Michel Wissing1,2, Fadi Brimo3, Simone Chevalier1, Eleonora Scarlata1, Ginette McKercher1,4, Ana O'Flaherty1, Saro Aprikian4, Valérie Thibodeau4, Fred Saad5, Michel Carmel6, Louis Lacombe7, Bernard Têtu8, Nadia Ekindi-Ndongo9, Mathieu Latour10, Dominique Trudel10, Armen Aprikian1. 1. Department of Urology, McGill University Health Centre, Montreal, QC, Canada. 2. Division of Cancer Epidemiology, Department of Oncology, McGill University, Montreal, QC, Canada. 3. Department of Pathology, McGill University Health Centre, Montreal, QC, Canada. 4. PROCURE, Mount Royal, QC, Canada. 5. Department of Surgery, Université de Montréal, Montreal, QC, Canada. 6. Department of Surgery, Université de Sherbrooke, Sherbrooke, QC, Canada. 7. Department of Surgery, Laval University, Quebec City, QC, Canada. 8. Department of Pathology, Laval University, Quebec City, QC, Canada. 9. Department of Pathology, Université de Sherbrooke, Sherbrooke, QC, Canada. 10. Department of Pathology and Cell Biology, Université de Montreal, Montreal, QC, Canada.
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the five-tier Gleason grade group (GG) scoring of prostate cancers adopted by the International Society of Urology Pathology (ISUP) in 2014, and to propose modifications to optimize its performance. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Data were obtained from PROCURE, a prospective cohort of patients with localized prostate cancer undergoing radical prostatectomy in Québec, 2006-2013. Surgical specimens were evaluated by genitourinary pathologists using 2014 ISUP criteria. Treatment failure was defined as biochemical recurrence and/or initiation of secondary, non-adjuvant therapy. Analyses were conducted using Kaplan-Meier methods, log-rank tests, Cox proportional hazards models and Harrell's concordance indices. RESULTS: A total of 1 917 patients were included, with a median follow-up of 69 months. The 5-year treatment failure rates were 9.6%, 23.5%, 43.1%, 52.6% and 84.3% in GG1-5, respectively (P < 0.001 when comparing GG2 with GG3). Treatment failure rates for patients in GG2 and GG3 with tertiary Gleason 5 pattern were higher than patients in the same group without a tertiary pattern (P < 0.001), but were similar to rates for patients in GGs 3 or 4 without a tertiary pattern (P > 0.3). Primary Gleason pattern (4/5) predicted treatment failure in GG5 (5-year failure rates 82.3% vs 97.1%, respectively; P = 0.001). The five-tier GG system had greater accuracy as a prognostic indicator compared with the four-tier system (Harrell's concordance index 0.716 vs 0.676). When upgrading patients in GG2/3 with tertiary Gleason 5 pattern to patients in GG3/4, and separating patients in GG5 by primary Gleason pattern, the Harrell's concordance index increased to 0.730. CONCLUSION: The five-tier GG system increased accuracy for predicting treatment failure compared with the previous grading systems, but can be further improved.
OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the five-tier Gleason grade group (GG) scoring of prostate cancers adopted by the International Society of Urology Pathology (ISUP) in 2014, and to propose modifications to optimize its performance. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Data were obtained from PROCURE, a prospective cohort of patients with localized prostate cancer undergoing radical prostatectomy in Québec, 2006-2013. Surgical specimens were evaluated by genitourinary pathologists using 2014 ISUP criteria. Treatment failure was defined as biochemical recurrence and/or initiation of secondary, non-adjuvant therapy. Analyses were conducted using Kaplan-Meier methods, log-rank tests, Cox proportional hazards models and Harrell's concordance indices. RESULTS: A total of 1 917 patients were included, with a median follow-up of 69 months. The 5-year treatment failure rates were 9.6%, 23.5%, 43.1%, 52.6% and 84.3% in GG1-5, respectively (P < 0.001 when comparing GG2 with GG3). Treatment failure rates for patients in GG2 and GG3 with tertiary Gleason 5 pattern were higher than patients in the same group without a tertiary pattern (P < 0.001), but were similar to rates for patients in GGs 3 or 4 without a tertiary pattern (P > 0.3). Primary Gleason pattern (4/5) predicted treatment failure in GG5 (5-year failure rates 82.3% vs 97.1%, respectively; P = 0.001). The five-tier GG system had greater accuracy as a prognostic indicator compared with the four-tier system (Harrell's concordance index 0.716 vs 0.676). When upgrading patients in GG2/3 with tertiary Gleason 5 pattern to patients in GG3/4, and separating patients in GG5 by primary Gleason pattern, the Harrell's concordance index increased to 0.730. CONCLUSION: The five-tier GG system increased accuracy for predicting treatment failure compared with the previous grading systems, but can be further improved.