Xun Shangguan1, Baijun Dong1, Yanqing Wang1, Fan Xu1, Xiaoguang Shao1, Jianjun Sha1, Yinjie Zhu1, Jiahua Pan2, Wei Xue3. 1. Department of Urology, Renji Hospital, School of Medicine, Shanghai Jiao Tong University, 1630 Dong Fang Road, Shanghai, 200127, China. 2. Department of Urology, Renji Hospital, School of Medicine, Shanghai Jiao Tong University, 1630 Dong Fang Road, Shanghai, 200127, China. jiahua.pan@outlook.com. 3. Department of Urology, Renji Hospital, School of Medicine, Shanghai Jiao Tong University, 1630 Dong Fang Road, Shanghai, 200127, China. xuewei@renji.com.
Abstract
PURPOSE: To evaluate the ability of the new Gleason grade groups (GGGs) to stratify risk in prostate cancer patients with locally adverse pathologic features after radical prostatectomy (RP) thereby allowing more accurate assessment for planning eventual adjuvant therapy. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Data on 172 patients with locally adverse pathologic features (including seminal vesicle invasion, extracapsular extension, or positive surgical margins) who had been treated with wait and see policy after RP were retrospectively analyzed for biochemical recurrence (BCR)-free survival. Kaplan-Meier survival analysis and Cox proportional hazard regression models were used to test the association between the GGGs and BCR. Finally, concordance indices of different grading classifications were calculated to evaluate the predictive accuracy for biochemical failure after RP. RESULTS: The five-year BCR-free survival rates were 71.2, 66.9, 25.7, 17.4, and 8.3 % for GGG 1-5 assessed on surgical specimens (p < 0.001, log-rank test). In the two-way log-rank test, men with prostatectomy GGG 2 had a lower progression risk relative to GGG 3 (p = 0.001), though similar risk as GGG 1 (p = 0.105). In multivariate Cox regression analysis, specimen GGG ≥3 and early postoperative PSA ≥0.1 ng/ml were independent risk factors for biochemical failure (p < 0.001). In addition, GGGs had higher predictive accuracy compared with the alternate classification system (improvement in concordance index by 0.036-0.141). CONCLUSIONS: For the appropriate patient, depending on age, physical condition, early postoperative PSA, patient desire, etc., could be a candidate for wait and see policy with specimen GGG 2 disease, so to distinguish this from GGG 3 may facilitate discussions at the point of treatment decision making.
PURPOSE: To evaluate the ability of the new Gleason grade groups (GGGs) to stratify risk in prostate cancerpatients with locally adverse pathologic features after radical prostatectomy (RP) thereby allowing more accurate assessment for planning eventual adjuvant therapy. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Data on 172 patients with locally adverse pathologic features (including seminal vesicle invasion, extracapsular extension, or positive surgical margins) who had been treated with wait and see policy after RP were retrospectively analyzed for biochemical recurrence (BCR)-free survival. Kaplan-Meier survival analysis and Cox proportional hazard regression models were used to test the association between the GGGs and BCR. Finally, concordance indices of different grading classifications were calculated to evaluate the predictive accuracy for biochemical failure after RP. RESULTS: The five-year BCR-free survival rates were 71.2, 66.9, 25.7, 17.4, and 8.3 % for GGG 1-5 assessed on surgical specimens (p < 0.001, log-rank test). In the two-way log-rank test, men with prostatectomy GGG 2 had a lower progression risk relative to GGG 3 (p = 0.001), though similar risk as GGG 1 (p = 0.105). In multivariate Cox regression analysis, specimen GGG ≥3 and early postoperative PSA ≥0.1 ng/ml were independent risk factors for biochemical failure (p < 0.001). In addition, GGGs had higher predictive accuracy compared with the alternate classification system (improvement in concordance index by 0.036-0.141). CONCLUSIONS: For the appropriate patient, depending on age, physical condition, early postoperative PSA, patient desire, etc., could be a candidate for wait and see policy with specimen GGG 2 disease, so to distinguish this from GGG 3 may facilitate discussions at the point of treatment decision making.
Authors: Fernando P Secin; Fernando J Bianco; Andrew J Vickers; Victor Reuter; Thomas Wheeler; Paul A Fearn; James A Eastham; Peter T Scardino Journal: Cancer Date: 2006-06-01 Impact factor: 6.860
Authors: Sameer A Siddiqui; Stephen A Boorjian; Michael L Blute; Laureano J Rangel; Eric J Bergstralh; Robert Jeffrey Karnes; Igor Frank Journal: BJU Int Date: 2011-02 Impact factor: 5.588
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: Thomas Wiegel; Dirk Bottke; Ursula Steiner; Alessandra Siegmann; Reinhard Golz; Stephan Störkel; Norman Willich; Axel Semjonow; Rainer Souchon; Michael Stöckle; Christian Rübe; Lothar Weissbach; Peter Althaus; Udo Rebmann; Tilman Kälble; Horst Jürgen Feldmann; Manfred Wirth; Axel Hinke; Wolfgang Hinkelbein; Kurt Miller Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2009-05-11 Impact factor: 44.544
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