International Society of Urological Pathology (ISUP) Gleason Grade Groups stratify outcomes in the CHHiP Phase 3 prostate radiotherapy trial.
Gleason score
ISUP Grade Group
carcinoma
clinical trial
prostate
radiotherapy
Journal
BJU international
ISSN: 1464-410X
Titre abrégé: BJU Int
Pays: England
ID NLM: 100886721
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
18 Jul 2023
18 Jul 2023
Historique:
pubmed:
18
7
2023
medline:
18
7
2023
entrez:
18
7
2023
Statut:
aheadofprint
Résumé
To compare the results of Gleason Grade Group (GGG) classification following central pathology review with previous local pathology assessment, and to examine the difference between using overall and worst GGG in a large patient cohort treated with radiotherapy and short-course hormone therapy. Patients with low- to high-risk localized prostate cancer were randomized into the multicentre CHHiP fractionation trial between 2002 and 2011. Patients received short-course hormone therapy (≤6 month) and radical intensity-modulated radiotherapy (IMRT). Of 2749 consented patients, 1875 had adequate diagnostic biopsy tissue for blinded central pathology review. The median follow-up was 9.3 years. Agreement between local pathology and central pathology-derived GGG and between central pathology-derived overall and worst GGG was assessed using kappa (κ) statistics. Multivariate Cox regression and Kaplan-Meier methods were used to compare the biochemical/clinical failure (BCF) and distant metastases (DM) outcomes of patients with GGG 1-5. There was poor agreement between local pathology- and central pathology-derived GGG (κ = 0.19) but good agreement between overall and worst GGG on central pathology review (κ = 0.89). Central pathology-derived GGG stratified BCF and DM outcomes better than local pathology, while overall and worst GGG on central pathology review performed similarly. GGG 3 segregated with GGG 4 for BCF, with BCF-free rates of 90%, 82%, 74%, 71% and 58% for GGGs 1-5, respectively, at 8 years when assessed using overall GGG. There was a progressive decrease in DM-free rates from 98%, 96%, 92%, 88% and 83% for GGGs 1-5, respectively, at 8 years with overall GGG. Patients (n = 57) who were upgraded from GGG 2-3 using worst GS had BCF-free and DM-free rates of 74% and 92% at 8 years. CHHiP eligibility criteria limit the interpretation of these results. Contemporary review of International Society of Urological Pathology GGG successfully stratified patients treated with short-course hormone therapy and IMRT with regard to both BCF-free and DM-free outcomes. Patients upgraded from GGG 2 to GGG 3 using worst biopsy GS segregate with GGG 3 on long-term follow-up. We recommend that both overall and worst GS be used to derive GGG.
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Subventions
Organisme : Cancer Research UK
ID : C1491/A15955
Pays : United Kingdom
Organisme : Cancer Research UK
ID : C1491/A25351
Pays : United Kingdom
Organisme : Cancer Research UK
ID : C1491/A9895
Pays : United Kingdom
Organisme : Cancer Research UK
ID : C33589/A19727
Pays : United Kingdom
Organisme : Cancer Research UK
ID : C33589/A28284
Pays : United Kingdom
Organisme : Cancer Research UK
ID : C46/A10588
Pays : United Kingdom
Organisme : Cancer Research UK
ID : C46/A3976
Pays : United Kingdom
Organisme : Cancer Research UK
ID : C8262/A7253
Pays : United Kingdom
Informations de copyright
© 2023 The Authors. BJU International published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd on behalf of BJU International.
Références
Epstein JI, Allsbrook WC Jr, Amin MB, Egevad LL, Committee IG. The 2005 International Society of Urological Pathology (ISUP) consensus conference on Gleason grading of prostatic carcinoma. Am J Surg Pathol 2005; 29: 1228-1242
Pierorazio PM, Walsh PC, Partin AW, Epstein JI. Prognostic Gleason grade grouping: data based on the modified Gleason scoring system. BJU Int 2013; 111: 753-760
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: 244-252
Mottet N, van den Bergh RCN, Briers E et al. EAU-EANM-ESTRO-ESUR-SIOG guidelines on prostate cancer-2020 update. Part 1: screening, diagnosis, and local treatment with curative intent. Eur Urol 2021; 79: 243-262
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: 428-435
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: 1135-1141
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: 292-297
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: 686-693
Berney DM, Beltran L, Fisher G et al. Validation of a contemporary prostate cancer grading system using prostate cancer death as outcome. Br J Cancer 2016; 114: 1078-1083
Dearnaley D, Syndikus I, Mossop H et al. Conventional versus hypofractionated high-dose intensity-modulated radiotherapy for prostate cancer: 5-year outcomes of the randomised, non-inferiority, phase 3 CHHiP trial. Lancet Oncol 2016; 17: 1047-1060
Morgan SC, Hoffman K, Loblaw DA et al. Hypofractionated radiation therapy for localized prostate cancer: executive summary of an ASTRO, ASCO, and AUA evidence-based guideline. Pract Radiat Oncol 2018; 8: 354-360
NICE. Prostate cancer: diagnosis and management 2019. Available at: www.nice.org.uk/guidance/ng131. Accessed 2 June 2022.
Wilkins AC, Gusterson B, Szijgyarto Z et al. Ki67 is an independent predictor of recurrence in the largest randomized trial of 3 radiation fractionation schedules in localized prostate cancer. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 2018; 101: 309-315
Varma M, Narahari K, Mason M, Oxley JD, Berney DM. Contemporary prostate biopsy reporting: insights from a survey of clinicians' use of pathology data. J Clin Pathol 2018; 71: 874-878
Oxley J, Varma M, Berney D. Standard and datasets for reporting cancers. Dataset for histopathology reports for prostatic carcinoma. Royal College of Pathologists, 2016. Available at: https://www.rcpath.org. Accessed 2 June 2022.
Moch H, Cubilla AL, Humphrey PA, Reuter VE, Ulbright TM. The 2016 WHO classification of tumours of the urinary system and male genital organs-part a: renal, penile, and testicular tumours. Eur Urol 2016; 70: 93-105
Delahunt B, Egevad L, Srigley JR et al. Validation of International Society of Urological Pathology (ISUP) grading for prostatic adenocarcinoma in thin core biopsies using TROG 03.04 ‘RADAR’ trial clinical data. Pathology 2015; 47: 520-525
Toby J, Eade T, Hruby G et al. Assessing ISUP prostate cancer grade groups in patients treated with definitive dose escalated external beam radiation. Radiother Oncol 2021; 162: 91-97
Tolonen TT, Kujala PM, Tammela TL, Tuominen VJ, Isola JJ, Visakorpi T. Overall and worst Gleason scores are equally good predictors of prostate cancer progression. BMC Urol 2011; 11: 21
Trpkov K, Sangkhamanon S, Yilmaz A et al. Concordance of “case level” global, highest, and largest volume cancer grade group on needle biopsy versus grade group on radical prostatectomy. Am J Surg Pathol 2018; 42: 1522-1529
Kunz GM Jr, Epstein JI. Should each core with prostate cancer be assigned a separate Gleason score? Hum Pathol 2003; 34: 911-914
van Leenders G, van der Kwast TH, Grignon DJ et al. The 2019 International Society of Urological Pathology (ISUP) consensus conference on grading of prostatic carcinoma. Am J Surg Pathol 2020; 44: e87-e99
Berney DM, Algaba F, Camparo P et al. The reasons behind variation in Gleason grading of prostatic biopsies: areas of agreement and misconception among 266 European pathologists. Histopathology 2014; 64: 405-411
Brimo F, Schultz L, Epstein JI. The value of mandatory second opinion pathology review of prostate needle biopsy interpretation before radical prostatectomy. J Urol 2010; 184: 126-130
Montironi R, Lopez-Beltran A, Cheng L, Montorsi F, Scarpelli M. Central prostate pathology review: should it be mandatory? Eur Urol 2013; 64: 199-201
Bottke D, Golz R, Storkel S et al. Phase 3 study of adjuvant radiotherapy versus wait and see in pT3 prostate cancer: impact of pathology review on analysis. Eur Urol 2013; 64: 193-198
Zelic R, Garmo H, Zugna D et al. Predicting prostate cancer death with different pretreatment risk stratification tools: a head-to-head comparison in a nationwide cohort study. Eur Urol 2020; 77: 180-188
Dess RT, Suresh K, Zelefsky MJ et al. Development and validation of a clinical prognostic stage group system for nonmetastatic prostate cancer using disease-specific mortality results from the international staging collaboration for cancer of the prostate. JAMA Oncol 2020; 6: 1912-1920
Gnanapragasam VJ, Bratt O, Muir K et al. The Cambridge prognostic groups for improved prediction of disease mortality at diagnosis in primary non-metastatic prostate cancer: a validation study. BMC Med 2018; 16: 31
Eggener SE, Rumble RB, Armstrong AJ et al. Molecular biomarkers in localized prostate cancer: ASCO guideline. J Clin Oncol 2020; 38: 1474-1494