Prognosis of Gleason score 8 prostatic adenocarcinoma in needle biopsies: a nationwide population-based study.
Gleason grade
Mortality
Needle biopsy
Prostate cancer
Journal
Virchows Archiv : an international journal of pathology
ISSN: 1432-2307
Titre abrégé: Virchows Arch
Pays: Germany
ID NLM: 9423843
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
29 Apr 2024
29 Apr 2024
Historique:
received:
11
03
2024
accepted:
19
04
2024
revised:
09
04
2024
medline:
29
4
2024
pubmed:
29
4
2024
entrez:
29
4
2024
Statut:
aheadofprint
Résumé
A 5-tier grouping of Gleason scores has recently been proposed. Studies have indicated prognostic heterogeneity within these groups. We assessed prostate cancer-specific mortality (PCSM) and all-cause mortality (ACM) for men diagnosed with Gleason score 3 + 5 = 8, 4 + 4 = 8 and 5 + 3 = 8 acinar adenocarcinoma on needle biopsy in a population-based national cohort. The Prostate Cancer data Base Sweden 5.0 was used for survival analysis with PCSM and ACM at 5 and 10 years as endpoints. Multivariable Cox regression models controlling for socioeconomic factors, stage and primary treatment type were used for PCSM and ACM. Among 199,620 men reported with prostate cancer in 2000-2020, 172,112 were diagnosed on needle biopsy. In 18,281 (11%), there was a Gleason score of 8 in needle biopsies, including a Gleason score of 3 + 5, 4 + 4 and 5 + 3 in 11%, 86% and 2.3%, respectively. The primary treatment was androgen deprivation therapy (55%), deferred treatment (8%), radical prostatectomy (16%) or radical radiotherapy (21%). PCSM in men with Gleason scores of 3 + 5, 4 + 4 and 5 + 3 at 5 years of follow-up was 0.10 (95% CI 0.09-0.12), 0.22 (0.22-0.23) and 0.32 (0.27-0.36), respectively, and at 10 years 0.19 (0.17-0.22), 0.34 (0.33-0.35) and 0.44 (0.39-0.49), respectively. There was a significantly higher PCSM after 5 and 10 years in men with Gleason score 5 + 3 cancers than in those with 4 + 4 and in Gleason score 4 + 4 cancers than in those with 3 + 5. Grouping of Gleason scores will eliminate the prognostic granularity of Gleason scoring, thus diminishing the prognostic significance of this proposed grading system.
Identifiants
pubmed: 38683251
doi: 10.1007/s00428-024-03810-y
pii: 10.1007/s00428-024-03810-y
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Subventions
Organisme : Wellcome Trust
ID : 204043
Pays : United Kingdom
Informations de copyright
© 2024. The Author(s).
Références
Epstein JI, Egevad L, Amin MB, Delahunt B, Srigley JR, Humphrey PA (2016) 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 40:244–252
doi: 10.1097/PAS.0000000000000530
pubmed: 26492179
Gandaglia G, Karnes RJ, Sivaraman A, Moschini M, Fossati N, Zaffuto E, Dell’Oglio P, Cathelineau X, Montorsi F, Sanchez-Salas R, Briganti A (2017) Are all grade group 4 prostate cancers created equal? Implications for the applicability of the novel grade grouping. Urol Oncol 35(461):e467-461 e414
Huynh MA, Chen MH, Wu J, Braccioforte MH, Moran BJ, D’Amico AV (2016) Gleason score 3 + 5 or 5 + 3 versus 4 + 4 prostate cancer: the risk of death. Eur Urol 69:976–979
doi: 10.1016/j.eururo.2015.08.054
pubmed: 26388503
Lu TC, Collins L, Cohen P, Jay A, Campbell JM, O’Callaghan M (2020) Prognostic differences in ISUP grade group 4: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Pathol Oncol Res 26:1367–1375
doi: 10.1007/s12253-019-00632-1
pubmed: 30875031
Lu TC, Moretti K, Beckmann K, Cohen P, O’Callaghan M (2018) ISUP group 4 - a homogenous group of prostate cancers? Pathol Oncol Res 24:921–925
doi: 10.1007/s12253-017-0331-2
pubmed: 29079965
Mahal BA, Muralidhar V, Chen YW, Choueiri TK, Hoffman KE, Hu JC, Sweeney CJ, Yu JB, Feng FY, Trinh QD, Nguyen PL (2016) Gleason score 5 + 3 = 8 prostate cancer: much more like Gleason score 9? BJU Int 118:95–101
doi: 10.1111/bju.13239
pubmed: 26207642
Rusthoven CG, Waxweiler TV, DeWitt PE, Flaig TW, Raben D, Kavanagh BD (2015) Gleason stratifications prognostic for survival in men receiving definitive external beam radiation therapy for localized prostate cancer. Urol Oncol 33(71):e11-79
van den Bergh RC, van der Kwast TH, de Jong J, Zargar H, Ryan AJ, Costello AJ, Murphy DG, van der Poel HG (2016) Validation of the novel International Society of Urological Pathology 2014 five-tier Gleason grade grouping: biochemical recurrence rates for 3+5 disease may be overestimated. BJU Int 118:502–505
doi: 10.1111/bju.13478
pubmed: 26972452
Stattin P, Sandin F, Loeb S, Robinson D, Lissbrant IF, Lambe M (2018) Public online reporting from a nationwide population-based clinical prostate cancer register. BJU Int 122:8–10
doi: 10.1111/bju.14213
pubmed: 29577561
pmcid: 6032877
Van Hemelrijck M, Wigertz A, Sandin F, Garmo H, Hellstrom K, Fransson P, Widmark A, Lambe M, Adolfsson J, Varenhorst E, Johansson JE, Stattin P, Npcr SPC (2013) Cohort profile: the National Prostate Cancer Register of Sweden and Prostate Cancer data Base Sweden 2.0. Int J Epidemiol 42:956–967
doi: 10.1093/ije/dys068
pubmed: 22561842
Rider JR, Sandin F, Andren O, Wiklund P, Hugosson J, Stattin P (2013) Long-term outcomes among noncuratively treated men according to prostate cancer risk category in a nationwide, population-based study. Eur Urol 63:88–96
doi: 10.1016/j.eururo.2012.08.001
pubmed: 22902040
Egevad L, Micoli C, Samaratunga H, Delahunt B, Garmo H, Stattin P, Eklund M (2024) Prognosis of Gleason score 9–10 prostatic adenocarcinoma in needle biopsies: a nationwide population-based study. Eur Oncol Urol 7:213–221
doi: 10.1016/j.euo.2023.11.002
Beckmann K, Garmo H, Adolfsson J, Bosco C, Johansson E, Robinson D, Holmberg L, Stattin P, Van Hemelrijck M (2019) Androgen deprivation therapies and changes in comorbidity: a comparison of gonadotropin-releasing hormone agonists and antiandrogen monotherapy as primary therapy in men with high-risk prostate cancer. Eur Urol 75:676–683
doi: 10.1016/j.eururo.2018.11.022
pubmed: 30497883
Quan H, Sundararajan V, Halfon P, Fong A, Burnand B, Luthi JC, Saunders LD, Beck CA, Feasby TE, Ghali WA (2005) Coding algorithms for defining comorbidities in ICD-9-CM and ICD-10 administrative data. Med Care 43:1130–1139
doi: 10.1097/01.mlr.0000182534.19832.83
pubmed: 16224307
Ludvigsson JF, Svedberg P, Olen O, Bruze G, Neovius M (2019) The Longitudinal Integrated Database for Health Insurance and Labour Market Studies (LISA) and its use in medical research. Eur J Epidemiol 34:423–437
doi: 10.1007/s10654-019-00511-8
pubmed: 30929112
pmcid: 6451717
Egevad L, Delahunt B, Bostwick DG, Cheng L, Evans AJ, Gianduzzo T, Graefen M, Hugosson J, Kench JG, Leite KRM, Oxley J, Sauter G, Srigley JR, Stattin P, Tsuzuki T, Yaxley J, Samaratunga H (2021) Prostate cancer grading, time to go back to the future. BJU Int 127:165–168
doi: 10.1111/bju.15298
pubmed: 33206437
Yaxley W, Delahunt B, Yaxley J, Thunders MC, Kenwright DN, Egevad L, Samaratunga H (2022) Prognostic significance of percentage Gleason grade 5 prostatic adenocarcinoma in needle biopsies from patients treated by radical prostatectomy. Pathology 54:694–699
doi: 10.1016/j.pathol.2022.02.009
pubmed: 35613972