PURPOSE: To our knowledge the ideal methodology of quantifying secondary Gleason pattern 4 in men with Grade Group 2/Gleason score 3 + 4 = 7 on biopsy remains unknown. We compared various methods of Gleason pattern 4 quantification and evaluated associations with adverse pathology findings at radical prostatectomy. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A total of 457 men with Grade Group 2 prostate cancer on biopsy subsequently underwent radical prostatectomy at our institution. Only patients with 12 or more reviewed cores were included in analysis. We evaluated 3 methods of quantifying Gleason pattern 4, including the maximum percent of Gleason pattern 4 in any single core, the overall percent of Gleason pattern 4 (Gleason pattern 4 mm/total cancer mm) and the total length of Gleason pattern 4 in mm across all cores. Adverse pathology features at radical prostatectomy were defined as Gleason score 4 + 3 = 7 or greater (Grade Group 3 or greater), and any extraprostatic extension, seminal vesical invasion and/or lymph node metastasis. A training/test set approach and multivariable logistic regression were used to determine whether Gleason pattern 4 quantification methods could aid in predicting adverse pathology. RESULTS: On multivariable analysis all Gleason pattern 4 quantification methods were significantly associated with an increased risk of adverse pathology (p <0.0001) and an increased AUC beyond the base model. The largest AUC increase was 0.044 for the total length of Gleason pattern 4 (AUC 0.728, 95% CI 0.663-0.793). Decision curve analysis demonstrated an increased clinical net benefit with the addition of Gleason pattern 4 quantification to the base model. The total length of Gleason pattern 4 clearly provided the largest net benefit. CONCLUSIONS: Our findings support the inclusion of Gleason pattern 4 quantification in the pathology reports and risk prediction models of patients with Grade Group 2/Gleason score 3 + 4 = 7 prostate cancer. The total length of Gleason pattern 4 across all cores provided the strongest benefit to predict adverse pathology features.
PURPOSE: To our knowledge the ideal methodology of quantifying secondary Gleason pattern 4 in men with Grade Group 2/Gleason score 3 + 4 = 7 on biopsy remains unknown. We compared various methods of Gleason pattern 4 quantification and evaluated associations with adverse pathology findings at radical prostatectomy. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A total of 457 men with Grade Group 2 prostate cancer on biopsy subsequently underwent radical prostatectomy at our institution. Only patients with 12 or more reviewed cores were included in analysis. We evaluated 3 methods of quantifying Gleason pattern 4, including the maximum percent of Gleason pattern 4 in any single core, the overall percent of Gleason pattern 4 (Gleason pattern 4 mm/total cancer mm) and the total length of Gleason pattern 4 in mm across all cores. Adverse pathology features at radical prostatectomy were defined as Gleason score 4 + 3 = 7 or greater (Grade Group 3 or greater), and any extraprostatic extension, seminal vesical invasion and/or lymph node metastasis. A training/test set approach and multivariable logistic regression were used to determine whether Gleason pattern 4 quantification methods could aid in predicting adverse pathology. RESULTS: On multivariable analysis all Gleason pattern 4 quantification methods were significantly associated with an increased risk of adverse pathology (p <0.0001) and an increased AUC beyond the base model. The largest AUC increase was 0.044 for the total length of Gleason pattern 4 (AUC 0.728, 95% CI 0.663-0.793). Decision curve analysis demonstrated an increased clinical net benefit with the addition of Gleason pattern 4 quantification to the base model. The total length of Gleason pattern 4 clearly provided the largest net benefit. CONCLUSIONS: Our findings support the inclusion of Gleason pattern 4 quantification in the pathology reports and risk prediction models of patients with Grade Group 2/Gleason score 3 + 4 = 7 prostate cancer. The total length of Gleason pattern 4 across all cores provided the strongest benefit to predict adverse pathology features.
Authors: Michael S Leapman; Janet E Cowan; Hao G Nguyen; Katsuto K Shinohara; Nannette Perez; Matthew R Cooperberg; William J Catalona; Peter R Carroll Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2017-03-27 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: Byong Chang Jeong; Heather J Chalfin; Seung Bae Lee; Zhaoyong Feng; Jonathan I Epstein; Bruce J Trock; Alan W Partin; Elizabeth Humphreys; Patrick C Walsh; Misop Han Journal: Eur Urol Date: 2014-06-23 Impact factor: 20.096
Authors: Ronald C Chen; R Bryan Rumble; D Andrew Loblaw; Antonio Finelli; Behfar Ehdaie; Matthew R Cooperberg; Scott C Morgan; Scott Tyldesley; John J Haluschak; Winston Tan; Stewart Justman; Suneil Jain Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2016-02-16 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: Guido Sauter; Stefan Steurer; Till Sebastian Clauditz; Till Krech; Corinna Wittmer; Florian Lutz; Maximilian Lennartz; Tim Janssen; Nayira Hakimi; Ronald Simon; Mareike von Petersdorff-Campen; Frank Jacobsen; Katharina von Loga; Waldemar Wilczak; Sarah Minner; Maria Christina Tsourlakis; Viktoria Chirico; Alexander Haese; Hans Heinzer; Burkhard Beyer; Markus Graefen; Uwe Michl; Georg Salomon; Thomas Steuber; Lars Henrik Budäus; Elena Hekeler; Julia Malsy-Mink; Sven Kutzera; Christoph Fraune; Cosima Göbel; Hartwig Huland; Thorsten Schlomm Journal: Eur Urol Date: 2015-11-02 Impact factor: 20.096
Authors: Dimple Chakravarty; Parita Ratnani; Li Huang; Zachary Dovey; Stanislaw Sobotka; Roy Berryhill; Harri Merisaari; Majd Al Shaarani; Richa Rai; Ivan Jambor; Kamlesh K Yadav; Sandeep Mittan; Sneha Parekh; Julia Kodysh; Vinayak Wagaskar; Rachel Brody; Carlos Cordon-Cardo; Dmitry Rykunov; Boris Reva; Elai Davicioni; Peter Wiklund; Nina Bhardwaj; Sujit S Nair; Ashutosh K Tewari Journal: Cancers (Basel) Date: 2022-05-31 Impact factor: 6.575
Authors: Marlon Perera; Melissa J Assel; Nicole E Benfante; Andrew J Vickers; Victor E Reuter; Sigrid Carlsson; Vincent Laudone; Karim A Touijer; James A Eastham; Peter T Scardino; Samson W Fine; Behfar Ehdaie Journal: J Urol Date: 2022-04-01 Impact factor: 7.600
Authors: Sigrid Carlsson; Nicole Benfante; Ricardo Alvim; Daniel D Sjoberg; Andrew Vickers; Victor E Reuter; Samson W Fine; Hebert Alberto Vargas; Michal Wiseman; Maha Mamoor; Behfar Ehdaie; Vincent Laudone; Peter Scardino; James Eastham; Karim Touijer Journal: J Urol Date: 2020-01-07 Impact factor: 7.450
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
Authors: Doo Yong Chung; Dong Hoon Koh; Hyeok Jun Goh; Min Seok Kim; Jong Soo Lee; Won Sik Jang; Young Deuk Choi Journal: BMC Cancer Date: 2018-11-01 Impact factor: 4.430