Primary Gleason pattern in biopsy Gleason score 7 is predictive of adverse histopathological features and biochemical failure following radical prostatectomy

Scandinavian Journal of Urology

Volumn 48, Issue 2, 2014, Pages 168-176

  Berg, Kasper Drimer ^a,b   Roder, Martin Andreas ^a   Brasso, Klaus ^a   Vainer, Ben ^a   Iversen, Peter ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF COPENHAGEN   (Denmark)

^b Rigshospitalet   (Denmark)

Author keywords

Adverse histopathological features; Biochemical failure; Gleason score 7; Needle biopsies; Prostate cancer

Indexed keywords

PROSTATE SPECIFIC ANTIGEN;

ADULT; AGED; ARTICLE; CANCER STAGING; GLEASON SCORE; GLEASON SCORE 7; HISTOPATHOLOGY; HUMAN; HUMAN TISSUE; LYMPH NODE METASTASIS; MAJOR CLINICAL STUDY; MALE; MIDDLE AGED; PRIORITY JOURNAL; PROSTATE BIOPSY; PROSTATECTOMY; TRANSRECTAL ULTRASONOGRAPHY;

AGED; BIOPSY, NEEDLE; HUMANS; MALE; MIDDLE AGED; NEOPLASM GRADING; NEOPLASM RECURRENCE, LOCAL; PREDICTIVE VALUE OF TESTS; PROGNOSIS; PROSPECTIVE STUDIES; PROSTATE-SPECIFIC ANTIGEN; PROSTATECTOMY; PROSTATIC NEOPLASMS; RISK;

EID: 84896116478     PISSN: 21681805     EISSN: 21681813     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.3109/21681805.2013.821628     Document Type: Article

References (30)

1. Stamey TA, McNeal JE, Yemoto CM, Sigal BM, Johnstone IM. Biological determinants of cancer progression in men with prostate cancer. JAMA 1999;281:1395-400. (Pubitemid 29190217)
2. Kattan MW, Vickers AJ, Yu C, Bianco FJ, Cronin AM, Eastham JA, et al. Preoperative and postoperative nomograms incorporating surgeon experience for clinically localized prostate cancer. Cancer 2009;115:1005-10.
3. O'Brien BA, Cohen RJ, Wheeler TM, Moorin RE. A post-radical-prostatectomy nomogram incorporating new pathological variables and interaction terms for improved prognosis. BJU Int 2011;107:389-95.
4. Alenda O, Ploussard G, Mouracade P, Xylinas E, de la Taille A, Allory Y, et al. Impact of the primary Gleason pattern on biochemical recurrence-free survival after radical prostatectomy: a single-center cohort of 1,248 patients with Gleason 7 tumors. World J Urol 2011;29:671-6.
5. 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.
6. Koontz BF, Tsivian M, Mouraviev V, Sun L, Vujaskovic Z, Moul J, et al. Impact of primary Gleason grade on risk stratification for Gleason score 7 prostate cancers. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 2012;82:200-3.
7. Sakr WA, Tefilli MV, Grignon DJ, Banerjee M, Dey J, Gheiler EL, et al. Gleason score 7 prostate cancer: a heterogeneous entity? Correlation with pathologic parameters and disease-free survival. Urology 2000;56:730-4.
8. Khoddami SM, Shariat SF, Lotan Y, Saboorian H, McConnell JD, Sagalowsky AI, et al. Predictive value of primary Gleason pattern 4 in patients with Gleason score 7 tumours treated with radical prostatectomy. BJU Int 2004; 94:42-6. (Pubitemid 38980306)
9. Tollefson MK, Leibovich BC, Slezak JM, Zincke H, Blute ML. Long-term prognostic significance of primary Gleason pattern in patients with Gleason score 7 prostate cancer: impact on prostate cancer specific survival. J Urol 2006;175:547-51. (Pubitemid 43067350)
10. Amin A, Partin A, Epstein JI. Gleason score 7 prostate cancer on needle biopsy: relation of primary pattern 3 or 4 to pathological stage and progression after radical prostatectomy. J Urol 2011;186:1286-90.
11. Burdick MJ, Reddy CA, Ulchaker J, Angermeier K, Altman A, Chehade N, et al. Comparison of biochemical relapse-free survival between primary Gleason score 3 and primary Gleason score 4 for biopsy Gleason score 7 prostate cancer. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 2009;73:1439-45.
12. Gonzalgo ML, Bastian PJ, Mangold LA, Trock BJ, Epstein JI, Walsh PC, et al. Relationship between primary Gleason pattern on needle biopsy and clinicopathologic outcomes among men with Gleason score 7 adenocarcinoma of the prostate. Urology 2006;67:115-19. (Pubitemid 43069268)
13. Makarov DV, Sanderson H, Partin AW, Epstein JI. Gleason score 7 prostate cancer on needle biopsy: is the prognostic difference in Gleason scores 4 + 3 and 3+4 independent of the number of involved cores? J Urol 2002;167:2440-2. (Pubitemid 34533141)
14. 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.
15. D'Amico AV, Whittington R, Malkowicz SB, Schultz D, Blank K, Broderick GA, et al. Biochemical outcome after radical prostatectomy, external beam radiation therapy, or interstitial radiation therapy for clinically localized prostate cancer. JAMA 1998;280:969-74. (Pubitemid 28445094)
16. Latour M, Amin MB, Billis A, Egevad L, Grignon DJ, Humphrey PA, et al. Grading of invasive cribriform carcinoma on prostate needle biopsy: an interobserver study among experts in genitourinary pathology. Am J Surg Pathol 2008;32:1532-9.
17. Helpap B, Egevad L. The significance of modified Gleason grading of prostatic carcinoma in biopsy and radical prostatectomy specimens. Virchows Arch 2006;449:622-7. (Pubitemid 44832632)
18. Makarov DV, Trock BJ, Humphreys EB, Mangold LA, Walsh PC, Epstein JI, et al. Updated nomogram to predict pathologic stage of prostate cancer given prostate-specific antigen level, clinical stage, and biopsy Gleason score (Partin tables) based on cases from 2000 to 2005. Urology 2007;69: 1095-101.
19. Vainer B, Toft BG, Olsen KE, Jacobsen GK, Marcussen N. Handling of radical prostatectomy specimens: total or partial embedding? Histopathology 2011;58:211-16.
20. Kang DE, Fitzsimons NJ, Presti JC Jr, Kane CJ, Terris MK, Aronson WJ, et al. Risk stratification of men with Gleason score 7 to 10 tumors by primary and secondary Gleason score: results from the SEARCH database. Urology 2007;70: 277-82. (Pubitemid 47362247)
21. Grober ED, Tsihlias J, Jewett MA, Sweet JM, Evans AJ, Trachtenberg J, et al. Correlation of the primary Gleason pattern on prostate needle biopsy with clinico-pathological factors in Gleason 7 tumors. Can J Urol 2004;11:2157-62.
22. Eifler JB, Feng Z, Lin BM, Partin MT, Humphreys EB, Han M, et al. An updated prostate cancer staging nomogram (Partin tables) based on cases from 2006 to 2011. BJU Int 2013;111:22-9.
23. Stark JR, Perner S, Stampfer MJ, Sinnott JA, Finn S, Eisenstein AS, et al. Gleason score and lethal prostate cancer: does 3 + 4 = 4 + 3? J Clin Oncol 2009;27:3459-64.
24. Roberts WB, Han M. Clinical significance and treatment of biochemical recurrence after definitive therapy for localized prostate cancer. Surg Oncol 2009;18:268-74.
25. Fanning DM, Kay E, Fan Y, Fitzpatrick JM, Watson RW. Prostate cancer grading: the effect of stratification of needle biopsy Gleason score 4+3 as high or intermediate grade. BJU Int 2010;105:631-5.
26. Moussa AS, Li J, Soriano M, Klein EA, Dong F, Jones JS. Prostate biopsy clinical and pathological variables that predict significant grading changes in patients with intermediate and high grade prostate cancer. BJU Int 2009;103:43-8.
27. Patel AA, Chen MH, Renshaw AA, D'Amico AV. PSA failure following definitive treatment of prostate cancer having biopsy Gleason score 7 with tertiary grade 5. JAMA 2007;298:1533-8. (Pubitemid 47529387)
28. Berg KD, Toft BG, Roder MA, Brasso K, Vainer B, Iversen P. Prostate needle biopsies: interobserver variation and clinical consequences of histopathological re-evaluation. APMIS 2011;119:239-46.
29. Lavery HJ, Droller MJ. Do Gleason patterns 3 and 4 prostate cancer represent separate disease states? J Urol 2012;188: 1667-75.
30. Klotz L. Active surveillance for favorable-risk prostate cancer: background, patient selection, triggers for intervention, and outcomes. Curr Urol Rep 2012;13:153-9.