Literature DB >> 33708544

Exploration on Gleason score variation trend of patients with prostate carcinoma from 1996 to 2019: a retrospective single center study.

Weiyu Zhang1, Gongwei Wang2, Fengling Lan3, Huanrui Wang1, Danhua Shen2, Kexin Xu1, Tao Xu1, Hao Hu1.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Gleason score (GS) is one of the stronger prognostic factors and is integral to the management of prostate carcinoma. Subsequent modifications, recommended by the International Society of Urological Pathology in 2005 and 2014, enabled accurate prediction of prognosis. The present study investigated GS variation trend of patients with prostate carcinoma from 1996 to 2019 and offered an overview of GS changes with age, specimen type, histopathological type and serum prostate specific antigen (PSA).
METHODS: One thousand three hundred and seventy-six patients, admitted to Peking University People's Hospital in 1996 to 2019, were divided into 1996 to 2006, 2007 to 2015 and 2016 to 2019 groups. Data, including demographic characteristics, GS, primary and secondary grade and percentage of primary and secondary grade of each group, were collected and analyzed. The population distribution and average of GS was evaluated, after segmented and stratified by age, type of specimen, histopathological type and PSA.
RESULTS: The average of age and PSA of each cohort had no obvious change. The average of total GS fluctuated among three cohorts with statistically significant differences. The distribution of age and PSA did not differ among cohorts. The distribution of total and primary GS shifted, with more patients detected as total GS higher than 6 (86.1%), and more primary grade higher than 3 (56.7%) in 2016-2019. After segmented and stratified by age, specimen type, histological type and PSA, the population percentage of GS over 6 was significantly higher in 2016-2019 than 1996-2006 and 2007-2015 in patients aged younger than 80 years (age <60, 89.6%, age 60-69, 82.0%, age 70-79, 87.7%). Patients, aged below 80 years in 2016-2019, were detected with higher total GS.
CONCLUSIONS: In the present study, GS in patients with prostate carcinoma showed a upward trend. Primary grade, age, serum PSA and specimen type were the main reasons for GS changing while secondary grade, tissue types and diagnostic criteria influenced less. 2021 Gland Surgery. All rights reserved.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Gleason score; Prostate carcinoma (PCa); age; prostate specific antigen (PSA); the type of specimen

Year:  2021        PMID: 33708544      PMCID: PMC7944060          DOI: 10.21037/gs-20-659

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Gland Surg        ISSN: 2227-684X


  26 in total

1.  Impact on the clinical outcome of prostate cancer by the 2005 international society of urological pathology modified Gleason grading system.

Authors:  Fei Dong; Chaofu Wang; A Brad Farris; Shulin Wu; Hang Lee; Aria F Olumi; W Scott McDougal; Robert H Young; Chin-Lee Wu
Journal:  Am J Surg Pathol       Date:  2012-06       Impact factor: 6.394

2.  Downgrading of biopsy based Gleason score in prostatectomy specimens.

Authors:  Kilian M Treurniet; Dominique Trudel; Jenna Sykes; Andrew J Evans; Antonio Finelli; Theodorus H Van der Kwast
Journal:  J Clin Pathol       Date:  2013-10-29       Impact factor: 3.411

3.  Upgrade in Gleason score between prostate biopsies and pathology following radical prostatectomy significantly impacts upon the risk of biochemical recurrence.

Authors:  Niall M Corcoran; Matthew K H Hong; Rowan G Casey; Antonio Hurtado-Coll; Justin Peters; Laurence Harewood; S Larry Goldenberg; Chris M Hovens; Anthony J Costello; Martin E Gleave
Journal:  BJU Int       Date:  2011-03-28       Impact factor: 5.588

4.  Trends in Gleason score for prostate cancer diagnosed between 1983 and 1993.

Authors:  F D Gilliland; D F Gleason; W C Hunt; N Stone; L C Harlan; C R Key
Journal:  J Urol       Date:  2001-03       Impact factor: 7.450

5.  Gleason inflation 1998-2011: a registry study of 97,168 men.

Authors:  Daniela Danneman; Linda Drevin; David Robinson; Pär Stattin; Lars Egevad
Journal:  BJU Int       Date:  2015-02       Impact factor: 5.588

Review 6.  The 2014 International Society of Urological Pathology (ISUP) Consensus Conference on Gleason Grading of Prostatic Carcinoma: Definition of Grading Patterns and Proposal for a New Grading System.

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

7.  The Gleason score shift: score four and seven years ago.

Authors:  Derek B Chism; Alexandra L Hanlon; Patricia Troncoso; Tahseen Al-Saleem; Eric M Horwitz; Alan Pollack
Journal:  Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys       Date:  2003-08-01       Impact factor: 7.038

8.  Cancer statistics in China, 2015.

Authors:  Wanqing Chen; Rongshou Zheng; Peter D Baade; Siwei Zhang; Hongmei Zeng; Freddie Bray; Ahmedin Jemal; Xue Qin Yu; Jie He
Journal:  CA Cancer J Clin       Date:  2016-01-25       Impact factor: 508.702

9.  Predicting the risk of patients with biopsy Gleason score 6 to harbor a higher grade cancer.

Authors:  Ofer N Gofrit; Kevin C Zorn; Jerome B Taxy; Shang Lin; Gregory P Zagaja; Gary D Steinberg; Arieh L Shalhav
Journal:  J Urol       Date:  2007-09-17       Impact factor: 7.450

10.  [Relation of serum prostate-specific antigen and the Gleason grade in patients with prostatic carcinoma].

Authors:  Sladana Zivković; Ljubinka Velicković; Milos Kostov; Nebojsa Stojanović
Journal:  Vojnosanit Pregl       Date:  2003 Jul-Aug       Impact factor: 0.168

View more
  1 in total

1.  The Expression of miR-205 in Prostate Carcinoma and the Relationship with Prognosis in Patients.

Authors:  Zhuifeng Guo; Xuwei Lu; Fan Yang; Liang Qin; Ning Yang; Peiran Cai; Conghui Han; Jiawen Wu; Hang Wang
Journal:  Comput Math Methods Med       Date:  2022-08-30       Impact factor: 2.809

  1 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.