Literature DB >> 26707871

Evaluation of the 2015 Gleason Grade Groups in a Nationwide Population-based Cohort.

Stacy Loeb1, Yasin Folkvaljon2, David Robinson3, Ingela Franck Lissbrant4, Lars Egevad5, Pär Stattin6.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: New five-tiered Gleason grade groups (GGGs) were recently proposed, in which Gleason 6 is GGG 1, Gleason 3+4 is GGG 2, Gleason 4+3 is GGG 3, Gleason 8 is GGG 4, and Gleason 9-10 is GGG 5.
OBJECTIVE: To examine the performance of the new GGGs in men with prostate cancer from a nationwide population-based cohort. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: From the National Prostate Cancer Register of Sweden, we identified 5880 men diagnosed with prostate cancer from 2005 to 2007, including 4325 who had radical prostatectomy and 1555 treated with radiation therapy. OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS AND STATISTICAL ANALYSIS: Kaplan-Meier survival analysis, Cox proportional hazards models, and concordance indices were used to examine the relationship between the GGGs and biochemical recurrence after radical prostatectomy and radiation therapy. RESULTS AND LIMITATIONS: Among men treated with surgery, the 4-yr biochemical recurrence-free survival rates were 89%, 82%, 74%, 77%, and 49% for GGG 1-5 on biopsy, and 92%, 85%, 73%, 63%, and 51% based on prostatectomy GGG, respectively. For men treated by radiation therapy, men with biopsy GGG of 1-5 had 4-yr biochemical recurrence-free survival rates of 95%, 91%, 85%, 78%, and 70%. Adjusting for preoperative serum prostate-specific antigen and clinical stage, biopsy GGGs were significant independent predictors of biochemical recurrence after radical prostatectomy and radiation therapy. The new 5-tier system resulted in virtually no change in predictive accuracy compared with the current 3- and 4-tier classifications. Limitations include a median follow-up of 4.6 yr, precluding the ability to examine long-term oncologic outcomes.
CONCLUSIONS: The newly proposed GGGs offer a simplified, user-friendly nomenclature to aid in patient counseling, with similar predictive accuracy in a population-based setting to previous classifications. PATIENT
SUMMARY: The new Gleason grade groups, ranging from 1-5, provide a simplified, user-friendly classification system to predict the risk of recurrence after prostatectomy and radiation therapy. Published by Elsevier B.V.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Epstein; Gleason grade; ISUP; Pathology; Prostate cancer

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2015        PMID: 26707871      PMCID: PMC4909574          DOI: 10.1016/j.eururo.2015.11.036

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Eur Urol        ISSN: 0302-2838            Impact factor:   20.096


  15 in total

Review 1.  The 2005 International Society of Urological Pathology (ISUP) Consensus Conference on Gleason Grading of Prostatic Carcinoma.

Authors:  Jonathan I Epstein; William C Allsbrook; Mahul B Amin; Lars L Egevad
Journal:  Am J Surg Pathol       Date:  2005-09       Impact factor: 6.394

2.  The emotional burden of low-risk prostate cancer: proposal for a change in nomenclature.

Authors:  Oliver Sartor; D Lynn Loriaux
Journal:  Clin Genitourin Cancer       Date:  2006-06       Impact factor: 2.872

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.  Population based study of predictors of adverse pathology among candidates for active surveillance with Gleason 6 prostate cancer.

Authors:  Annelies Vellekoop; Stacy Loeb; Yasin Folkvaljon; Pär Stattin
Journal:  J Urol       Date:  2013-09-23       Impact factor: 7.450

5.  A genomic classifier improves prediction of metastatic disease within 5 years after surgery in node-negative high-risk prostate cancer patients managed by radical prostatectomy without adjuvant therapy.

Authors:  Eric A Klein; Kasra Yousefi; Zaid Haddad; Voleak Choeurng; Christine Buerki; Andrew J Stephenson; Jianbo Li; Michael W Kattan; Cristina Magi-Galluzzi; Elai Davicioni
Journal:  Eur Urol       Date:  2014-11-12       Impact factor: 20.096

Review 6.  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

7.  Population based study of use and determinants of active surveillance and watchful waiting for low and intermediate risk prostate cancer.

Authors:  Stacy Loeb; Anders Berglund; Pär Stattin
Journal:  J Urol       Date:  2013-05-30       Impact factor: 7.450

8.  Cohort Profile: the National Prostate Cancer Register of Sweden and Prostate Cancer data Base Sweden 2.0.

Authors:  Mieke Van Hemelrijck; Annette Wigertz; Fredrik Sandin; Hans Garmo; Karin Hellström; Per Fransson; Anders Widmark; Mats Lambe; Jan Adolfsson; Eberhard Varenhorst; Jan-Erik Johansson; Pär Stattin
Journal:  Int J Epidemiol       Date:  2012-05-04       Impact factor: 7.196

9.  Tracking the clonal origin of lethal prostate cancer.

Authors:  Michael C Haffner; Timothy Mosbruger; David M Esopi; Helen Fedor; Christopher M Heaphy; David A Walker; Nkosi Adejola; Meltem Gürel; Jessica Hicks; Alan K Meeker; Marc K Halushka; Jonathan W Simons; William B Isaacs; Angelo M De Marzo; William G Nelson; Srinivasan Yegnasubramanian
Journal:  J Clin Invest       Date:  2013-10-25       Impact factor: 14.808

10.  A Contemporary Prostate Cancer Grading System: A Validated Alternative to the Gleason Score.

Authors:  Jonathan I Epstein; Michael J Zelefsky; Daniel D Sjoberg; Joel B Nelson; Lars Egevad; Cristina Magi-Galluzzi; Andrew J Vickers; Anil V Parwani; Victor E Reuter; Samson W Fine; James A Eastham; Peter Wiklund; Misop Han; Chandana A Reddy; Jay P Ciezki; Tommy Nyberg; Eric A Klein
Journal:  Eur Urol       Date:  2015-07-10       Impact factor: 20.096

View more
  32 in total

Review 1.  Prostate cancer: Urology journals recommend new prostate cancer grade groups.

Authors:  Jonathan I Epstein
Journal:  Nat Rev Urol       Date:  2016-06-07       Impact factor: 14.432

2.  2018 CUA Abstracts.

Authors: 
Journal:  Can Urol Assoc J       Date:  2018-06       Impact factor: 1.862

3.  External validation of the novel International Society of Urological Pathology (ISUP) Gleason grading groups in a large contemporary Canadian cohort.

Authors:  Helen Davis Bondarenko; Marc Zanaty; Sabrina S Harmouch; Cristina Negrean; Raisa S Pompe; Daniel Liberman; Naeem Bhojani; Pierre I Karakiewicz; Kevin C Zorn; Assaad El-Hakim
Journal:  Can Urol Assoc J       Date:  2018-06-19       Impact factor: 1.862

4.  Validation of the 2015 prostate cancer grade groups for predicting long-term oncologic outcomes in a shared equal-access health system.

Authors:  Ariel A Schulman; Lauren E Howard; Kae Jack Tay; Efrat Tsivian; Christina Sze; Christopher L Amling; William J Aronson; Matthew R Cooperberg; Christopher J Kane; Martha K Terris; Stephen J Freedland; Thomas J Polascik
Journal:  Cancer       Date:  2017-06-29       Impact factor: 6.860

Review 5.  Active Surveillance of Prostate Cancer: Use, Outcomes, Imaging, and Diagnostic Tools.

Authors:  Jeffrey J Tosoian; Stacy Loeb; Jonathan I Epstein; Baris Turkbey; Peter L Choyke; Edward M Schaeffer
Journal:  Am Soc Clin Oncol Educ Book       Date:  2016

6.  The new ISUP 2014/WHO 2016 prostate cancer grade group system: first résumé 5 years after introduction and systemic review of the literature.

Authors:  A Offermann; M C Hupe; V Sailer; A S Merseburger; S Perner
Journal:  World J Urol       Date:  2019-04-02       Impact factor: 4.226

7.  Prognostic value of the new Grade Groups in Prostate Cancer: a multi-institutional European validation study.

Authors:  R Mathieu; M Moschini; B Beyer; K M Gust; T Seisen; A Briganti; P Karakiewicz; C Seitz; L Salomon; A de la Taille; M Rouprêt; M Graefen; S F Shariat
Journal:  Prostate Cancer Prostatic Dis       Date:  2017-01-10       Impact factor: 5.554

8.  Management of prostate cancer patients with locally adverse pathologic features after radical prostatectomy: feasibility of active surveillance for cases with Gleason grade 3 + 4 = 7.

Authors:  Xun Shangguan; Baijun Dong; Yanqing Wang; Fan Xu; Xiaoguang Shao; Jianjun Sha; Yinjie Zhu; Jiahua Pan; Wei Xue
Journal:  J Cancer Res Clin Oncol       Date:  2016-09-20       Impact factor: 4.553

Review 9.  Newly Proposed Prognostic Grade Group System for Prostate Cancer: Genesis, Utility and its Implications in Clinical Practice.

Authors:  Makarand Khochikar
Journal:  Curr Urol Rep       Date:  2016-11       Impact factor: 3.092

10.  Factors predicting pathological upgrading after prostatectomy in patients with Gleason grade group 1 prostate cancer based on opinion-matched biopsy specimens.

Authors:  Yuki Maruyama; Takuya Sadahira; Motoo Araki; Yosuke Mitsui; Koichiro Wada; Acosta Gonzalez Herik Rodrigo; Kazuaki Munetomo; Yasuyuki Kobayashi; Masami Watanabe; Hiroyuki Yanai; Toyohiko Watanabe; Yasutomo Nasu
Journal:  Mol Clin Oncol       Date:  2020-02-10
View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.