandler Journal: Radiother Oncol Date: 2019-09-17 Impact factor: 6.280
Authors: Gregory Azzam; Rachelle Lanciano; Steve Arrigo; John Lamond; William Ding; Jun Yang; Alexandra Hanlon; Michael Good; Luther Brady Journal: Front Oncol Date: 2015-05-05 Impact factor: 6.244