Literature DB >> 28975495

Evaluation of tumor morphologies and association with biochemical recurrence after radical prostatectomy in grade group 5 prostate cancer.

Trevor A Flood1, Nicola Schieda2, Jordan Sim3, Rodney H Breau4, Chris Morash4, Eric C Belanger3, Susan J Robertson3.   

Abstract

We assessed Gleason pattern 5 (GP5) and other prostatic adenocarcinoma (PCa) morphologies to determine their association with biochemical recurrence (BCR). A search for grade group 5 PCa with radical prostatectomy (RP) yielded 49 patients. RPs were reviewed for %GP5 and morphologies (sheets, single cells, cords, small solid cylinders, solid medium to large nests with rosette-like spaces [SMLNRS], comedonecrosis, cribriform glands, glomerulations, intraductal carcinoma of the prostate [IDC-P], and prostatic ductal adenocarcinoma [PDCa]). Prevalence of morphologies was as follows: single cells 100%, cribriform glands 98.7%, cords 85.7%, IDC-P 77.6%, comedonecrosis 53.1%, sheets 49.0%, small solid cylinders 49.0%, PDCa 44.9%, glomerulations 34.7%, and SMLNRS 14.3%. From 28 patients who were treated with RP as monotherapy, 64.3% (18/28) had BCR. Comedonecrosis, sheets, small solid cylinders, IDC-P, and PDCa were significantly associated with BCR. Number of morphologies on RP and %GP5 were higher in patients with BCR (6.8 ± 2.1 versus 3.7 ± 2.9%; P < 0.001 and 26.9 ± 16.8 versus 11.4 ± 14.1%; P = 0.02) with area under ROC curve of 0.89 (confidence intervals [CI] 0.77-1.00). Sensitivity/specificity was 77.8/80.0% for predicting BCR when ≥ 5 morphologies were present and 0.79 (CI 0.60-0.99) with sensitivity/specificity of 66.7/80.0% for predicting BCR when ≥ 15% GP5 was present. Hazard ratio for BCR was higher with increasing number of morphologies (1.23, CI 1.02-1.49; P = 0.034) but not %GP5 (0.99, CI 0.97-1.02, P = 0.622). Our results indicate that GP5 morphologies may represent a biologically heterogeneous group and that an increasing number of PCa morphologies on RP is strongly associated with an increased risk of BCR.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Biochemical recurrence; Gleason pattern; Gleason score; Prostate; Prostate cancer; Radical prostatectomy

Mesh:

Year:  2017        PMID: 28975495     DOI: 10.1007/s00428-017-2241-9

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Virchows Arch        ISSN: 0945-6317            Impact factor:   4.064


  40 in total

1.  Intraductal carcinoma of the prostate without invasive carcinoma on needle biopsy: emphasis on radical prostatectomy findings.

Authors:  Brian D Robinson; Jonathan I Epstein
Journal:  J Urol       Date:  2010-08-17       Impact factor: 7.450

2.  Diagnosis of Gleason pattern 5 prostate adenocarcinoma on core needle biopsy: an interobserver reproducibility study among urologic pathologists.

Authors:  Rajal B Shah; Jianbo Li; Liang Cheng; Lars Egevad; Fang-Ming Deng; Samson W Fine; Lakshmi P Kunju; Jonathan Melamed; Rohit Mehra; Adeboye O Osunkoya; Gladell P Paner; Steve S Shen; Toyonori Tsuzuki; Kiril Trpkov; Wei Tian; Ximing J Yang; Ming Zhou
Journal:  Am J Surg Pathol       Date:  2015-09       Impact factor: 6.394

3.  Prognostic impact of intraductal carcinoma and large cribriform carcinoma architecture after prostatectomy in a contemporary cohort.

Authors:  Dominique Trudel; Michelle R Downes; Jenna Sykes; Ken J Kron; John Trachtenberg; Theodorus H van der Kwast
Journal:  Eur J Cancer       Date:  2014-04-03       Impact factor: 9.162

Review 4.  High-risk prostate cancer: the role of surgical management.

Authors:  Alessandro Morlacco; R Jeffrey Karnes
Journal:  Crit Rev Oncol Hematol       Date:  2016-04-27       Impact factor: 6.312

Review 5.  The 2014 International Society of Urological Pathology (ISUP) Consensus Conference on Gleason Grading of Prostatic Carcinoma: Definition of Grading Patterns and Proposal for a New Grading System.

Authors:  Jonathan I Epstein; Lars Egevad; Mahul B Amin; Brett Delahunt; John R Srigley; Peter A Humphrey
Journal:  Am J Surg Pathol       Date:  2016-02       Impact factor: 6.394

6.  Cribriform morphology predicts upstaging after radical prostatectomy in patients with Gleason score 3 + 4 = 7 prostate cancer at transrectal ultrasound (TRUS)-guided needle biopsy.

Authors:  Daniel T Keefe; Nicola Schieda; Soufiane El Hallani; Rodney H Breau; Chris Morash; Susan J Robertson; Kien T Mai; Eric C Belanger; Trevor A Flood
Journal:  Virchows Arch       Date:  2015-07-31       Impact factor: 4.064

7.  Biochemical recurrence-free survival after robotic-assisted laparoscopic vs open radical prostatectomy for intermediate- and high-risk prostate cancer.

Authors:  Chad R Ritch; Chaochen You; Alexandra T May; S Duke Herrell; Peter E Clark; David F Penson; Sam S Chang; Michael S Cookson; Joseph A Smith; Daniel A Barocas
Journal:  Urology       Date:  2014-04-18       Impact factor: 2.649

8.  Disease-specific survival of patients with invasive cribriform and intraductal prostate cancer at diagnostic biopsy.

Authors:  Charlotte F Kweldam; Intan P Kümmerlin; Daan Nieboer; Esther I Verhoef; Ewout W Steyerberg; Theodorus H van der Kwast; Monique J Roobol; Geert J van Leenders
Journal:  Mod Pathol       Date:  2016-03-04       Impact factor: 7.842

9.  The impact of pathologic staging on the long-term oncologic outcomes of patients with clinically high-risk prostate cancer.

Authors:  Michael R Abern; Martha K Terris; William J Aronson; Christopher J Kane; Christopher L Amling; Matthew R Cooperberg; Stephen J Freedland
Journal:  Cancer       Date:  2014-03-19       Impact factor: 6.860

10.  Impact of lymphovascular invasion on lymph node metastasis for patients undergoing radical prostatectomy with negative resection margin.

Authors:  Yong Jin Kang; Hyun-Soo Kim; Won Sik Jang; Jong Kyou Kwon; Cheol Yong Yoon; Joo Yong Lee; Kang Su Cho; Won Sik Ham; Young Deuk Choi
Journal:  BMC Cancer       Date:  2017-05-08       Impact factor: 4.430

View more
  6 in total

1.  Prostate cancer growth patterns beyond the Gleason score: entering a new era of comprehensive tumour grading.

Authors:  Geert J L H van Leenders; Esther I Verhoef; Eva Hollemans
Journal:  Histopathology       Date:  2020-09-13       Impact factor: 5.087

2.  Prognostic Utility of the Gleason Grading System Revisions and Histopathological Factors Beyond Gleason Grade.

Authors:  Gianluigi Zanetti; Renata Zelic; Francesca Giunchi; Jonna Fridfeldt; Jessica Carlsson; Sabina Davidsson; Luca Lianas; Cecilia Mascia; Daniela Zugna; Luca Molinaro; Per Henrik Vincent; Ove Andrén; Lorenzo Richiardi; Olof Akre; Michelangelo Fiorentino; Andreas Pettersson
Journal:  Clin Epidemiol       Date:  2022-01-18       Impact factor: 4.790

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.  Beyond the Gleason score: the prognostic significance of prostate cancer subtypes.

Authors:  Trevor A Flood; Nicola Schieda
Journal:  Transl Androl Urol       Date:  2018-05

6.  Comedonecrosis Gleason pattern 5 is associated with worse clinical outcome in operated prostate cancer patients.

Authors:  Tim Hansum; Eva Hollemans; Esther I Verhoef; Chris H Bangma; John Rietbergen; Susanne Osanto; Rob C M Pelger; Tom van Wezel; Henk van der Poel; Elise Bekers; Jozien Helleman; Sebastiaan Remmers; Geert J L H van Leenders
Journal:  Mod Pathol       Date:  2021-06-26       Impact factor: 7.842

  6 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.