Literature DB >> 27993581

The effect of limited (tertiary) Gleason pattern 5 on the new prostate cancer grade groups.

Alexander S Baras1, Joel B Nelson2, Misop Han1, Anil V Parwani2, Jonathan I Epstein3.   

Abstract

The risk of recurrence for prostatic adenocarcinoma after prostatectomy, as detected by prostate-specific antigen or other modalities, is based primarily on Gleason score along with pathologic tumor stage and surgical margin status. Recent large multi-institutional data spanning the last decade have supported modification of risk of recurrence stratification based on grade groups: grade group 1 (3+3=6), grade group 2 (3+4=7), grade group 3 (4+3=7), grade group 4 (4+4=8), and grade group 5 (Gleason scores 9 and 10). Using currently accepted grading definitions of grade patterns and grading rules, this study examines how the introduction of a limited, less than 5%, Gleason pattern 5 component at prostatectomy affects prognosis and fits into the grade group schema and reporting. The aggregate data from 2 independent major academic medical centers comprising 7606 patient records were analyzed with respect to biochemical recurrence-free survival. The presence of a limited (tertiary) Gleason pattern 5 component in the context of Gleason scores 3+4=7 (grade group 2) and 4+3=7 (grade group 3) imparts an intermediate prognosis relative to the next highest grade group. As such, we suggest that an additional comment and designation to the grade groups be provided reflecting the increased risk of recurrence in such cases (such as grade group 2+ or 3+). In contrast, the presence of limited (<5%) Gleason pattern 5 in the context of Gleason score 4+4=8 imparts a poor prognosis equivalent to grade group 5 and therefore should be reported as grade group 5.
Copyright © 2016 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Gleason; Grade groups; Pattern 5; Prostate cancer; Tertiary

Mesh:

Year:  2016        PMID: 27993581     DOI: 10.1016/j.humpath.2016.12.008

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Hum Pathol        ISSN: 0046-8177            Impact factor:   3.466


  7 in total

1.  Practice patterns related to prostate cancer grading: results of a 2019 Genitourinary Pathology Society clinician survey.

Authors:  Samson W Fine; Kiril Trpkov; Mahul B Amin; Ferran Algaba; Manju Aron; Dilek E Baydar; Antonio Lopez Beltran; Fadi Brimo; John C Cheville; Maurizio Colecchia; Eva Comperat; Tony Costello; Isabela Werneck da Cunha; Warick Delprado; Angelo M DeMarzo; Giovanna A Giannico; Jennifer B Gordetsky; Charles C Guo; Donna E Hansel; Michelle S Hirsch; Jiaoti Huang; Peter A Humphrey; Rafael E Jimenez; Francesca Khani; Max X Kong; Oleksandr N Kryvenko; L Priya Kunju; Priti Lal; Mathieu Latour; Tamara Lotan; Fiona Maclean; Cristina Magi-Galluzzi; Rohit Mehra; Santosh Menon; Hiroshi Miyamoto; Rodolfo Montironi; George J Netto; Jane K Nguyen; Adeboye O Osunkoya; Anil Parwani; Christian P Pavlovich; Brian D Robinson; Mark A Rubin; Rajal B Shah; Jeffrey S So; Hiroyuki Takahashi; Fabio Tavora; Maria S Tretiakova; Lawrence True; Sara E Wobker; Ximing J Yang; Ming Zhou; Debra L Zynger; Jonathan I Epstein
Journal:  Urol Oncol       Date:  2020-09-15       Impact factor: 2.954

2.  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

3.  Alternative prostate cancer grading systems incorporating percent pattern 4/5 (IQ-Gleason) and cribriform architecture (cGrade) improve prediction of outcome after radical prostatectomy.

Authors:  Neslisah Seyrek; Eva Hollemans; Eleni-Rosalina Andrinopoulou; Susanne Osanto; Rob C M Pelger; Henk G van der Poel; Elise Bekers; Sebastiaan Remmers; Ivo G Schoots; Geert J L H van Leenders
Journal:  Virchows Arch       Date:  2022-02-14       Impact factor: 4.535

4.  Cribriform architecture outperforms Gleason pattern 4 percentage and tertiary Gleason pattern 5 in predicting the outcome of Grade Group 2 prostate cancer patients.

Authors:  Neslisah Seyrek; Eva Hollemans; Susanne Osanto; Rob C M Pelger; Henk G van der Poel; Elise Bekers; Chris H Bangma; John Rietbergen; Monique J Roobol; Ivo G Schoots; Geert J L H van Leenders
Journal:  Histopathology       Date:  2021-12-14       Impact factor: 7.778

5.  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

6.  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

7.  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

  7 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.