Yuan Zhou1,2, Changming Lin3, Zhihua Hu1,2, Cheng Yang4, Rentao Zhang1,2, Yinman Ding1,2, Zhengquan Wang1,2, Sha Tao1,2, Yanmei Qin5. 1. Department of Urology Surgery, The People's Hospital of Xuancheng City, Xuancheng, China. 2. Wannan Medical College, Yijiang, China. 3. Department of Urology Surgery, The Fourth Affiliated Hospital of AnHui Medical University, Hefei, China. 4. Department of Urology Surgery, The First Affiliated Hospital of Anhui Medical University, Hefei, China. 5. Shanghai Key Laboratory of Tuberculosis, Clinic and Research Center of Tuberculosis, Shanghai Pulmonary Hospital, Tongji University School of Medicine, Shanghai, China.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Although the latest Gleason grading system in 2014 has distinguished between Gleason 3 + 4 and 4 + 3, Gleason 8 and Gleason 9-10 are remained systemically classified. METHODS: A total of 261,125 patients diagnosed with prostate cancer (PCa) were selected between 2005 and 2015 from the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER) database. We used propensity score matching to balance clinical variables and then compared overall survival (OS) and cancer-specific survival (CSS) between Gleason score subgroups. We further establish a new Gleason survival grading system based on the hazard ratio (HR) values of each Gleason subgroup. Cox proportional hazards models and Kaplan-Meier curves were used to compare patient survival. RESULTS: Among PCa patients with Gleason score 8 disease, patients with Gleason 5 + 3 had significantly worse OS and CSS than those with Gleason 3 + 5 (OS: HR = 1.26, p = 0.042; CSS: HR = 1.42, p = 0.005) and 4 + 4 (HR = 1.50 for OS and HR = 1.69 for CSS, p < 0.001 for all). PCa patients with Gleason 5 + 3 and Gleason 4 + 5 may have the similar OS and CSS (reference Gleason score <=6, 5 + 3: OS HR = 2.44, CSS HR = 7.63; 4 + 5: OS HR = 2.40, CSS HR = 8.92; p < 0.001 for all). The new Gleason survival grading system reclassified the grades 4 and 5 of the 2014 updated Gleason grading system into three hierarchical grades, which makes the classification of grades more detailed and accurate. CONCLUSION: PCa patients with Gleason 8-10 may have three different survival subgroups, Gleason 3 + 5 and 4 + 4, Gleason 5 + 3 and 4 + 5, and Gleason 5 + 4 and 5 + 5. Our results maximize risk stratification for PCa patients, provide guidance for clinicians to assess their survival and clinical management, and make a recommendation for the next Gleason grading system update.
BACKGROUND: Although the latest Gleason grading system in 2014 has distinguished between Gleason 3 + 4 and 4 + 3, Gleason 8 and Gleason 9-10 are remained systemically classified. METHODS: A total of 261,125 patients diagnosed with prostate cancer (PCa) were selected between 2005 and 2015 from the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER) database. We used propensity score matching to balance clinical variables and then compared overall survival (OS) and cancer-specific survival (CSS) between Gleason score subgroups. We further establish a new Gleason survival grading system based on the hazard ratio (HR) values of each Gleason subgroup. Cox proportional hazards models and Kaplan-Meier curves were used to compare patient survival. RESULTS: Among PCapatients with Gleason score 8 disease, patients with Gleason 5 + 3 had significantly worse OS and CSS than those with Gleason 3 + 5 (OS: HR = 1.26, p = 0.042; CSS: HR = 1.42, p = 0.005) and 4 + 4 (HR = 1.50 for OS and HR = 1.69 for CSS, p < 0.001 for all). PCapatients with Gleason 5 + 3 and Gleason 4 + 5 may have the similar OS and CSS (reference Gleason score <=6, 5 + 3: OS HR = 2.44, CSS HR = 7.63; 4 + 5: OS HR = 2.40, CSS HR = 8.92; p < 0.001 for all). The new Gleason survival grading system reclassified the grades 4 and 5 of the 2014 updated Gleason grading system into three hierarchical grades, which makes the classification of grades more detailed and accurate. CONCLUSION:PCapatients with Gleason 8-10 may have three different survival subgroups, Gleason 3 + 5 and 4 + 4, Gleason 5 + 3 and 4 + 5, and Gleason 5 + 4 and 5 + 5. Our results maximize risk stratification for PCapatients, provide guidance for clinicians to assess their survival and clinical management, and make a recommendation for the next Gleason grading system update.
Authors: Mark L Gonzalgo; Patrick J Bastian; Leslie A Mangold; Bruce J Trock; Jonathan I Epstein; Patrick C Walsh; Alan W Partin Journal: Urology Date: 2006-01 Impact factor: 2.649
Authors: Kenneth A Iczkowski; Kathleen C Torkko; Gregory R Kotnis; R Storey Wilson; Wei Huang; Thomas M Wheeler; Andrea M Abeyta; Francisco G La Rosa; Shelly Cook; Priya N Werahera; M Scott Lucia Journal: Am J Clin Pathol Date: 2011-07 Impact factor: 2.493
Authors: Brandon A Mahal; Vinayak Muralidhar; Yu-Wei Chen; Toni K Choueiri; Karen E Hoffman; Jim C Hu; Christopher J Sweeney; James B Yu; Felix Y Feng; Quoc-Dien Trinh; Paul L Nguyen Journal: BJU Int Date: 2015-08-22 Impact factor: 5.588
Authors: Michel Bolla; Theodorus M de Reijke; Geertjan Van Tienhoven; Alphonsus C M Van den Bergh; Jorg Oddens; Philip M P Poortmans; Eliahu Gez; Paul Kil; Atif Akdas; Guy Soete; Oleg Kariakine; Elsbietha M van der Steen-Banasik; Elena Musat; Marianne Piérart; Murielle E Mauer; Laurence Collette Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 2009-06-11 Impact factor: 91.245
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
Authors: Jennifer R Stark; Sven Perner; Meir J Stampfer; Jennifer A Sinnott; Stephen Finn; Anna S Eisenstein; Jing Ma; Michelangelo Fiorentino; Tobias Kurth; Massimo Loda; Edward L Giovannucci; Mark A Rubin; Lorelei A Mucci Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2009-05-11 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: Jacques Ferlay; Isabelle Soerjomataram; Rajesh Dikshit; Sultan Eser; Colin Mathers; Marise Rebelo; Donald Maxwell Parkin; David Forman; Freddie Bray Journal: Int J Cancer Date: 2014-10-09 Impact factor: 7.396