Literature DB >> 29940134

External validation of the novel International Society of Urological Pathology (ISUP) Gleason grading groups in a large contemporary Canadian cohort.

Helen Davis Bondarenko1, Marc Zanaty1, Sabrina S Harmouch1, Cristina Negrean1, Raisa S Pompe1,2, Daniel Liberman1, Naeem Bhojani1, Pierre I Karakiewicz1, Kevin C Zorn1, Assaad El-Hakim1,3.   

Abstract

INTRODUCTION: We sought to test the discriminatory ability of the 2014 International Society of Urological Pathology (ISUP) Gleason grading groups (GGG) for predicting biochemical recurrence (BCR) after robot-assisted radical prostatectomy (RARP) in a large, contemporary, Canadian cohort.
METHODS: A total of 621 patients who underwent RARP in two major Canadian centres were identified in a prospectively maintained Canadian database between 2006 and 2016. Followup endpoint was BCR. Log-rank test, univariable, and multivariable Cox regression analyses were used.
RESULTS: Mean followup was 27.9 months. All five ISUP GGG independently predicted BCR. Statistically significant differences in BCR rates were found between GGG 2 and GGG 3 strata (p<0.001). No statistically significant differences in BCR rates were found between GGG 4 and GGG 5 strata (p=0.3). Relative to GGG 1, the GGG 2, GGG 3, GGG 4, and GGG 5 yielded a 1.10-, 3.44-, 4.18-, and 4.74-fold hazard ratio (HR) increment in BCR, respectively.
CONCLUSIONS: This population-based Canadian cohort study confirms the added discriminatory property of the novel ISUP grading, specifically for GGG 2 and GGG 3 strata. No difference, however, was observed between GGG 4 and GGG 5, likely due to the lower number of patients in these groups. As such, after external validation, the 2014 ISUP GGG appears to retain clinical prognostic significance in a Canadian population.

Entities:  

Year:  2018        PMID: 29940134      PMCID: PMC6261725          DOI: 10.5489/cuaj.5284

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Can Urol Assoc J        ISSN: 1911-6470            Impact factor:   1.862


  14 in total

Review 1.  The 2005 International Society of Urological Pathology (ISUP) Consensus Conference on Gleason Grading of Prostatic Carcinoma.

Authors:  Jonathan I Epstein; William C Allsbrook; Mahul B Amin; Lars L Egevad
Journal:  Am J Surg Pathol       Date:  2005-09       Impact factor: 6.394

2.  Population-Based Validation of the 2014 ISUP Gleason Grade Groups in Patients Treated With Radical Prostatectomy, Brachytherapy, External Beam Radiation, or no Local Treatment.

Authors:  Raisa S Pompe; Helen Davis-Bondarenko; Emanuele Zaffuto; Zhe Tian; Shahrokh F Shariat; Sami-Ramzi Leyh-Bannurah; Jonas Schiffmann; Fred Saad; Hartwig Huland; Markus Graefen; Derya Tilki; Pierre I Karakiewicz
Journal:  Prostate       Date:  2017-02-03       Impact factor: 4.104

3.  Prediction of prognosis for prostatic adenocarcinoma by combined histological grading and clinical staging.

Authors:  D F Gleason; G T Mellinger
Journal:  J Urol       Date:  1974-01       Impact factor: 7.450

4.  The New Prostate Cancer Grading System Does Not Improve Prediction of Clinical Recurrence After Radical Prostatectomy: Results of a Large, Two-Center Validation Study.

Authors:  Paolo Dell'Oglio; Robert Jeffrey Karnes; Giorgio Gandaglia; Nicola Fossati; Armando Stabile; Marco Moschini; Vito Cucchiara; Emanuele Zaffuto; Pierre I Karakiewicz; Nazareno Suardi; Francesco Montorsi; Alberto Briganti
Journal:  Prostate       Date:  2016-10-18       Impact factor: 4.104

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.  Prognostic Gleason grade grouping: data based on the modified Gleason scoring system.

Authors:  Phillip M Pierorazio; Patrick C Walsh; Alan W Partin; Jonathan I Epstein
Journal:  BJU Int       Date:  2013-03-06       Impact factor: 5.588

7.  Evaluation of the 2015 Gleason Grade Groups in a Nationwide Population-based Cohort.

Authors:  Stacy Loeb; Yasin Folkvaljon; David Robinson; Ingela Franck Lissbrant; Lars Egevad; Pär Stattin
Journal:  Eur Urol       Date:  2015-12-17       Impact factor: 20.096

8.  Independent validation of the prognostic capacity of the ISUP prostate cancer grade grouping system for radiation treated patients with long-term follow-up.

Authors:  D E Spratt; W C Jackson; A Abugharib; S A Tomlins; R T Dess; P D Soni; J Y Lee; S G Zhao; A I Cole; Z S Zumsteg; H Sandler; D Hamstra; J W Hearn; G Palapattu; R Mehra; T M Morgan; F Y Feng
Journal:  Prostate Cancer Prostatic Dis       Date:  2016-05-24       Impact factor: 5.554

9.  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.  Validation of a contemporary prostate cancer grading system using prostate cancer death as outcome.

Authors:  Daniel M Berney; Luis Beltran; Gabrielle Fisher; Bernard V North; David Greenberg; Henrik Møller; Geraldine Soosay; Peter Scardino; Jack Cuzick
Journal:  Br J Cancer       Date:  2016-04-21       Impact factor: 7.640

View more
  2 in total

1.  External validation of the Gleason grade group system in Argentinian patients that underwent surgery for prostate cancer.

Authors:  Rubén G Bengió; Leandro Arribillaga; Verónica Bengió; Javier Epelde; Esteban Cordero; Guillermo Oulton; Santiago Carrara; Esteban Arismendi
Journal:  Cent European J Urol       Date:  2020-05-09

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

  2 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.