Jianming He1, Peter C Albertsen2, Dirk Moore3, David Rotter4, Kitaw Demissie5, Grace Lu-Yao6. 1. The School of Public Health, Rutgers, The State University of New Jersey, Piscataway, NJ, USA; Janssen Global Services LLC, Raritan, NJ, USA. 2. Department of Surgery (Urology), University of Connecticut Health Center, Farmington, CT, USA. 3. The School of Public Health, Rutgers, The State University of New Jersey, Piscataway, NJ, USA; The Cancer Institute of New Jersey, Rutgers, The State University of New Jersey, New Brunswick, NJ, USA. 4. The Cancer Institute of New Jersey, Rutgers, The State University of New Jersey, New Brunswick, NJ, USA. 5. The School of Public Health, Rutgers, The State University of New Jersey, Piscataway, NJ, USA. 6. Department of Medical Oncology, Sidney Kimmel Medical College and Jefferson College of Population Health, Thomas Jefferson University, Philadelphia, PA, USA; Sidney Kimmel Cancer Center at Jefferson, Philadelphia, PA, USA. Electronic address: grace.luyao@jefferson.edu.
Abstract
This population-based study assesses whether a proposed five-tiered Gleason grade grouping (GGG) system predicts prostate cancer-specific mortality (PCSM). Using the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER) database, we identified 331320 prostate cancer patients who had primary and secondary Gleason patterns diagnosed between January 2006 and December 2012. We used the Fine and Gray proportional hazards model for subdistributions and the corresponding cumulative incidence to quantify the risk of PCSM. We found that the risk of PCSM approximately doubled with each GGG increase. Among men who underwent radical prostatectomy and using GGG1 (Gleason score ≤6) as the reference group, the adjusted hazard ratio for PCSM was 1.13 (95% confidence interval [CI] 0.83-1.54) for GGG2, 1.87 (95% CI 1.33-2.65) for GGG3, 5.03 (95% CI 3.59-7.06) for GGG4, and 10.92 (CI 8.03-14.84) for GGG5. Similar patterns were observed regardless of the type of primary cancer treatment received or clinical stage. In summary, our study, with large, racially diverse populations that reflect real world experiences, demonstrates that the new five-tiered GGG system predicts PCSM well regardless of treatment received or clinical stage at diagnosis. PATIENT SUMMARY: In this report we examined prostate cancer mortality using the new five-tiered cancer grading system using data for a large US population. We found that the new five-tiered cancer grading system can predict prostate cancer-specific mortality well, regardless of the type of primary cancer treatment and clinical stage. We conclude that this new five-tiered cancer grading system is useful in guiding treatment decisions.
This population-based study assesses whether a proposed five-tiered Gleason grade grouping (GGG) system predicts prostate cancer-specific mortality (PCSM). Using the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER) database, we identified 331320 prostate cancerpatients who had primary and secondary Gleason patterns diagnosed between January 2006 and December 2012. We used the Fine and Gray proportional hazards model for subdistributions and the corresponding cumulative incidence to quantify the risk of PCSM. We found that the risk of PCSM approximately doubled with each GGG increase. Among men who underwent radical prostatectomy and using GGG1 (Gleason score ≤6) as the reference group, the adjusted hazard ratio for PCSM was 1.13 (95% confidence interval [CI] 0.83-1.54) for GGG2, 1.87 (95% CI 1.33-2.65) for GGG3, 5.03 (95% CI 3.59-7.06) for GGG4, and 10.92 (CI 8.03-14.84) for GGG5. Similar patterns were observed regardless of the type of primary cancer treatment received or clinical stage. In summary, our study, with large, racially diverse populations that reflect real world experiences, demonstrates that the new five-tiered GGG system predicts PCSM well regardless of treatment received or clinical stage at diagnosis. PATIENT SUMMARY: In this report we examined prostate cancer mortality using the new five-tiered cancer grading system using data for a large US population. We found that the new five-tiered cancer grading system can predict prostate cancer-specific mortality well, regardless of the type of primary cancer treatment and clinical stage. We conclude that this new five-tiered cancer grading system is useful in guiding treatment decisions.
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
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
Authors: Amar U Kishan; Ryan R Cook; Jay P Ciezki; Ashley E Ross; Mark M Pomerantz; Paul L Nguyen; Talha Shaikh; Phuoc T Tran; Kiri A Sandler; Richard G Stock; Gregory S Merrick; D Jeffrey Demanes; Daniel E Spratt; Eyad I Abu-Isa; Trude B Wedde; Wolfgang Lilleby; Daniel J Krauss; Grace K Shaw; Ridwan Alam; Chandana A Reddy; Andrew J Stephenson; Eric A Klein; Daniel Y Song; Jeffrey J Tosoian; John V Hegde; Sun Mi Yoo; Ryan Fiano; Anthony V D'Amico; Nicholas G Nickols; William J Aronson; Ahmad Sadeghi; Stephen Greco; Curtiland Deville; Todd McNutt; Theodore L DeWeese; Robert E Reiter; Johnathan W Said; Michael L Steinberg; Eric M Horwitz; Patrick A Kupelian; Christopher R King Journal: JAMA Date: 2018-03-06 Impact factor: 56.272
Authors: Michael Ahdoot; Andrew R Wilbur; Sarah E Reese; Amir H Lebastchi; Sherif Mehralivand; Patrick T Gomella; Jonathan Bloom; Sandeep Gurram; Minhaj Siddiqui; Paul Pinsky; Howard Parnes; W Marston Linehan; Maria Merino; Peter L Choyke; Joanna H Shih; Baris Turkbey; Bradford J Wood; Peter A Pinto Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 2020-03-05 Impact factor: 91.245