BACKGROUND: Presence of small (tertiary) Gleason 5 pattern is linked to a higher risk of biochemical recurrence in prostate cancer. It is unclear, however, how to integrate small Gleason 5 elements into clinically relevant Gleason grade groups. OBJECTIVE: To analyze the prognostic impact of Gleason 5 patterns in prostate cancer and to develop a method for integrating tertiary Gleason 5 patterns into a quantitative Gleason grading system. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: Prostatectomy specimens from 13 261 consecutive patients and of 3295 matched preoperative biopsies were available. Percentages of Gleason 3, 4, and 5 had been recorded for each cancer. Outcome measurements and statistical analysis: RESULTS AND LIMITATIONS: Our data demonstrate that minimal Gleason 5 areas have strong prognostic impact in Gleason 7 carcinomas, while further expansion of the Gleason 5 pattern population has less impact. We thus defined an integrated quantitative Gleason score (IQ-Gleason) by adding a lump score of 10 to the percentage of unfavorable Gleason pattern (Gleason 4/5) if any Gleason 5 was present and by adding another 7.5 points in case of a Gleason 5 fraction >20%. There was a continuous increase of the risk of prostate-specific antigen recurrence with increasing IQ-Gleason. This was also true for subgroups with identical Cancer of the Prostate Risk Assessment Postsurgical scores (p<0.0001) or Gleason grade groups (p<0.0001). CONCLUSIONS: The IQ-Gleason represents a simple and efficient approach for combining both quantitative Gleason grading and tertiary Gleason grades in one highly prognostic numerical variable. PATIENT SUMMARY: Prostatectomy specimens (13 261) were analyzed to estimate the relevance of small Gleason 5 elements in prostate cancers. Even the smallest Gleason 5 areas markedly increased the risk of prostate-specific antigen recurrence after surgery. Larger fractions of Gleason 5 patterns had less further impact on prognosis. Based on this, a numerical Gleason score (integrated quantitative Gleason score) was defined by the percentages of Gleason 4 and 5 patterns, enabling a refined estimate of patient prognosis.
BACKGROUND: Presence of small (tertiary) Gleason 5 pattern is linked to a higher risk of biochemical recurrence in prostate cancer. It is unclear, however, how to integrate small Gleason 5 elements into clinically relevant Gleason grade groups. OBJECTIVE: To analyze the prognostic impact of Gleason 5 patterns in prostate cancer and to develop a method for integrating tertiary Gleason 5 patterns into a quantitative Gleason grading system. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: Prostatectomy specimens from 13 261 consecutive patients and of 3295 matched preoperative biopsies were available. Percentages of Gleason 3, 4, and 5 had been recorded for each cancer. Outcome measurements and statistical analysis: RESULTS AND LIMITATIONS: Our data demonstrate that minimal Gleason 5 areas have strong prognostic impact in Gleason 7 carcinomas, while further expansion of the Gleason 5 pattern population has less impact. We thus defined an integrated quantitative Gleason score (IQ-Gleason) by adding a lump score of 10 to the percentage of unfavorable Gleason pattern (Gleason 4/5) if any Gleason 5 was present and by adding another 7.5 points in case of a Gleason 5 fraction >20%. There was a continuous increase of the risk of prostate-specific antigen recurrence with increasing IQ-Gleason. This was also true for subgroups with identical Cancer of the Prostate Risk Assessment Postsurgical scores (p<0.0001) or Gleason grade groups (p<0.0001). CONCLUSIONS: The IQ-Gleason represents a simple and efficient approach for combining both quantitative Gleason grading and tertiary Gleason grades in one highly prognostic numerical variable. PATIENT SUMMARY: Prostatectomy specimens (13 261) were analyzed to estimate the relevance of small Gleason 5 elements in prostate cancers. Even the smallest Gleason 5 areas markedly increased the risk of prostate-specific antigen recurrence after surgery. Larger fractions of Gleason 5 patterns had less further impact on prognosis. Based on this, a numerical Gleason score (integrated quantitative Gleason score) was defined by the percentages of Gleason 4 and 5 patterns, enabling a refined estimate of patient prognosis.
Authors: Jiayun Li; Karthik V Sarma; King Chung Ho; Arkadiusz Gertych; Beatrice S Knudsen; Corey W Arnold Journal: AMIA Annu Symp Proc Date: 2018-04-16
Authors: Anouk A M A van der Aa; Christophe K Mannaerts; Hans van der Linden; Maudy Gayet; Bart Ph Schrier; Massimo Mischi; Harrie P Beerlage; Hessel Wijkstra Journal: World J Urol Date: 2018-02-01 Impact factor: 4.226
Authors: Brendon S Restall; Brendyn D Cikaluk; Matthew T Martell; Nathaniel J M Haven; Rohan Mittal; Sveta Silverman; Lashan Peiris; Jean Deschenes; Benjamin A Adam; Adam Kinnaird; Roger J Zemp Journal: Biomed Opt Express Date: 2021-12-02 Impact factor: 3.732
Authors: Kevin Sandeman; Sami Blom; Ville Koponen; Anniina Manninen; Juuso Juhila; Antti Rannikko; Tuomas Ropponen; Tuomas Mirtti Journal: Diagnostics (Basel) Date: 2022-04-20
Authors: Cosima Göbel; Cansu Özden; Cornelia Schroeder; Claudia Hube-Magg; Martina Kluth; Christina Möller-Koop; Emily Neubauer; Andrea Hinsch; Frank Jacobsen; Ronald Simon; Guido Sauter; Uwe Michl; Dirk Pehrke; Hartwig Huland; Markus Graefen; Thorsten Schlomm; Andreas M Luebke Journal: Cancer Manag Res Date: 2018-11-09 Impact factor: 3.989
Authors: Andreas Marx; Aljoscha Schumann; Doris Höflmayer; Elena Bady; Claudia Hube-Magg; Katharina Möller; Maria Christina Tsourlakis; Stefan Steurer; Franziska Büscheck; Till Eichenauer; Till S Clauditz; Markus Graefen; Ronald Simon; Guido Sauter; Jakob R Izbicki; Hartwig Huland; Hans Heinzer; Alexander Haese; Thorsten Schlomm; Christian Bernreuther; Patrick Lebok; Adam Polonski Journal: Sci Rep Date: 2020-06-02 Impact factor: 4.379
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