Norihito Soga1, Yuji Ogura1, Toshiaki Wakita2, Takumi Kageyama3, Jun Furusawa1. 1. Department of Urology, Aichi Cancer Center Hospital, Nagoya. 2. Department of Urology, Wakita Clinic, Aichi. 3. Department of Nephro-Urologic Surgery and Andrology, Mie University Graduate School of Medicine, Mie, Japan.
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: We used a new GP score (Gleason score multiplied by prostate-specific antigen) without the T stage as a predictive value for biochemical failure (BCF) after prostatectomy. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We assessed 459 prostate cancer patients who underwent prostatectomies at our institution. Three sub-groups were defined in terms of D'Amico classification risk (low, intermediate, and high) and Gleason score (low, < 50; intermediate, 50-100; and high GP score, > 100). Risk factors for BCF were evaluated by multivariate analysis with a Cox hazard model. A log-rank test was used to compare the BCF rate in the 2 groups. RESULTS: There was nosignificant difference in the non-BCF rate between the lowrisk and low GP score subgroups or the intermediate risk andintermediate GP score subgroups. In contrast, the non-BCFrate of the high GP score subgroup (42.1%) was significantlylower than that of the high-risk subgroup (66.1%, log-rankp = 0.008). Based on multivariate analysis, a high GP score(p = 0.001; HR 3.78; 95%CI 1.95-7.35) was a significant independent risk factor for BCF after prostatectomy. CONCLUSION: The GP score, consisting of two absolute numbers, may be a valuable predictive factor for BCF after prostatectomy, especially in the high-risk failure group.
OBJECTIVES: We used a new GP score (Gleason score multiplied by prostate-specific antigen) without the T stage as a predictive value for biochemical failure (BCF) after prostatectomy. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We assessed 459 prostate cancer patients who underwent prostatectomies at our institution. Three sub-groups were defined in terms of D'Amico classification risk (low, intermediate, and high) and Gleason score (low, < 50; intermediate, 50-100; and high GP score, > 100). Risk factors for BCF were evaluated by multivariate analysis with a Cox hazard model. A log-rank test was used to compare the BCF rate in the 2 groups. RESULTS: There was nosignificant difference in the non-BCF rate between the lowrisk and low GP score subgroups or the intermediate risk andintermediate GP score subgroups. In contrast, the non-BCFrate of the high GP score subgroup (42.1%) was significantlylower than that of the high-risk subgroup (66.1%, log-rankp = 0.008). Based on multivariate analysis, a high GP score(p = 0.001; HR 3.78; 95%CI 1.95-7.35) was a significant independent risk factor for BCF after prostatectomy. CONCLUSION: The GP score, consisting of two absolute numbers, may be a valuable predictive factor for BCF after prostatectomy, especially in the high-risk failure group.
Authors: P Sooriakumaran; D P Lovell; A Henderson; P Denham; S E M Langley; R W Laing Journal: Clin Oncol (R Coll Radiol) Date: 2005-12 Impact factor: 4.126
Authors: Matthew R Cooperberg; David J Pasta; Eric P Elkin; Mark S Litwin; David M Latini; Janeen Du Chane; Peter R Carroll Journal: J Urol Date: 2005-06 Impact factor: 7.450
Authors: Anthony V D'Amico; Richard Whittington; S Bruce Malkowicz; Kerri Cote; Marian Loffredo; Delray Schultz; Ming-Hui Chen; John E Tomaszewski; Andrew A Renshaw; Alan Wein; Jerome P Richie Journal: Cancer Date: 2002-07-15 Impact factor: 6.860
Authors: A V D'Amico; R Whittington; S B Malkowicz; D Schultz; K Blank; G A Broderick; J E Tomaszewski; A A Renshaw; I Kaplan; C J Beard; A Wein Journal: JAMA Date: 1998-09-16 Impact factor: 56.272
Authors: Rachel Risko; Selin Merdan; Paul R Womble; Christine Barnett; Zaojun Ye; Susan M Linsell; James E Montie; David C Miller; Brian T Denton Journal: Urology Date: 2014-10-05 Impact factor: 2.649