Fang-Ming Deng1, Nicholas M Donin2, Ruth Pe Benito1, Jonathan Melamed1, Julien Le Nobin3, Ming Zhou4, Sisi Ma5, Jinhua Wang6, Herbert Lepor3. 1. Department of Pathology, New York University School of Medicine, New York, NY, USA. 2. Department of Urology, Institute of Urologic Oncology, David Geffen School of Medicine, University of California, Los Angeles, CA, USA. Electronic address: ndonin@mednet.ucla.edu. 3. Department of Urology, New York University School of Medicine, New York, NY, USA. 4. Department of Pathology, New York University School of Medicine, New York, NY, USA; Department of Urology, New York University School of Medicine, New York, NY, USA. 5. Center for Health Informatics and Bioinformatics, New York University School of Medicine, New York, NY, USA. 6. Center for Health Informatics and Bioinformatics, New York University School of Medicine, New York, NY, USA; NYU Cancer Institute, New York University School of Medicine, New York, NY, USA.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The risk of biochemical recurrence (BCR) following radical prostatectomy for pathologic Gleason 7 prostate cancer varies according to the proportion of Gleason 4 component. OBJECTIVE: We sought to explore the value of several novel quantitative metrics of Gleason 4 disease for the prediction of BCR in men with Gleason 7 disease. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: We analyzed a cohort of 2630 radical prostatectomy cases from 1990-2007. All pathologic Gleason 7 cases were identified and assessed for quantity of Gleason pattern 4. Three methods were used to quantify the extent of Gleason 4: a quantitative Gleason score (qGS) based on the proportion of tumor composed of Gleason pattern 4, a size-weighted score (swGS) incorporating the overall quantity of Gleason 4, and a size index (siGS) incorporating the quantity of Gleason 4 based on the index lesion. OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS AND STATISTICAL ANALYSIS: Associations between the above metrics and BCR were evaluated using Cox proportional hazards regression analysis. RESULTS AND LIMITATIONS: qGS, swGS, and siGS were significantly associated with BCR on multivariate analysis when adjusted for traditional Gleason score, age, prostate specific antigen, surgical margin, and stage. Using Harrell's c-index to compare the scoring systems, qGS (0.83), swGS (0.84), and siGS (0.84) all performed better than the traditional Gleason score (0.82). CONCLUSIONS: Quantitative measures of Gleason pattern 4 predict BCR better than the traditional Gleason score. PATIENT SUMMARY: In men with Gleason 7 prostate cancer, quantitative analysis of the proportion of Gleason pattern 4 (quantitative Gleason score), as well as size-weighted measurement of Gleason 4 (size-weighted Gleason score), and a size-weighted measurement of Gleason 4 based on the largest tumor nodule significantly improve the predicted risk of biochemical recurrence compared with the traditional Gleason score.
BACKGROUND: The risk of biochemical recurrence (BCR) following radical prostatectomy for pathologic Gleason 7 prostate cancer varies according to the proportion of Gleason 4 component. OBJECTIVE: We sought to explore the value of several novel quantitative metrics of Gleason 4 disease for the prediction of BCR in men with Gleason 7 disease. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: We analyzed a cohort of 2630 radical prostatectomy cases from 1990-2007. All pathologic Gleason 7 cases were identified and assessed for quantity of Gleason pattern 4. Three methods were used to quantify the extent of Gleason 4: a quantitative Gleason score (qGS) based on the proportion of tumor composed of Gleason pattern 4, a size-weighted score (swGS) incorporating the overall quantity of Gleason 4, and a size index (siGS) incorporating the quantity of Gleason 4 based on the index lesion. OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS AND STATISTICAL ANALYSIS: Associations between the above metrics and BCR were evaluated using Cox proportional hazards regression analysis. RESULTS AND LIMITATIONS: qGS, swGS, and siGS were significantly associated with BCR on multivariate analysis when adjusted for traditional Gleason score, age, prostate specific antigen, surgical margin, and stage. Using Harrell's c-index to compare the scoring systems, qGS (0.83), swGS (0.84), and siGS (0.84) all performed better than the traditional Gleason score (0.82). CONCLUSIONS: Quantitative measures of Gleason pattern 4 predict BCR better than the traditional Gleason score. PATIENT SUMMARY: In men with Gleason 7 prostate cancer, quantitative analysis of the proportion of Gleason pattern 4 (quantitative Gleason score), as well as size-weighted measurement of Gleason 4 (size-weighted Gleason score), and a size-weighted measurement of Gleason 4 based on the largest tumor nodule significantly improve the predicted risk of biochemical recurrence compared with the traditional Gleason score.
Authors: Jens Hansen; Marco Bianchi; Maxine Sun; Michael Rink; Fabio Castiglione; Firas Abdollah; Thomas Steuber; Sascha A Ahyai; Stefan Steurer; Cosima Göbel; Massimo Freschi; Francesco Montorsi; Shahrokh F Shariat; Margit Fisch; Markus Graefen; Pierre I Karakiewicz; Alberto Briganti; Felix K-H Chun Journal: BJU Int Date: 2013-12-02 Impact factor: 5.588
Authors: Scott E Eggener; Peter T Scardino; Patrick C Walsh; Misop Han; Alan W Partin; Bruce J Trock; Zhaoyong Feng; David P Wood; James A Eastham; Ofer Yossepowitch; Danny M Rabah; Michael W Kattan; Changhong Yu; Eric A Klein; Andrew J Stephenson Journal: J Urol Date: 2011-01-15 Impact factor: 7.450
Authors: Liang Cheng; Michael O Koch; Beth E Juliar; Joanne K Daggy; Richard S Foster; Richard Bihrle; Thomas A Gardner Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2005-05-01 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: Ellery Wulczyn; Kunal Nagpal; Matthew Symonds; Melissa Moran; Markus Plass; Robert Reihs; Farah Nader; Fraser Tan; Yuannan Cai; Trissia Brown; Isabelle Flament-Auvigne; Mahul B Amin; Martin C Stumpe; Heimo Müller; Peter Regitnig; Andreas Holzinger; Greg S Corrado; Lily H Peng; Po-Hsuan Cameron Chen; David F Steiner; Kurt Zatloukal; Yun Liu; Craig H Mermel Journal: Commun Med (Lond) Date: 2021-06-30
Authors: Samson W Fine; Kiril Trpkov; Mahul B Amin; Ferran Algaba; Manju Aron; Dilek E Baydar; Antonio Lopez Beltran; Fadi Brimo; John C Cheville; Maurizio Colecchia; Eva Comperat; Tony Costello; Isabela Werneck da Cunha; Warick Delprado; Angelo M DeMarzo; Giovanna A Giannico; Jennifer B Gordetsky; Charles C Guo; Donna E Hansel; Michelle S Hirsch; Jiaoti Huang; Peter A Humphrey; Rafael E Jimenez; Francesca Khani; Max X Kong; Oleksandr N Kryvenko; L Priya Kunju; Priti Lal; Mathieu Latour; Tamara Lotan; Fiona Maclean; Cristina Magi-Galluzzi; Rohit Mehra; Santosh Menon; Hiroshi Miyamoto; Rodolfo Montironi; George J Netto; Jane K Nguyen; Adeboye O Osunkoya; Anil Parwani; Christian P Pavlovich; Brian D Robinson; Mark A Rubin; Rajal B Shah; Jeffrey S So; Hiroyuki Takahashi; Fabio Tavora; Maria S Tretiakova; Lawrence True; Sara E Wobker; Ximing J Yang; Ming Zhou; Debra L Zynger; Jonathan I Epstein Journal: Urol Oncol Date: 2020-09-15 Impact factor: 2.954