Literature DB >> 27009882

Independent surgical validation of the new prostate cancer grade-grouping system.

Daniel E Spratt1, Adam I Cole2, Ganesh S Palapattu2, Alon Z Weizer2, William C Jackson3, Jeffrey S Montgomery2, Robert T Dess3, Shuang G Zhao3, Jae Y Lee3, Angela Wu2, Lakshmi P Kunju4, Emily Talmich3, David C Miller2, Brent K Hollenbeck2, Scott A Tomlins4, Felix Y Feng3, Rohit Mehra4, Todd M Morgan2.   

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: To report the independent prognostic impact of the new prostate cancer grade-grouping system in a large external validation cohort of patients treated with radical prostatectomy (RP). PATIENTS AND METHODS: Between 1994 and 2013, 3 694 consecutive men were treated with RP at a single institution. To investigate the performance of and validate the grade-grouping system, biochemical recurrence-free survival (bRFS) rates were assessed using Kaplan-Meier tests, Cox-regression modelling, and discriminatory comparison analyses. Separate analyses were performed based on biopsy and RP grade.
RESULTS: The median follow-up was 52.7 months. The 5-year actuarial bRFS for biopsy grade groups 1-5 were 94.2%, 89.2%, 73.1%, 63.1%, and 54.7%, respectively (P < 0.001). Similarly, the 5-year actuarial bRFS based on RP grade groups was 96.1%, 93.0%, 74.0%, 64.4%, and 49.9% for grade groups 1-5, respectively (P < 0.001). The adjusted hazard ratios for bRFS relative to biopsy grade group 1 were 1.98, 4.20, 5.57, and 9.32 for groups 2, 3, 4, and 5, respectively (P < 0.001), and for RP grade groups were 2.09, 5.27, 5.86, and 10.42 (P < 0.001). The five-grade-group system had a higher prognostic discrimination compared with the commonly used three-tier system (Gleason score 6 vs 7 vs 8-10).
CONCLUSIONS: In an independent surgical cohort, we have validated the prognostic benefit of the new prostate cancer grade-grouping system for bRFS, and shown that the benefit is maintained after adjusting for important clinicopathological variables. The greater predictive accuracy of the new system will improve risk stratification in the clinical setting and aid in patient counselling.
© 2016 The Authors BJU International © 2016 BJU International Published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd.

Entities:  

Keywords:  prostate cancer; prostate cancer grading; radical prostatectomy

Mesh:

Year:  2016        PMID: 27009882     DOI: 10.1111/bju.13488

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  BJU Int        ISSN: 1464-4096            Impact factor:   5.588


  17 in total

1.  2018 CUA Abstracts.

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

2.  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

3.  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

4.  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

5.  Prostate cancer: Independent validation of the five-tier grade group system.

Authors:  Annette Fenner
Journal:  Nat Rev Urol       Date:  2016-05-04       Impact factor: 14.432

6.  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

Review 7.  Histopathology of Prostate Cancer.

Authors:  Peter A Humphrey
Journal:  Cold Spring Harb Perspect Med       Date:  2017-10-03       Impact factor: 6.915

8.  Histopathological Study of the Prostate Cancer Growth Patterns in Relation with the Grading Systems.

Authors:  Tudor Cristian Timotei Popescu; Alex Emilian Stepan; Mirela Marinela Florescu; Cristiana Eugenia Simionescu
Journal:  Curr Health Sci J       Date:  2022-03-31

9.  Expression and Clinical Significance of HKII and HIF-1α in Grade Groups of Prostate Cancer.

Authors:  Xueqi Sun; Qirui Huang; Fang Peng; Jian Wang; Weidong Zhao; Guangxiu Guo
Journal:  Front Genet       Date:  2021-06-17       Impact factor: 4.599

10.  CD147 and Prostate Cancer: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

Authors:  Fei Peng; Hui Li; Zhaoze Ning; Zhenyu Yang; Hongru Li; Yonggang Wang; Fang Chen; Yi Wu
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2016-09-29       Impact factor: 3.240

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.