Literature DB >> 29079965

ISUP Group 4 - a Homogenous Group of Prostate Cancers?

Thomas Chengxuan Lu1,2, Kim Moretti3,4,5,6,7, Kerri Beckmann4,5, Penelope Cohen8, Michael O'Callaghan4,9,10,11.   

Abstract

The International Society of Urological Pathology (ISUP) and the World Health Organisation have adopted a five-tiered prognostic grade group for prostate cancer in 2014. Grade group 4 is comprised of Gleason patterns 4 + 4, 3 + 5 and 5 + 3. Recent articles have suggested heterogeneity in their prognostic outcomes. We aimed to determine whether there was a difference in mortality outcomes within the ISUP 4 grouping, as identified on needle biopsy. A total of 4080 men who were diagnosed with non-metastatic (N0 M0) prostate cancer on biopsy with Gleason scores of 7, 8 and 9 were included. Multi-variable Cox Regression and Fine and Grey competing risk analysis were used to determine the All-Cause Mortality (ACM) and the Prostate Cancer Specific Mortality (PCSM) as a function of Gleason Scores (Gleason 3 + 4, 4 + 3, 4 + 4, 3 + 5/5 + 3, 9). Gleason score 4 + 4 was utilized as the referent. The 60 months' prostate cancer specific mortality with Gleason patterns 4 + 4 and 3 + 5/5 + 3 were 17% and 20% respectively (P < 0.01). Patients with 3 + 5/5 + 3 disease, had no statistically significant difference in the ACM (adjusted hazard ratio [aHR] 0.99, 95% confidence interval [Cl] 0.68-1.4, p = 0.99) and PCSM risk (aHR 0.77, 95% Cl 0.47-1.2, p = 0.31) when compare with the referent group of patients. Patients with Gleason patterns 4 + 3 and 9 had statistically significant difference in their PCSM risk (aHR 0.70, 95% CI 0.54-0.91, P < 0.001 and aHR 1.5, 95% Cl 1.2-1.9, P < 0.001) when compared to the referent group. Our analysis suggest that ISUP group 4 is homogenous in terms of the all-cause mortality and the prostate cancer specific morality risk as differentiated by the presence of Gleason 5 score.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Biopsy; Gleason score; Grade group 4; Prostate cancer; Prostate cancer specific mortality

Mesh:

Year:  2017        PMID: 29079965     DOI: 10.1007/s12253-017-0331-2

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Pathol Oncol Res        ISSN: 1219-4956            Impact factor:   3.201


  10 in total

1.  Gleason stratifications prognostic for survival in men receiving definitive external beam radiation therapy for localized prostate cancer.

Authors:  Chad G Rusthoven; Timothy V Waxweiler; Peter E DeWitt; Thomas W Flaig; David Raben; Brian D Kavanagh
Journal:  Urol Oncol       Date:  2014-08-20       Impact factor: 3.498

2.  Gleason pattern 5 is the greatest risk factor for clinical failure and death from prostate cancer after dose-escalated radiation therapy and hormonal ablation.

Authors:  Aaron Sabolch; Felix Y Feng; Stephanie Daignault-Newton; Schuyler Halverson; Kevin Blas; Laura Phelps; Karin B Olson; Howard M Sandler; Daniel A Hamstra
Journal:  Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys       Date:  2011-04-13       Impact factor: 7.038

3.  Validation of the novel International Society of Urological Pathology 2014 five-tier Gleason grade grouping: biochemical recurrence rates for 3+5 disease may be overestimated.

Authors:  Roderick C N van den Bergh; Theo H van der Kwast; Jeroen de Jong; Homayoun Zargar; Andrew J Ryan; Anthony J Costello; Declan G Murphy; Henk G van der Poel
Journal:  BJU Int       Date:  2016-04-01       Impact factor: 5.588

4.  Gleason pattern 5 is the strongest pathologic predictor of recurrence, metastasis, and prostate cancer-specific death in patients receiving salvage radiation therapy following radical prostatectomy.

Authors:  William Jackson; Daniel A Hamstra; Skyler Johnson; Jessica Zhou; Benjamin Foster; Corey Foster; Darren Li; Yeohan Song; Ganesh S Palapattu; Lakshmi P Kunju; Rohit Mehra; Felix Y Feng
Journal:  Cancer       Date:  2013-07-02       Impact factor: 6.860

5.  Gleason score 5 + 3 = 8 prostate cancer: much more like Gleason score 9?

Authors:  Brandon A Mahal; Vinayak Muralidhar; Yu-Wei Chen; Toni K Choueiri; Karen E Hoffman; Jim C Hu; Christopher J Sweeney; James B Yu; Felix Y Feng; Quoc-Dien Trinh; Paul L Nguyen
Journal:  BJU Int       Date:  2015-08-22       Impact factor: 5.588

6.  Gleason Score 3 + 5 or 5 + 3 versus 4 + 4 Prostate Cancer: The Risk of Death.

Authors:  Mai Anh Huynh; Ming-Hui Chen; Jing Wu; Michelle H Braccioforte; Brian J Moran; Anthony V D'Amico
Journal:  Eur Urol       Date:  2015-09-19       Impact factor: 20.096

7.  Addressing overdiagnosis and overtreatment in cancer: a prescription for change.

Authors:  Laura J Esserman; Ian M Thompson; Brian Reid; Peter Nelson; David F Ransohoff; H Gilbert Welch; Shelley Hwang; Donald A Berry; Kenneth W Kinzler; William C Black; Mina Bissell; Howard Parnes; Sudhir Srivastava
Journal:  Lancet Oncol       Date:  2014-05       Impact factor: 41.316

Review 8.  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

9.  Outcome of Gleason 3 + 5 = 8 Prostate Cancer Diagnosed on Needle Biopsy: Prognostic Comparison with Gleason 4 + 4 = 8.

Authors:  Nicholas Harding-Jackson; Oleksandr N Kryvenko; Elizabeth E Whittington; Daniel C Eastwood; George A Tjionas; Merce Jorda; Kenneth A Iczkowski
Journal:  J Urol       Date:  2016-06-02       Impact factor: 7.450

10.  A Contemporary Prostate Cancer Grading System: A Validated Alternative to the Gleason Score.

Authors:  Jonathan I Epstein; Michael J Zelefsky; Daniel D Sjoberg; Joel B Nelson; Lars Egevad; Cristina Magi-Galluzzi; Andrew J Vickers; Anil V Parwani; Victor E Reuter; Samson W Fine; James A Eastham; Peter Wiklund; Misop Han; Chandana A Reddy; Jay P Ciezki; Tommy Nyberg; Eric A Klein
Journal:  Eur Urol       Date:  2015-07-10       Impact factor: 20.096

  10 in total
  1 in total

1.  Prognostic differences among Grade Group 4 subgroups in robotic-assisted radical prostatectomy.

Authors:  Takeshi Sasaki; Shin Ebara; Tomoyuki Tatenuma; Yoshinori Ikehata; Akinori Nakayama; Daiki Kato; Masahiro Toide; Tatsuaki Yoneda; Kazushige Sakaguchi; Jun Teishima; Kazuhide Makiyama; Hiroshi Kitamura; Kazutaka Saito; Takuya Koie; Fumitaka Koga; Shinji Urakami; Takahiro Inoue
Journal:  BJUI Compass       Date:  2022-06-02
  1 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.