BACKGROUND: Despite revisions in 2005 and 2014, the Gleason prostate cancer (PCa) grading system still has major deficiencies. Combining of Gleason scores into a three-tiered grouping (6, 7, 8-10) is used most frequently for prognostic and therapeutic purposes. The lowest score, assigned 6, may be misunderstood as a cancer in the middle of the grading scale, and 3+4=7 and 4+3=7 are often considered the same prognostic group. OBJECTIVE: To verify that a new grading system accurately produces a smaller number of grades with the most significant prognostic differences, using multi-institutional and multimodal therapy data. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: Between 2005 and 2014, 20,845 consecutive men were treated by radical prostatectomy at five academic institutions; 5501 men were treated with radiotherapy at two academic institutions. OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS AND STATISTICAL ANALYSIS: Outcome was based on biochemical recurrence (BCR). The log-rank test assessed univariable differences in BCR by Gleason score. Separate univariable and multivariable Cox proportional hazards used four possible categorizations of Gleason scores. RESULTS AND LIMITATIONS: In the surgery cohort, we found large differences in recurrence rates between both Gleason 3+4 versus 4+3 and Gleason 8 versus 9. The hazard ratios relative to Gleason score 6 were 1.9, 5.1, 8.0, and 11.7 for Gleason scores 3+4, 4+3, 8, and 9-10, respectively. These differences were attenuated in the radiotherapy cohort as a whole due to increased adjuvant or neoadjuvant hormones for patients with high-grade disease but were clearly seen in patients undergoing radiotherapy only. A five-grade group system had the highest prognostic discrimination for all cohorts on both univariable and multivariable analysis. The major limitation was the unavoidable use of prostate-specific antigen BCR as an end point as opposed to cancer-related death. CONCLUSIONS: The new PCa grading system has these benefits: more accurate grade stratification than current systems, simplified grading system of five grades, and lowest grade is 1, as opposed to 6, with the potential to reduce overtreatment of PCa. PATIENT SUMMARY: We looked at outcomes for prostate cancer (PCa) treated with radical prostatectomy or radiation therapy and validated a new grading system with more accurate grade stratification than current systems, including a simplified grading system of five grades and a lowest grade is 1, as opposed to 6, with the potential to reduce overtreatment of PCa.
BACKGROUND: Despite revisions in 2005 and 2014, the Gleason prostate cancer (PCa) grading system still has major deficiencies. Combining of Gleason scores into a three-tiered grouping (6, 7, 8-10) is used most frequently for prognostic and therapeutic purposes. The lowest score, assigned 6, may be misunderstood as a cancer in the middle of the grading scale, and 3+4=7 and 4+3=7 are often considered the same prognostic group. OBJECTIVE: To verify that a new grading system accurately produces a smaller number of grades with the most significant prognostic differences, using multi-institutional and multimodal therapy data. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: Between 2005 and 2014, 20,845 consecutive men were treated by radical prostatectomy at five academic institutions; 5501 men were treated with radiotherapy at two academic institutions. OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS AND STATISTICAL ANALYSIS: Outcome was based on biochemical recurrence (BCR). The log-rank test assessed univariable differences in BCR by Gleason score. Separate univariable and multivariable Cox proportional hazards used four possible categorizations of Gleason scores. RESULTS AND LIMITATIONS: In the surgery cohort, we found large differences in recurrence rates between both Gleason 3+4 versus 4+3 and Gleason 8 versus 9. The hazard ratios relative to Gleason score 6 were 1.9, 5.1, 8.0, and 11.7 for Gleason scores 3+4, 4+3, 8, and 9-10, respectively. These differences were attenuated in the radiotherapy cohort as a whole due to increased adjuvant or neoadjuvant hormones for patients with high-grade disease but were clearly seen in patients undergoing radiotherapy only. A five-grade group system had the highest prognostic discrimination for all cohorts on both univariable and multivariable analysis. The major limitation was the unavoidable use of prostate-specific antigen BCR as an end point as opposed to cancer-related death. CONCLUSIONS: The new PCa grading system has these benefits: more accurate grade stratification than current systems, simplified grading system of five grades, and lowest grade is 1, as opposed to 6, with the potential to reduce overtreatment of PCa. PATIENT SUMMARY: We looked at outcomes for prostate cancer (PCa) treated with radical prostatectomy or radiation therapy and validated a new grading system with more accurate grade stratification than current systems, including a simplified grading system of five grades and a lowest grade is 1, as opposed to 6, with the potential to reduce overtreatment of PCa.
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
Authors: Stephen J Freedland; Elizabeth B Humphreys; Leslie A Mangold; Mario Eisenberger; Frederick J Dorey; Patrick C Walsh; Alan W Partin Journal: JAMA Date: 2005-07-27 Impact factor: 56.272
Authors: Daniel E Spratt; Zachary S Zumsteg; Pirus Ghadjar; Marisa A Kollmeier; Xin Pei; Gilad Cohen; William Polkinghorn; Yoshiya Yamada; Michael J Zelefsky Journal: BJU Int Date: 2014-01-22 Impact factor: 5.588
Authors: Jonathan I Epstein; Lars Egevad; Mahul B Amin; Brett Delahunt; John R Srigley; Peter A Humphrey Journal: Am J Surg Pathol Date: 2016-02 Impact factor: 6.394
Authors: Mari Nakabayashi; Julia Hayes; Mary-Ellen Taplin; Patrick Lefebvre; Marie-Helene Lafeuille; Mark Pomerantz; Christopher Sweeney; Mei Sheng Duh; Philip W Kantoff Journal: Cancer Date: 2013-05-29 Impact factor: 6.860
Authors: Jennifer R Stark; Sven Perner; Meir J Stampfer; Jennifer A Sinnott; Stephen Finn; Anna S Eisenstein; Jing Ma; Michelangelo Fiorentino; Tobias Kurth; Massimo Loda; Edward L Giovannucci; Mark A Rubin; Lorelei A Mucci Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2009-05-11 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: Etienne Xavier Keller; Jacqueline Bachofner; Anna Jelena Britschgi; Karim Saba; Ashkan Mortezavi; Basil Kaufmann; Christian D Fankhauser; Peter Wild; Tullio Sulser; Thomas Hermanns; Daniel Eberli; Cédric Poyet Journal: World J Urol Date: 2018-12-05 Impact factor: 4.226
Authors: Antonio Benito Porcaro; Marco Sebben; Alessandro Tafuri; Nicolò de Luyk; Paolo Corsi; Tania Processali; Marco Pirozzi; Riccardo Rizzetto; Nelia Amigoni; Daniele Mattevi; Maria A Cerruto; Matteo Brunelli; Giovanni Novella; Vincenzo De Marco; Filippo Migliorini; Walter Artibani Journal: J Robot Surg Date: 2018-05-08
Authors: Gregory T Chesnut; Emily A Vertosick; Nicole Benfante; Daniel D Sjoberg; Jonathan Fainberg; Taehyoung Lee; James Eastham; Vincent Laudone; Peter Scardino; Karim Touijer; Andrew Vickers; Behfar Ehdaie Journal: Eur Urol Date: 2019-12-23 Impact factor: 20.096
Authors: Lucas W Dean; Melissa Assel; Daniel D Sjoberg; Andrew J Vickers; Hikmat A Al-Ahmadie; Ying-Bei Chen; Anuradha Gopalan; S Joseph Sirintrapun; Satish K Tickoo; James A Eastham; Peter T Scardino; Victor E Reuter; Behfar Ehdaie; Samson W Fine Journal: J Urol Date: 2019-01 Impact factor: 7.450
Authors: Kagan Griffin; Ilona Csizmadi; Lauren E Howard; Gina-Maria Pomann; William J Aronson; Christopher J Kane; Christopher L Amling; Matthew R Cooperberg; Martha K Terris; Jennifer Beebe-Dimmer; Stephen J Freedland Journal: Cancer Causes Control Date: 2019-01-30 Impact factor: 2.506
Authors: Sophie Knipper; Cristina Dzyuba-Negrean; Carlotta Palumbo; Angela Pecoraro; Giuseppe Rosiello; Zhe Tian; Alberto Briganti; Fred Saad; Derya Tilki; Markus Graefen; Pierre I Karakiewicz Journal: Int Urol Nephrol Date: 2019-09-21 Impact factor: 2.370