Raisa S Pompe1,2, Helen Davis-Bondarenko1,3, Emanuele Zaffuto1,4, Zhe Tian1, Shahrokh F Shariat5, Sami-Ramzi Leyh-Bannurah1,2,6, Jonas Schiffmann7, Fred Saad1,3, Hartwig Huland2, Markus Graefen2, Derya Tilki2,6, Pierre I Karakiewicz1,3. 1. Cancer Prognostics and Health Outcomes Unit, University of Montreal Health Center, Montreal, Canada. 2. Martini-Clinic, Prostate Cancer Center, University Hospital Hamburg-Eppendorf, Hamburg, Germany. 3. Department of Urology, University of Montreal Health Center, Montreal, Canada. 4. Department of Urology and Division of Experimental Oncology, URI, Urological Research Institute, IRCCS San Raffaele Scientific Institute, Milan, Italy. 5. Department of Urology, Medical University of Vienna, Vienna, Austria. 6. Department of Urology, University Hcoospital Hamburg-Eppendorf, Hamburg, Germany. 7. Department of Urology, Academic Hospital Braunschweig, Braunschweig, Germany.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: To test discriminant ability of the 2014 ISUP Gleason grade groups (GGG) for prediction of prostate cancer specific mortality (PCSM) after radical prostatectomy (RP), brachytherapy (BT), external beam radiation (EBRT) or no local treatment (NLT) relative to traditional Gleason grading (TGG). METHODS: In the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER)-database (2004-2009), 2,42,531 non-metastatic prostate cancer (PCa) patients were identified, who underwent local treatment (RP, BT, EBRT only) or NLT. Follow-up endpoint was PCSM. Biopsy and/or pathological Gleason score (GS) were categorized as TGG ≤6, 7, 8-10 or GGG: I (≤6), II (3 + 4), III (4 + 3), IV (8), and V (9-10). Kaplan-Meier plots, multivariable Cox regression analyses and receiver operating characteristics (ROC) area under the curve analyses (AUC) were used. RESULTS: Median follow-up was 76 months (IQR: 59-94). For the four examined treatment modalities, all five GGG strata and all three TGG strata independently predicted PCSM. GGG yielded 1.5-fold or greater HR differences between GGG II and GGG III, and twofold or greater HR differences between GGG IV and GGG V. Relative to TGG, GGG added 0.4-1.1% to AUC. CONCLUSIONS: This large population-based cohort study confirms the added discriminant properties of the novel GGG strata and confirms a modest gain in predictive accuracy. Prostate 77: 686-693, 2017.
BACKGROUND: To test discriminant ability of the 2014 ISUP Gleason grade groups (GGG) for prediction of prostate cancer specific mortality (PCSM) after radical prostatectomy (RP), brachytherapy (BT), external beam radiation (EBRT) or no local treatment (NLT) relative to traditional Gleason grading (TGG). METHODS: In the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER)-database (2004-2009), 2,42,531 non-metastatic prostate cancer (PCa) patients were identified, who underwent local treatment (RP, BT, EBRT only) or NLT. Follow-up endpoint was PCSM. Biopsy and/or pathological Gleason score (GS) were categorized as TGG ≤6, 7, 8-10 or GGG: I (≤6), II (3 + 4), III (4 + 3), IV (8), and V (9-10). Kaplan-Meier plots, multivariable Cox regression analyses and receiver operating characteristics (ROC) area under the curve analyses (AUC) were used. RESULTS: Median follow-up was 76 months (IQR: 59-94). For the four examined treatment modalities, all five GGG strata and all three TGG strata independently predicted PCSM. GGG yielded 1.5-fold or greater HR differences between GGG II and GGG III, and twofold or greater HR differences between GGG IV and GGG V. Relative to TGG, GGG added 0.4-1.1% to AUC. CONCLUSIONS: This large population-based cohort study confirms the added discriminant properties of the novel GGG strata and confirms a modest gain in predictive accuracy. Prostate 77: 686-693, 2017.
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: Jörg S Zimmermann; Rudolf Osieka; Thorsten Bruns; Helge Hollberg; Bastian Wiechmann; Olaf Netzbandt; Jörg Sablotny; Michael Malade; Matthias Heitz; Fritz Bernhardt; Jörg Tiemann; Marc Wilkens; Tom Brüske; Utz Welker; Volker Heinemann; Petra Zimmermann; Salvador Fernandez de la Maza; Dietrich Pfeiffer; Prof Roland Tauber; Dorothea Thomas; Christos Moustakis Journal: J Contemp Brachytherapy Date: 2018-08-31
Authors: Luigi Cormio; Luca Cindolo; Francesco Troiano; Michele Marchioni; Giuseppe Di Fino; Vito Mancini; Ugo Falagario; Oscar Selvaggio; Francesca Sanguedolce; Francesca Fortunato; Luigi Schips; Giuseppe Carrieri Journal: Front Oncol Date: 2018-10-16 Impact factor: 6.244
Authors: Kirsti Aas; Sophie Dorothea Fosså; Tor Åge Myklebust; Bjørn Møller; Rune Kvåle; Ljiljana Vlatkovic; Viktor Berge Journal: Cancer Med Date: 2020-08-04 Impact factor: 4.452