Literature DB >> 27845330

The prognostic role of tertiary Gleason pattern 5 in a contemporary grading system for prostate cancer.

W S Jang1, C Y Yoon1, M S Kim1, D H Kang1, Y J Kang1, W S Jeong1, M J Abalajon2, W S Ham1, Y D Choi1.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Recently, a new prostate cancer (PC) grading system has been introduced, where Gleason score (GS) 7 (3+4) and GS 7 (4+3) are categorized into two separate groups. However, GS 7 with tertiary Gleason pattern 5 (TGP5) was not incorporated in the new grading system. In the present study, we validated the prognostic role of TGP5 in the new classification.
METHODS: We retrospectively reviewed the records of 1396 patients with localized GS 6-8 PC (pT2-3N0M0) who underwent radical prostatectomy at our institution between 2005 and 2014. After excluding patients who received neoadjuvant or adjuvant therapy, or had incomplete pathological or follow-up data, 1229 patients were included in the final analysis. The Kaplan-Meier method was used to estimate and compare the probabilities of biochemical recurrence (BCR). Cox regression models were used to investigate associations between variables and the risk of BCR.
RESULTS: Of 732 GS 7 patients, 75 (10.2%) had a TGP5. The BCR-free survival rate for men with TGP5 was significantly worse than for those without TGP5 (P<0.001). In multivariate Cox regression analyses for GS 7 PC, TGP5 was a significant predictor of BCR (hazard ratio 1.750, P=0.027). When the total cohort was stratified into four grade groups according to the new classification, group 2 with TGP5 had a BCR risk comparable to group 3, and group 3 with TGP5 behaved like group 4.
CONCLUSIONS: Our study shows that TGP5 increased the BCR risk after RP in GS 7 PC. Moreover, we demonstrated that the presence of a TGP5 in GS 7 upgraded the BCR risk to one comparable with the next higher category under the new classification. These findings support incorporating TGP5 into GS 7 to aid with future risk assessment and follow-up scheduling for PC.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2016        PMID: 27845330     DOI: 10.1038/pcan.2016.55

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


  6 in total

1.  Prostate Cancer Antigen 3 Score Does Not Predict for Adverse Pathologic Features at Radical Prostatectomy or for Progression-free Survival in Clinically Localized, Intermediate- and High-risk Prostate Cancer.

Authors:  John V Hegde; Darlene Veruttipong; Jonathan W Said; Robert E Reiter; Michael L Steinberg; Christopher R King; Amar U Kishan
Journal:  Urology       Date:  2017-05-25       Impact factor: 2.649

2.  The Impact of Pathologic Upgrading of Gleason Score 7 Prostate Cancer on the Risk of the Biochemical Recurrence after Radical Prostatectomy.

Authors:  Juhyun Park; Sangjun Yoo; Min Chul Cho; Min Hyun Cho; Chang Wook Jeong; Ja Hyeon Ku; Cheol Kwak; Hyeon Hoe Kim; Hyeon Jeong
Journal:  Biomed Res Int       Date:  2018-04-30       Impact factor: 3.411

3.  Significance of tertiary Gleason pattern 5 in patients with Gleason score 7 after radical prostatectomy: a retrospective cohort study.

Authors:  Jiakun Li; Yaochuan Guo; Shi Qiu; Mingjing He; Kun Jin; Xiaonan Zheng; Xiang Tu; Xinyang Liao; Lu Yang; Qiang Wei
Journal:  Onco Targets Ther       Date:  2019-09-02       Impact factor: 4.147

4.  The 2019 International Society of Urological Pathology (ISUP) Consensus Conference on Grading of Prostatic Carcinoma.

Authors:  Geert J L H van Leenders; Theodorus H van der Kwast; David J Grignon; Andrew J Evans; Glen Kristiansen; Charlotte F Kweldam; Geert Litjens; Jesse K McKenney; Jonathan Melamed; Nicholas Mottet; Gladell P Paner; Hemamali Samaratunga; Ivo G Schoots; Jeffry P Simko; Toyonori Tsuzuki; Murali Varma; Anne Y Warren; Thomas M Wheeler; Sean R Williamson; Kenneth A Iczkowski
Journal:  Am J Surg Pathol       Date:  2020-08       Impact factor: 6.298

5.  The validation of the 2014 International Society of Urological Pathology (ISUP) grading system for patients with high-risk prostate cancer: a single-center retrospective study.

Authors:  Jiandong Liu; Jinge Zhao; Mengni Zhang; Ni Chen; Guangxi Sun; Yaojing Yang; Xingming Zhang; Junru Chen; Pengfei Shen; Ming Shi; Hao Zeng
Journal:  Cancer Manag Res       Date:  2019-07-12       Impact factor: 3.989

6.  Clinical outcome comparison of Grade Group 1 and Grade Group 2 prostate cancer with and without cribriform architecture at the time of radical prostatectomy.

Authors:  Eva Hollemans; Esther I Verhoef; Chris H Bangma; John Rietbergen; Monique J Roobol; Jozien Helleman; Geert J L H van Leenders
Journal:  Histopathology       Date:  2020-04       Impact factor: 5.087

  6 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.