A Offermann1,2, M C Hupe3, V Sailer1,2, A S Merseburger3, S Perner4,5. 1. Institute of Pathology, University Hospital Schleswig-Holstein, Campus Luebeck, Luebeck, Germany. 2. Pathology, Research Center Borstel, Leibniz Lung Center, Borstel, Germany. 3. Department of Urology, University Hospital Schleswig-Holstein, Campus Luebeck, Luebeck, Germany. 4. Institute of Pathology, University Hospital Schleswig-Holstein, Campus Luebeck, Luebeck, Germany. sven.perner@uksh.de. 5. Pathology, Research Center Borstel, Leibniz Lung Center, Borstel, Germany. sven.perner@uksh.de.
Abstract
PURPOSE: To systematically and comprehensively review and summarize the most recent literature assessing the value of the new grading system introduced by the International Society of Urological Pathology (ISUP) in 2014 and accepted by the World Health Organization (WHO) in 2016. METHODS: A systematic literature search in the PubMed database was performed up to November 2018. Overall, 15 studies in the period from 2016 to 2018 evaluating the new grading system have been selected for evidence synthesis. RESULTS: The main goals of the new ISUP 2014/WHO 2016 grading system were to establish (I) a more accurate and simplified grade stratification, (II) less overtreatment of indolent prostate cancer as well as (III) an improved patient communication. The majority of the studies chose biochemical recurrence as an endpoint for evaluation and statistically assigns the new ISUP 2014/WHO 2016 grading system a higher prognostic accuracy than the former Gleason grading. However, in only a subset of studies it was clearly evident that the historical samples were not only re-grouped according to the new grade groups but also re-graded according to the new histomorphological 2014 ISUP criteria. CONCLUSIONS: The vast majority of the studies support an improved prognostic accuracy of the ISUP 2014/WHO 2016 grade groups and endorse its worldwide application.
PURPOSE: To systematically and comprehensively review and summarize the most recent literature assessing the value of the new grading system introduced by the International Society of Urological Pathology (ISUP) in 2014 and accepted by the World Health Organization (WHO) in 2016. METHODS: A systematic literature search in the PubMed database was performed up to November 2018. Overall, 15 studies in the period from 2016 to 2018 evaluating the new grading system have been selected for evidence synthesis. RESULTS: The main goals of the new ISUP 2014/WHO 2016 grading system were to establish (I) a more accurate and simplified grade stratification, (II) less overtreatment of indolent prostate cancer as well as (III) an improved patient communication. The majority of the studies chose biochemical recurrence as an endpoint for evaluation and statistically assigns the new ISUP 2014/WHO 2016 grading system a higher prognostic accuracy than the former Gleason grading. However, in only a subset of studies it was clearly evident that the historical samples were not only re-grouped according to the new grade groups but also re-graded according to the new histomorphological 2014 ISUP criteria. CONCLUSIONS: The vast majority of the studies support an improved prognostic accuracy of the ISUP 2014/WHO 2016 grade groups and endorse its worldwide application.
Entities:
Keywords:
Grade group; International Society of Urological Pathology (ISUP); Prognosis; Prostate cancer; World Health Organization (WHO)
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
Authors: Samer Kirmiz; Ji Qi; Stephen K Babitz; Susan Linsell; Brian Denton; Karandeep Singh; Gregory Auffenberg; James E Montie; Brian R Lane Journal: J Urol Date: 2019-02 Impact factor: 7.450
Authors: Philip Cornford; Joaquim Bellmunt; Michel Bolla; Erik Briers; Maria De Santis; Tobias Gross; Ann M Henry; Steven Joniau; Thomas B Lam; Malcolm D Mason; Henk G van der Poel; Theo H van der Kwast; Olivier Rouvière; Thomas Wiegel; Nicolas Mottet Journal: Eur Urol Date: 2016-08-31 Impact factor: 20.096
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