Benefits and harms of the new prostate cancer grade grouping on the prediction of long-term oncological outcomes in patients after radical prostatectomy.
Gleason score grading
grade groups
outcomes
prostate cancer
radical prostatectomy
Journal
International journal of urology : official journal of the Japanese Urological Association
ISSN: 1442-2042
Titre abrégé: Int J Urol
Pays: Australia
ID NLM: 9440237
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
Apr 2021
Apr 2021
Historique:
received:
02
06
2020
accepted:
23
11
2020
pubmed:
7
1
2021
medline:
14
5
2021
entrez:
6
1
2021
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
To investigate whether the new prostate cancer grade groups model provides significant predictive value and better patient stratification on tumor progression after radical prostatectomy compared with the former Gleason grading models. Men treated at a tertiary center by radical prostatectomy between 2005 and 2017 were analyzed. The outcomes of interest were clinical progression-free and cancer-specific survival. Multivariate Cox regression analysis, C-index and decision curve analysis were carried out using three-tier (Gleason score 6, 7 and 8-10), four-tier (Gleason score 6, 7, 8 and 9-10) and new grade groups model. In total, 1759 men were included in the analysis. At a median of 87 months (interquartile range 51-134 months) of follow up, clinical progression was detected in 78 (4.4%) and cancer-related death in 42 (2.4%) patients. The hazard ratio of clinical progression-free was 2.3, 5.7, 5.2 and 29.5; the hazard ratio of cancer-specific survival was 1.7, 3.2, 4.8 and 11.8 in the grade groups 2-5, relative to grade group 1, respectively. The grade groups model had higher C-index in comparison with four- and three-tier grading models for clinical progression-free survival 0.88 versus 0.85 versus 0.83 and for cancer-specific survival 0.82 versus 0.80 versus 0.80, respectively. In the decision curve analysis, the grade groups model shows marginally better net benefit on clinical progression-free and cancer-specific survival. The new model shows better performance in comparison with former Gleason grading models on the prediction of long-term oncological outcomes.
Substances chimiques
Prostate-Specific Antigen
EC 3.4.21.77
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
390-395Informations de copyright
© 2021 The Japanese Urological Association.
Références
Epstein JI, Allsbrook WC Jr, Amin MB, Egevad LL. The 2005 International Society of Urological Pathology (ISUP) Consensus Conference on Gleason Grading of Prostatic Carcinoma. Am. J. Surg. Pathol. 2005; 29: 1228-42.
Pierorazio PM, Walsh PC, Partin AW, Epstein JI. Prognostic Gleason grade grouping: data based on the modified Gleason scoring sys- tem. BJU Int. 2013; 111: 753-60.
Epstein JI, Egevad L, Amin MB et al. 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. Am. J. Surg. Pathol. 2016; 40: 244-52.
Humphrey PA, Moch H, Cubilla AL, Ulbright TM, Reuter VE. The 2016 WHO classification of tumours of the urinary system and male genital organs-part B: prostate and bladder tumours. Eur. Urol 2016; 70: 106-19.
Mottet N, Bellmunt J, Bolla M et al. EAU-ESTRO-SIOG guidelines on prostate cancer. Part 1: screening, diagnosis, and local treatment with curative intent. Eur. Urol. 2017; 71: 618-29.
Offermann A, Hupe MC, Sailer V, Perner S. The new ISUP 2014/WHO 2016 prostate cancer grade group system: first résumé 5 years after introduction and systemic review of the literature. World J. Urol. 2020; 38: 657-62.
Epstein JI, Zelefsky MJ, Sjoberg DD et al. A contemporary prostate cancer grading system: a validated alternative to the Gleason score. Eur. Urol. 2016; 69: 428-35.
Loeb S, Folkvaljon Y, Robinson D, Lissbrant IF, Egevad L, Stattin P. Evaluation of the 2015 Gleason Grade Groups in a Nationwide Population-based Cohort. Eur. Urol. 2016; 69: 1135-41.
Grogan J, Gupta R, Mahon KL et al. Predictive value of the 2014 International Society of Urological Pathology grading system for prostate cancer in patients undergoing radical prostatectomy with long-term follow-up. BJU Int. 2017; 120: 651-8.
Wissing M, Brimo F, Chevalier S et al. Optimization of the 2014 Gleason grade grouping in a Canadian cohort of patients with localized prostate cancer. BJU Int. 2019; 123: 624-31.
Dell’Oglio P, Karnes RJ, Gandaglia G et al. The new prostate cancer grading system does not improve prediction of clinical recurrence after radical prostatectomy: results of a large, Two-Center Validation Study. Prostate 2017; 77: 263-73.
Spratt DE, Jackson WC, Abugharib A et al. Independent validation of the prognostic capacity of the ISUP prostate cancer grade grouping system for radiation treated patients with long-term follow-up. Prostate Cancer Prostatic Dis. 2016; 19: 292-7.
Pompe RS, Davis-Bondarenko H, Zaffuto E et al. Population-based validation of the 2014 ISUP Gleason grade groups in patients treated with radical prostatectomy, brachytherapy, external beam radiation, or no local treatment. Prostate 2017; 77: 686-93.
Spratt DE, Cole AI, Palapattu GS et al. Independent surgical validation of the new prostate cancer grade-grouping system. BJU Int. 2016; 118: 763-9.
Schulman AA, Howard LE, Tay KJ et al. Validation of the 2015 prostate cancer grade groups for predicting long-term oncologic outcomes in a shared equal-access health system. Cancer 2017; 123: 4122-9.
Sim HG, Telesca D, Culp SH et al. Tertiary Gleason pattern 5 in Gleason 7 prostate cancer predicts pathological stage and biochemical recurrence. J. Urol. 2008; 179: 1775-9.
Whittemore DE, Hick EJ, Carter MR, Moul JW, Miranda-Sousa AJ, Sexton WJ. Significance of tertiary Gleason pattern 5 in Gleason score 7 radical prostatectomy specimens. J. Urol. 2008; 179: 516-22.
Jang WS, Yoon CY, Kim MS et al. The prognostic role of tertiary Gleason pattern 5 in a contemporary grading system for prostate cancer. Prostate Cancer Prostatic Dis. 2017; 20: 93-8.
Baras AS, Nelson JB, Han M, Parwani AV, Epstein JI. The effect of limited (tertiary) Gleason pattern 5 on the new prostate cancer grade groups. Hum. Pathol. 2017; 63: 27-32.
Chan TY, Partin AW, Walsh PC, Epstein JI. Prognostic significance of Gleason score 3+4 versus Gleason score 4+3 tumor at radical prostatectomy. Urology 2000; 56: 823-7.
Tsao CK, Gray KP, Nakabayashi M et al. Patients with biopsy Gleason 9 and 10 prostate cancer have significantly worse outcomes compared with Gleason 8 disease. J. Urol. 2015; 194: 91-7.
Milonas D, Joniau S. The 2014 ISUP grade group system: the Holy Grail or yet another hype? World J. Urol. 2020; https://doi.org/10.1007/s00345-020-03230-y.