Literature DB >> 27215611

Independent validation of the prognostic capacity of the ISUP prostate cancer grade grouping system for radiation treated patients with long-term follow-up.

D E Spratt1, W C Jackson1, A Abugharib1, S A Tomlins2, R T Dess1, P D Soni1, J Y Lee1, S G Zhao1, A I Cole3, Z S Zumsteg4, H Sandler4, D Hamstra5, J W Hearn1, G Palapattu3, R Mehra2, T M Morgan3, F Y Feng1.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: There has been a recent proposal to change the grading system of prostate cancer into a five-tier grade grouping system. The prognostic impact of this has been demonstrated in regards only to biochemical recurrence-free survival (bRFS) with short follow-up (3 years).
METHODS: Between 1990 and 2013, 847 consecutive men were treated with definitive external beam radiation therapy at a single academic center. To validate the new grade grouping system, bRFS, distant metastases-free survival (DMFS) and prostate cancer-specific survival (PCSS) were calculated. Adjusted Kaplan-Meier and multivariable Cox regression analyses were performed to assess the independent impact of the new grade grouping system. Discriminatory analyses were performed to compare the commonly used three-tier Gleason score system (6, 7 and 8-10) to the new system.
RESULTS: The median follow-up of our cohort was 88 months. The 5-grade groups independently validated differing risks of bRFS (group 1 as reference; adjusted hazard ratio (aHR) 1.35, 2.16, 1.79 and 3.84 for groups 2-5, respectively). Furthermore, a clear stratification was demonstrated for DMFS (aHR 2.03, 3.18, 3.62 and 13.77 for groups 2-5, respectively) and PCSS (aHR 3.00, 5.32, 6.02 and 39.02 for groups 2-5, respectively). The 5-grade group system had improved prognostic discrimination for all end points compared with the commonly used three-tiered system (that is, Gleason score 6, 7 and 8-10).
CONCLUSIONS: In a large independent radiotherapy cohort with long-term follow-up, we have validated the bRFS benefit of the proposed five-tier grade grouping system. Furthermore, we have demonstrated that the system is highly prognostic for DMFS and PCSS. Grade group 5 had markedly worse outcomes for all end points, and future work is necessary to improve outcomes in these patients.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2016        PMID: 27215611     DOI: 10.1038/pcan.2016.18

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Prostate Cancer Prostatic Dis        ISSN: 1365-7852            Impact factor:   5.554


  28 in total

1.  The combined percentage of Gleason patterns 4 and 5 is the best predictor of cancer progression after radical prostatectomy.

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

2.  A new risk classification system for therapeutic decision making with intermediate-risk prostate cancer patients undergoing dose-escalated external-beam radiation therapy.

Authors:  Zachary S Zumsteg; Daniel E Spratt; Isaac Pei; Zhigang Zhang; Yoshiya Yamada; Marisa Kollmeier; Michael J Zelefsky
Journal:  Eur Urol       Date:  2013-03-23       Impact factor: 20.096

Review 3.  Histologic grading of prostate cancer: a perspective.

Authors:  D F Gleason
Journal:  Hum Pathol       Date:  1992-03       Impact factor: 3.466

4.  Gleason pattern 5 is the strongest pathologic predictor of recurrence, metastasis, and prostate cancer-specific death in patients receiving salvage radiation therapy following radical prostatectomy.

Authors:  William Jackson; Daniel A Hamstra; Skyler Johnson; Jessica Zhou; Benjamin Foster; Corey Foster; Darren Li; Yeohan Song; Ganesh S Palapattu; Lakshmi P Kunju; Rohit Mehra; Felix Y Feng
Journal:  Cancer       Date:  2013-07-02       Impact factor: 6.860

5.  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

6.  Gleason score 5 + 3 = 8 prostate cancer: much more like Gleason score 9?

Authors:  Brandon A Mahal; Vinayak Muralidhar; Yu-Wei Chen; Toni K Choueiri; Karen E Hoffman; Jim C Hu; Christopher J Sweeney; James B Yu; Felix Y Feng; Quoc-Dien Trinh; Paul L Nguyen
Journal:  BJU Int       Date:  2015-08-22       Impact factor: 5.588

Review 7.  The 2014 International Society of Urological Pathology (ISUP) Consensus Conference on Gleason Grading of Prostatic Carcinoma: Definition of Grading Patterns and Proposal for a New Grading System.

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

8.  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

9.  Predicting the outcome of salvage radiation therapy for recurrent prostate cancer after radical prostatectomy.

Authors:  Andrew J Stephenson; Peter T Scardino; Michael W Kattan; Thomas M Pisansky; Kevin M Slawin; Eric A Klein; Mitchell S Anscher; Jeff M Michalski; Howard M Sandler; Daniel W Lin; Jeffrey D Forman; Michael J Zelefsky; Larry L Kestin; Claus G Roehrborn; Charles N Catton; Theodore L DeWeese; Stanley L Liauw; Richard K Valicenti; Deborah A Kuban; Alan Pollack
Journal:  J Clin Oncol       Date:  2007-05-20       Impact factor: 44.544

10.  Androgen Receptor Upregulation Mediates Radioresistance after Ionizing Radiation.

Authors:  Daniel E Spratt; Michael J Evans; Brian J Davis; Michael G Doran; Man Xia Lee; Neel Shah; John Wongvipat; Kathryn E Carnazza; George G Klee; William Polkinghorn; Donald J Tindall; Jason S Lewis; Charles L Sawyers
Journal:  Cancer Res       Date:  2015-10-02       Impact factor: 12.701

View more
  12 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.  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

4.  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 5.  Histopathology of Prostate Cancer.

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

6.  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

7.  The 2014 ISUP grade group system: the Holy Grail or yet another hype?

Authors:  Daimantas Milonas; Steven Joniau
Journal:  World J Urol       Date:  2020-05-03       Impact factor: 4.226

8.  Prognostic Value of the New Prostate Cancer International Society of Urological Pathology Grade Groups.

Authors:  Anne Offermann; Silke Hohensteiner; Christiane Kuempers; Julika Ribbat-Idel; Felix Schneider; Finn Becker; Marie Christine Hupe; Stefan Duensing; Axel S Merseburger; Jutta Kirfel; Markus Reischl; Verena Lubczyk; Rainer Kuefer; Sven Perner
Journal:  Front Med (Lausanne)       Date:  2017-09-29

9.  Oncological outcomes in an Australian cohort according to the new prostate cancer grading groupings.

Authors:  K R Beckmann; A D Vincent; M E O'Callaghan; P Cohen; S Chang; M Borg; S M Evans; D M Roder; K L Moretti
Journal:  BMC Cancer       Date:  2017-08-10       Impact factor: 4.430

10.  The performance of the new prognostic grade and stage groups in conservatively treated prostate cancer.

Authors:  Cheng Chen; Ye Chen; Lin-Kun Hu; Chang-Chuan Jiang; Ren-Fang Xu; Xiao-Zhou He
Journal:  Asian J Androl       Date:  2018 Jul-Aug       Impact factor: 3.285

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.