Literature DB >> 26563277

The Significance of Accurate Determination of Gleason Score for Therapeutic Options and Prognosis of Prostate Cancer.

Burkhard Helpap1, Daniel Ringli2, Jens Tonhauser3, Immanuel Poser4, Jürgen Breul4, Heidrun Gevensleben5, Hans-Helge Seifert3.   

Abstract

The Gleason score (GS) to date remains one of the most reliable prognostic predictors in prostate cancer (PCa). However, the majority of studies supporting its prognostic relevance were performed prior to its modification by the International Society of Urological Pathology (ISUP) in 2005. Furthermore, the combination of Gleason grading and nuclear/nucleolar subgrading (Helpap score) has been shown to essentially improve grading concordance between biopsy and radical prostatectomy (RP) specimens. This prompted us to investigate the modified GS and combigrading (Gleason/Helpap score) in association with clinicopathological features, biochemical recurrence (BCR), and survival. Core needle biopsies and corresponding RP specimens from 580 patients diagnosed with PCa between 2005 and 2010 were evaluated. According to the modified GS, the comparison between biopsy and RP samples resulted in an upgrading from GS 6 to GS 7a and GS 7b in 65% and 19%, respectively. Combigrading further resulted in an upgrading from low grade (GS 6/2a) to intermediate grade PCa (GS 6/2b) in 11.1% and from intermediate grade (GS 6/2b) to high grade PCa (GS 7b/2b) in 22.6%. Overall, well-differentiated PCa (GS 6/2a) was detected in 2.8% of RP specimens, while intermediate grade (GS 6/2b and GS 7a/2b) and high grade cancers (≥ GS 7b) accounted for 39.5% and 57.4% of cases, respectively. At a mean follow-up of 3.9 years, BCR was observed in 17.6% of patients with intermediate (9.8%) or high grade PCa (30.2%), while PSA relapse did not occur in GS 6/2a PCa. In conclusion, adding nuclear/nucleolar subgrading to the modified GS allowed for a more accurate distinction between low and intermediate grade PCa, therefore offering a valuable tool for the identification of patients eligible for active surveillance (AS).

Entities:  

Keywords:  Carcinoma; Gleason and combigrading; PSA progress; Prognosis; Prostate; Survival

Mesh:

Year:  2015        PMID: 26563277     DOI: 10.1007/s12253-015-0013-x

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Pathol Oncol Res        ISSN: 1219-4956            Impact factor:   3.201


  52 in total

1.  The significance of modified Gleason grading of prostatic carcinoma in biopsy and radical prostatectomy specimens.

Authors:  Burkhard Helpap; Lars Egevad
Journal:  Virchows Arch       Date:  2006-11-08       Impact factor: 4.064

2.  Quantification of extraprostatic extension in prostate cancer: different parameters correlated to biochemical recurrence after radical prostatectomy.

Authors:  Bianca A M H van Veggel; Inge M van Oort; J Alfred Witjes; Lambertus A L M Kiemeney; Christina A Hulsbergen-van de Kaa
Journal:  Histopathology       Date:  2011-10       Impact factor: 5.087

3.  Gleason score 6 adenocarcinoma: should it be labeled as cancer?

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

4.  Radical prostatectomy for clinically advanced (cT3) prostate cancer since the advent of prostate-specific antigen testing: 15-year outcome.

Authors:  John F Ward; Jeffrey M Slezak; Michael L Blute; Erik J Bergstralh; Horst Zincke
Journal:  BJU Int       Date:  2005-04       Impact factor: 5.588

5.  Gleason score 7 prostate cancer on needle biopsy: is the prognostic difference in Gleason scores 4 + 3 and 3 + 4 independent of the number of involved cores?

Authors:  Danil V Makarov; Harriete Sanderson; Alan W Partin; Jonathan I Epstein
Journal:  J Urol       Date:  2002-06       Impact factor: 7.450

6.  Prognostic significance of Gleason score 3+4 versus Gleason score 4+3 tumor at radical prostatectomy.

Authors:  T Y Chan; A W Partin; P C Walsh; J I Epstein
Journal:  Urology       Date:  2000-11-01       Impact factor: 2.649

7.  Differences in histopathological and biochemical outcomes in patients with low Gleason score prostate cancer.

Authors:  Hendrik Isbarn; Pierre I Karakiewicz; Sascha A Ahyai; Felix K H Chun; Claudio Jeldres; Alexander Haese; Hans Heinzer; Mario Zacharias; Roman Heuer; Christian Eichelberg; Thomas Steuber; Lars Budäus; Jens Köllermann; Georg Salomon; Thorsten Schlomm; Paul Perrotte; Margit Fisch; Hartwig Huland; Markus Graefen
Journal:  BJU Int       Date:  2009-09-14       Impact factor: 5.588

Review 8.  Risk of Gleason grade inaccuracies in prostate cancer patients eligible for active surveillance.

Authors:  Ronald H Shapiro; Peter A S Johnstone
Journal:  Urology       Date:  2012-09       Impact factor: 2.649

9.  Gleason score and lethal prostate cancer: does 3 + 4 = 4 + 3?

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

10.  Overall and worst gleason scores are equally good predictors of prostate cancer progression.

Authors:  Teemu T Tolonen; Paula M Kujala; Teuvo L J Tammela; Vilppu J Tuominen; Jorma J Isola; Tapio Visakorpi
Journal:  BMC Urol       Date:  2011-10-06       Impact factor: 2.264

View more
  4 in total

1.  A Grading System for Invasive Pulmonary Adenocarcinoma: A Proposal From the International Association for the Study of Lung Cancer Pathology Committee.

Authors:  Andre L Moreira; Paolo S S Ocampo; Yuhe Xia; Hua Zhong; Prudence A Russell; Yuko Minami; Wendy A Cooper; Akihiko Yoshida; Lukas Bubendorf; Mauro Papotti; Giuseppe Pelosi; Fernando Lopez-Rios; Keiko Kunitoki; Dana Ferrari-Light; Lynette M Sholl; Mary Beth Beasley; Alain Borczuk; Johan Botling; Elisabeth Brambilla; Gang Chen; Teh-Ying Chou; Jin-Haeng Chung; Sanja Dacic; Deepali Jain; Fred R Hirsch; David Hwang; Sylvie Lantuejoul; Dongmei Lin; John W Longshore; Noriko Motoi; Masayuki Noguchi; Claudia Poleri; Natasha Rekhtman; Ming-Sound Tsao; Erik Thunnissen; William D Travis; Yasushi Yatabe; Anja C Roden; Jillian B Daigneault; Ignacio I Wistuba; Keith M Kerr; Harvey Pass; Andrew G Nicholson; Mari Mino-Kenudson
Journal:  J Thorac Oncol       Date:  2020-06-17       Impact factor: 15.609

2.  Utility of Newly Proposed Grading System From International Association for the Study of Lung Cancer for Invasive Lung Adenocarcinoma.

Authors:  Atsushi Kagimoto; Yasuhiro Tsutani; Takahiro Kambara; Yoshinori Handa; Takashi Kumada; Takahiro Mimae; Kei Kushitani; Yoshihiro Miyata; Yukio Takeshima; Morihito Okada
Journal:  JTO Clin Res Rep       Date:  2020-11-26

3.  The prognostic impact of lung adenocarcinoma predominance classification relating to pathological factors in lobectomy, the Japanese Joint Committee of Lung Cancer Registry Database in 2010.

Authors:  Hiroyuki Ito; Hiroshi Date; Yasushi Shintani; Etsuo Miyaoka; Ryoichi Nakanishi; Mitsutaka Kadokura; Shunsuke Endo; Masayuki Chida; Ichiro Yoshino; Hidemi Suzuki
Journal:  BMC Cancer       Date:  2022-08-10       Impact factor: 4.638

4.  A critical evaluation of visual proportion of Gleason 4 and maximum cancer core length quantified by histopathologists.

Authors:  Lina Maria Carmona Echeverria; Aiman Haider; Alex Freeman; Urszula Stopka-Farooqui; Avi Rosenfeld; Benjamin S Simpson; Yipeng Hu; David Hawkes; Hayley Pye; Susan Heavey; Vasilis Stavrinides; Joseph M Norris; Ahmed El-Shater Bosaily; Cristina Cardona Barrena; Simon Bott; Louise Brown; Nick Burns-Cox; Tim Dudderidge; Alastair Henderson; Richard Hindley; Richard Kaplan; Alex Kirkham; Robert Oldroyd; Maneesh Ghei; Raj Persad; Shonit Punwani; Derek Rosario; Iqbal Shergill; Mathias Winkler; Hashim U Ahmed; Mark Emberton; Hayley C Whitaker
Journal:  Sci Rep       Date:  2020-10-14       Impact factor: 4.379

  4 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.