Literature DB >> 35363038

Oncologic Outcomes of Total Length Gleason Pattern 4 on Biopsy in Men with Grade Group 2 Prostate Cancer.

Marlon Perera1, Melissa J Assel2, Nicole E Benfante2, Andrew J Vickers2, Victor E Reuter3, Sigrid Carlsson1,2,4, Vincent Laudone1, Karim A Touijer1, James A Eastham1, Peter T Scardino1, Samson W Fine3, Behfar Ehdaie1.   

Abstract

PURPOSE: Gleason Score 7 prostate cancer comprises a wide spectrum of disease risk, and precise substratification is paramount. Our group previously demonstrated that the total length of Gleason pattern (GP) 4 is a better predictor than %GP4 for adverse pathological outcomes at radical prostatectomy. We aimed to determine the association of GP4 length on prostate biopsy with post-prostatectomy oncologic outcomes.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: We compared 4 GP4 quantification methods-including maximum %GP4 in any single core, overall %GP4, total length GP4 (mm) across all cores and length GP4 (mm) in the highest volume core-for prediction of biochemical recurrence-free survival after radical prostatectomy using multivariable Cox proportional hazards regression.
RESULTS: A total of 457 men with grade group 2 prostate cancer on biopsy subsequently underwent radical prostatectomy. The 3-year biochemical recurrence-free survival probability was 85% (95% CI 81-88). On multivariable analysis, all 4 GP4 quantification methods were associated with biochemical recurrence-maximum %GP4 (HR=1.30; 95% CI 1.07-1.59; p=0.009), overall %GP4 (HR=1.61; 95% CI 1.21-2.15; p=0.001), total length GP4 (HR=2.48; 95% CI 1.36-4.52; p=0.003) and length GP4 in highest core (HR=1.32; 95% CI 1.11-1.57; p=0.001). However, we were unable to identify differences between methods of quantification with a relatively low event rate.
CONCLUSIONS: These findings support further studies on GP4 quantification in addition to the ratio of GP3 and GP4 to classify prostate cancer risk. Research should also be conducted on whether GP4 quantification could provide a surrogate endpoint for disease progression for trials in active surveillance.

Entities:  

Keywords:  biomarkers; neoplasm grading; prostatectomy; prostatic neoplasms

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2022        PMID: 35363038      PMCID: PMC9283280          DOI: 10.1097/JU.0000000000002685

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Urol        ISSN: 0022-5347            Impact factor:   7.600


  14 in total

1.  Intermediate-Term Outcomes for Men with Very Low/Low and Intermediate/High Risk Prostate Cancer Managed by Active Surveillance.

Authors:  Yaw A Nyame; Nima Almassi; Samuel C Haywood; Daniel J Greene; Vishnu Ganesan; Charles Dai; Joseph Zabell; Chad Reichard; Hans Arora; Anna Zampini; Alice Crane; Daniel Hettel; Ahmed Elshafei; Khaled Fareed; Robert J Stein; Ryan K Berglund; Michael Gong; J Stephen Jones; Eric A Klein; Andrew J Stephenson
Journal:  J Urol       Date:  2017-03-24       Impact factor: 7.450

2.  Clinical Usefulness of Total Length of Gleason Pattern 4 on Biopsy in Men with Grade Group 2 Prostate Cancer.

Authors:  Lucas W Dean; Melissa Assel; Daniel D Sjoberg; Andrew J Vickers; Hikmat A Al-Ahmadie; Ying-Bei Chen; Anuradha Gopalan; S Joseph Sirintrapun; Satish K Tickoo; James A Eastham; Peter T Scardino; Victor E Reuter; Behfar Ehdaie; Samson W Fine
Journal:  J Urol       Date:  2019-01       Impact factor: 7.450

3.  Prostate cancer specific mortality and Gleason 7 disease differences in prostate cancer outcomes between cases with Gleason 4 + 3 and Gleason 3 + 4 tumors in a population based cohort.

Authors:  Jonathan L Wright; Claudia A Salinas; Daniel W Lin; Suzanne Kolb; Joseph Koopmeiners; Ziding Feng; Janet L Stanford
Journal:  J Urol       Date:  2009-12       Impact factor: 7.450

4.  Limitations in Predicting Organ Confined Prostate Cancer in Patients with Gleason Pattern 4 on Biopsy: Implications for Active Surveillance.

Authors:  Nathan Perlis; Rashid Sayyid; Andrew Evans; Theodorus Van Der Kwast; Ants Toi; Antonio Finelli; Girish Kulkarni; Rob Hamilton; Alexandre R Zlotta; John Trachtenberg; Sangeet Ghai; Neil E Fleshner
Journal:  J Urol       Date:  2016-07-22       Impact factor: 7.450

Review 5.  The 2016 WHO Classification of Tumours of the Urinary System and Male Genital Organs-Part A: Renal, Penile, and Testicular Tumours.

Authors:  Holger Moch; Antonio L Cubilla; Peter A Humphrey; Victor E Reuter; Thomas M Ulbright
Journal:  Eur Urol       Date:  2016-02-28       Impact factor: 20.096

Review 6.  EAU-EANM-ESTRO-ESUR-SIOG Guidelines on Prostate Cancer-2020 Update. Part 1: Screening, Diagnosis, and Local Treatment with Curative Intent.

Authors:  Nicolas Mottet; Roderick C N van den Bergh; Erik Briers; Thomas Van den Broeck; Marcus G Cumberbatch; Maria De Santis; Stefano Fanti; Nicola Fossati; Giorgio Gandaglia; Silke Gillessen; Nikos Grivas; Jeremy Grummet; Ann M Henry; Theodorus H van der Kwast; Thomas B Lam; Michael Lardas; Matthew Liew; Malcolm D Mason; Lisa Moris; Daniela E Oprea-Lager; Henk G van der Poel; Olivier Rouvière; Ivo G Schoots; Derya Tilki; Thomas Wiegel; Peter-Paul M Willemse; Philip Cornford
Journal:  Eur Urol       Date:  2020-11-07       Impact factor: 20.096

7.  Clinical Utility of Quantitative Gleason Grading in Prostate Biopsies and Prostatectomy Specimens.

Authors:  Guido Sauter; Stefan Steurer; Till Sebastian Clauditz; Till Krech; Corinna Wittmer; Florian Lutz; Maximilian Lennartz; Tim Janssen; Nayira Hakimi; Ronald Simon; Mareike von Petersdorff-Campen; Frank Jacobsen; Katharina von Loga; Waldemar Wilczak; Sarah Minner; Maria Christina Tsourlakis; Viktoria Chirico; Alexander Haese; Hans Heinzer; Burkhard Beyer; Markus Graefen; Uwe Michl; Georg Salomon; Thomas Steuber; Lars Henrik Budäus; Elena Hekeler; Julia Malsy-Mink; Sven Kutzera; Christoph Fraune; Cosima Göbel; Hartwig Huland; Thorsten Schlomm
Journal:  Eur Urol       Date:  2015-11-02       Impact factor: 20.096

8.  Risk of Metastasis in Men with Grade Group 2 Prostate Cancer Managed with Active Surveillance at a Tertiary Cancer Center.

Authors:  Sigrid Carlsson; Nicole Benfante; Ricardo Alvim; Daniel D Sjoberg; Andrew Vickers; Victor E Reuter; Samson W Fine; Hebert Alberto Vargas; Michal Wiseman; Maha Mamoor; Behfar Ehdaie; Vincent Laudone; Peter Scardino; James Eastham; Karim Touijer
Journal:  J Urol       Date:  2020-01-07       Impact factor: 7.450

9.  A Contemporary Prostate Cancer Grading System: A Validated Alternative to the Gleason Score.

Authors:  Jonathan I Epstein; Michael J Zelefsky; Daniel D Sjoberg; Joel B Nelson; Lars Egevad; Cristina Magi-Galluzzi; Andrew J Vickers; Anil V Parwani; Victor E Reuter; Samson W Fine; James A Eastham; Peter Wiklund; Misop Han; Chandana A Reddy; Jay P Ciezki; Tommy Nyberg; Eric A Klein
Journal:  Eur Urol       Date:  2015-07-10       Impact factor: 20.096

10.  Pathologic upgrading in favorable intermediate risk active surveillance patients: Clinical heterogeneity and implications for active surveillance decision.

Authors:  Rashid K Sayyid; William C Reed; John Z Benton; Atul Lodh; Phillip Woodruff; Joshua H Lambert; Martha K Terris; Christopher J D Wallis; Zachary Klaassen
Journal:  Urol Oncol       Date:  2021-03-22       Impact factor: 3.498

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.