Literature DB >> 25151595

Gleason stratifications prognostic for survival in men receiving definitive external beam radiation therapy for localized prostate cancer.

Chad G Rusthoven1, Timothy V Waxweiler2, Peter E DeWitt3, Thomas W Flaig4, David Raben2, Brian D Kavanagh2.   

Abstract

PURPOSE: Histologic grade analyses for prostate cancer (PCa) have traditionally included Gleason scores (GS) of ≤6, 7, and 8-10. Stratified biochemical progression-free survival has increasingly been reported within these groups on analyses of primary-secondary patterns (PSPs) (e.g., 3+4 vs. 4+3) and overall GS (e.g., 8 vs. 9 vs. 10) but with limited data regarding stratified survival outcomes. In this analysis, outcomes for biopsy-assigned GS 6 to 10 were comprehensively evaluated to identify stratifications prognostic for survival in patients undergoing external beam radiation therapy (EBRT).
METHODS: The Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results database was examined for T1-4 N0 M0, GS 6 to 10 PCa managed with EBRT alone from 2004 to 2006. GS and PSP variations were analyzed for PCa-specific survival (PCSS) and overall survival (OS).
RESULTS: Overall, 26,885 patients were evaluated. Preliminary PSP analyses identified stratifications for 3+4 vs. 4+3 = 7 and 4+4 = 8 vs. GS 8 with pattern 5 (P5) (i.e., 3+5 and 5+3) as significant; however, no differences were observed for 4+5 vs. 5+4 = 9. The primary analysis included stratifications for GS 6, 3+4, 4+3, 4+4, 8 w/P5, 9, and 10, where the 7.5-year PCSS rates were 99%, 97%, 95%, 91%, 86%, 81%, and 78% and 7.5-year OS rates were 83%, 76%, 72%, 67%, 66%, 58%, and 54%, respectively. PCSS differences for sequential score increases were all significant on univariate analyses (all P<0.05). In sequential multivariate analyses of PCSS accounting for age, prostate-specific antigen, T stage, year, marital status, race, and tumor registry, the identified GS stratifications remained significant (all P<0.05), with the exception of GS 8 w/P5 vs. 9 (P = 0.11). In overall multivariate analyses, the identified GS stratifications represented the strongest prognostic factor for survival. Subgroup analyses demonstrated that presence of any P5 was an independent prognostic factor for survival.
CONCLUSION: In the largest reported survival analysis of Gleason stratifications, biopsy-assigned GS 6, 3+4, 4+3, 4+4, 8 w/P5, 9, and 10 represented sequential prognostic factors for survival in patients managed with definitive EBRT.
Copyright © 2014 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

Entities:  

Keywords:  External beam radiation therapy; Gleason score; Prognosis; Prostate cancer; Survival

Mesh:

Year:  2014        PMID: 25151595     DOI: 10.1016/j.urolonc.2014.07.010

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Urol Oncol        ISSN: 1078-1439            Impact factor:   3.498


  9 in total

1.  Gleason pattern 5 is associated with an increased risk for metastasis following androgen deprivation therapy and radiation: An analysis of RTOG 9202 and 9902.

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

Review 2.  The very-high-risk prostate cancer: a contemporary update.

Authors:  R Mano; J Eastham; O Yossepowitch
Journal:  Prostate Cancer Prostatic Dis       Date:  2016-09-13       Impact factor: 5.554

3.  ISUP Group 4 - a Homogenous Group of Prostate Cancers?

Authors:  Thomas Chengxuan Lu; Kim Moretti; Kerri Beckmann; Penelope Cohen; Michael O'Callaghan
Journal:  Pathol Oncol Res       Date:  2017-10-27       Impact factor: 3.201

4.  Survival after radical prostatectomy or radiotherapy for locally advanced (cT3) prostate cancer.

Authors:  Marco Bandini; Michele Marchioni; Felix Preisser; Emanuele Zaffuto; Zhe Tian; Derya Tilki; Francesco Montorsi; Shahrokh F Shariat; Fred Saad; Alberto Briganti; Pierre I Karakiewicz
Journal:  World J Urol       Date:  2018-05-02       Impact factor: 4.226

5.  Oncological outcomes in an Australian cohort according to the new prostate cancer grading groupings.

Authors:  K R Beckmann; A D Vincent; M E O'Callaghan; P Cohen; S Chang; M Borg; S M Evans; D M Roder; K L Moretti
Journal:  BMC Cancer       Date:  2017-08-10       Impact factor: 4.430

Review 6.  Consensus statements on the management of clinically localized prostate cancer from the Hong Kong Urological Association and the Hong Kong Society of Uro-Oncology.

Authors:  Wai-Kit Ma; Darren Ming-Chun Poon; Chi-Kwok Chan; Tim-Wai Chan; Foon-Yiu Cheung; Lap-Yin Ho; Eric Ka-Chai Lee; Angus Kwong-Chuen Leung; Simon Yiu-Lam Leung; Hing-Shing So; Po-Chor Tam; Philip Wai-Kay Kwong
Journal:  BJU Int       Date:  2019-02-05       Impact factor: 5.588

7.  Prognostic differences among Grade Group 4 subgroups in robotic-assisted radical prostatectomy.

Authors:  Takeshi Sasaki; Shin Ebara; Tomoyuki Tatenuma; Yoshinori Ikehata; Akinori Nakayama; Daiki Kato; Masahiro Toide; Tatsuaki Yoneda; Kazushige Sakaguchi; Jun Teishima; Kazuhide Makiyama; Hiroshi Kitamura; Kazutaka Saito; Takuya Koie; Fumitaka Koga; Shinji Urakami; Takahiro Inoue
Journal:  BJUI Compass       Date:  2022-06-02

8.  Gleason score stratification according to age at diagnosis in 1028 men.

Authors:  Pietro Pepe; Michele Pennisi
Journal:  Contemp Oncol (Pozn)       Date:  2016-01-13

9.  The validation of the 2014 International Society of Urological Pathology (ISUP) grading system for patients with high-risk prostate cancer: a single-center retrospective study.

Authors:  Jiandong Liu; Jinge Zhao; Mengni Zhang; Ni Chen; Guangxi Sun; Yaojing Yang; Xingming Zhang; Junru Chen; Pengfei Shen; Ming Shi; Hao Zeng
Journal:  Cancer Manag Res       Date:  2019-07-12       Impact factor: 3.989

  9 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.