Frederik B Thomsen1, Yasin Folkvaljon2, Klaus Brasso3, Stacy Loeb4, David Robinson5,6, Lars Egevad7, Pär Stattin5,8. 1. Copenhagen Prostate Cancer Center and Department of Urology, Rigshospitalet, University of Copenhagen, Copenhagen, Denmark. thomsen.frederik@gmail.com. 2. Regional Cancer Centre, Uppsala/Örebro, Uppsala University Hospital, Uppsala, Sweden. 3. Copenhagen Prostate Cancer Center and Department of Urology, Rigshospitalet, University of Copenhagen, Copenhagen, Denmark. 4. Department of Urology, Population Health and the Laura and Isaac Perlmutter Cancer Institute, New York University and Manhattan Veterans Affairs Medical Center, New York, New York. 5. Department of Surgical Sciences, Uppsala University, Uppsala, Sweden. 6. Department of Urology, Ryhov Hospital, Jönköping, Sweden. 7. Department of Oncology-Pathology, Karolinska Institutet, Karolinska University Hospital, Solna, Stockholm, Sweden. 8. Department of Surgical and Perioperative Sciences, Urology and Andrology, Umeå University Hospital, Umeå, Sweden.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To assess the impact of the 2005 modification of the Gleason classification on risk of biochemical recurrence (BCR) after radical prostatectomy (RP). PATIENTS AND METHODS: In the Prostate Cancer data Base Sweden (PCBaSe), 2,574 men assessed with the original Gleason classification and 1,890 men assessed with the modified Gleason classification, diagnosed between 2003 and 2007, underwent primary RP. Histopathology was reported according to the Gleason Grading Groups (GGG): GGG1 = Gleason score (GS) 6, GGG2 = GS 7(3 + 4), GGG3 = GS 7(4 + 3), GGG4 = GS 8 and GGG5 = GS 9-10. Cumulative incidence and multivariable Cox proportional hazards regression models were used to assess difference in BCR. RESULTS: The cumulative incidence of BCR was lower using the modified compared to the original classification: GGG2 (16% vs. 23%), GGG3 (21% vs. 35%) and GGG4 (18% vs. 34%), respectively. Risk of BCR was lower for modified versus original classification, GGG2 Hazard ratio (HR) 0.66, (95%CI 0.49-0.88), GGG3 HR 0.57 (95%CI 0.38-0.88) and GGG4 HR 0.53 (95%CI 0.29-0.94). CONCLUSION: Due to grade migration following the 2005 Gleason modification, outcome after RP are more favourable. Consequently, outcomes from historical studies cannot directly be applied to a contemporary setting. J. Surg. Oncol. 2016;114:664-670.
OBJECTIVE: To assess the impact of the 2005 modification of the Gleason classification on risk of biochemical recurrence (BCR) after radical prostatectomy (RP). PATIENTS AND METHODS: In the Prostate Cancer data Base Sweden (PCBaSe), 2,574 men assessed with the original Gleason classification and 1,890 men assessed with the modified Gleason classification, diagnosed between 2003 and 2007, underwent primary RP. Histopathology was reported according to the Gleason Grading Groups (GGG): GGG1 = Gleason score (GS) 6, GGG2 = GS 7(3 + 4), GGG3 = GS 7(4 + 3), GGG4 = GS 8 and GGG5 = GS 9-10. Cumulative incidence and multivariable Cox proportional hazards regression models were used to assess difference in BCR. RESULTS: The cumulative incidence of BCR was lower using the modified compared to the original classification: GGG2 (16% vs. 23%), GGG3 (21% vs. 35%) and GGG4 (18% vs. 34%), respectively. Risk of BCR was lower for modified versus original classification, GGG2 Hazard ratio (HR) 0.66, (95%CI 0.49-0.88), GGG3 HR 0.57 (95%CI 0.38-0.88) and GGG4 HR 0.53 (95%CI 0.29-0.94). CONCLUSION: Due to grade migration following the 2005 Gleason modification, outcome after RP are more favourable. Consequently, outcomes from historical studies cannot directly be applied to a contemporary setting. J. Surg. Oncol. 2016;114:664-670.
Authors: Frederik B Thomsen; Klaus Brasso; Laurence H Klotz; M Andreas Røder; Kasper D Berg; Peter Iversen Journal: J Surg Oncol Date: 2014-03-07 Impact factor: 3.454
Authors: Peter C Albertsen; James A Hanley; George H Barrows; David F Penson; Pam D H Kowalczyk; M Melinda Sanders; Judith Fine Journal: J Natl Cancer Inst Date: 2005-09-07 Impact factor: 13.506
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
Authors: Jennifer R Rider; Fredrik Sandin; Ove Andrén; Peter Wiklund; Jonas Hugosson; Pär Stattin Journal: Eur Urol Date: 2012-08-10 Impact factor: 20.096
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