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

Volumn 47, Issue 6, 2015, Pages 520-525

  Delahunt, B ^a   Egevad, L ^b   Srigley, J R ^c   Steigler, A ^d   Murray, J D ^a   Atkinson, C ^e   Matthews, J ^f   Duchesne, G ^g   Spry, N A ^h   Christie, D ⁱ   Joseph, D ^h   Attia, J ^d,j   Denham, J W ^d  

^a UNIVERSITY OF OTAGO   (New Zealand)

^b KAROLINSKA INSTITUTE   (Sweden)

^c MCMASTER UNIVERSITY   (Canada)

^d UNIVERSITY OF NEWCASTLE   (Australia)

^e St Georges Cancer Care Centre   (New Zealand)

^f AUCKLAND CITY HOSPITAL   (New Zealand)

^g PETER MACCALLUM CANCER CENTRE   (Australia)

^h SIR CHARLES GAIRDNER HOSPITAL   (Australia)

ⁱ Genesiscare   (Australia)

^j HUNTER MEDICAL RESEARCH INSTITUTE   (Australia)

more..

Author keywords

Adenocarcinoma; grading; International Society of Urological Pathology; ISUP; prognosis; prostate

Indexed keywords

ANTIANDROGEN; ANTINEOPLASTIC AGENT; BISPHOSPHONIC ACID DERIVATIVE; IMIDAZOLE DERIVATIVE; ZOLEDRONIC ACID;

ADENOCARCINOMA; ADULT; AGED; CANCER GRADING; CHEMORADIOTHERAPY; CLINICAL TRIAL; CONSENSUS DEVELOPMENT; CONTROLLED STUDY; HUMAN; KAPLAN MEIER METHOD; LARGE CORE NEEDLE BIOPSY; MALE; MEDICAL SOCIETY; MIDDLE AGED; MORTALITY; PATHOLOGY; PHASE 3 CLINICAL TRIAL; PROCEDURES; PROPORTIONAL HAZARDS MODEL; PROSTATIC NEOPLASMS; RANDOMIZED CONTROLLED TRIAL; STANDARDS; UROLOGY; VALIDATION STUDY;

ADENOCARCINOMA; ADULT; AGED; ANDROGEN ANTAGONISTS; ANTINEOPLASTIC AGENTS; BIOPSY, LARGE-CORE NEEDLE; CHEMORADIOTHERAPY; CONSENSUS DEVELOPMENT CONFERENCES AS TOPIC; DIPHOSPHONATES; HUMANS; IMIDAZOLES; KAPLAN-MEIER ESTIMATE; MALE; MIDDLE AGED; NEOPLASM GRADING; PATHOLOGY, SURGICAL; PROPORTIONAL HAZARDS MODELS; PROSTATIC NEOPLASMS; SOCIETIES, MEDICAL; UROLOGY;

EID: 84957932394     PISSN: 00313025     EISSN: 14653931     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1097/PAT.0000000000000318     Document Type: Article

References (33)

1. Delahunt B, Miller RJ, Srigley JR, Evans AJ, Samaratunga H. Gleason grading: past, present and future. Pathology 2012; 60: 75-86.
2. Gleason DF. Classification of prostatic carcinoma. Cancer Chemother Rep 1966; 50: 125-8.
3. Gleason DF, Mellinger GT. and the Veterans Administration Cooperative Urological Research Group. Prediction of prognosis for prostatic adenocarcinoma by combined histological grading and clinical staging. J Urol 1974; 111: 58-64.
4. Gleason DF. Histologic grading of prostate cancer: a perspective. Hum Pathol 1992; 23: 273-9.
5. Lamb DS, Slaney D, Smart R, et al. Prostate cancer: the new evidence base for diagnosis and treatment. Pathology 2007; 39: 537-44.
6. Delahunt B, Hammond E, Egevad L, et al. Active surveillance for prostate cancer: the role of the pathologist. Pathology 2015; 47: 1-3.
7. Schroder FH, Hugosson J, Roobol MJ, et al. Screening and prostate-cancer mortality in a randomised European study. N Engl J Med 2009; 360: 1320-8.
8. Lamb DS, Delahunt B, Denham J, Slaney D. Survival benefit confirmed for prostate cancers diagnosed by PSA testing. NZ Med J 2009; 22: 1-4.
9. Ross HM, Kryvenko ON, Cowan JE, et al. Do adenocarcinomas of the prostate with Gleason score (GS) ≤6 have the potential to metastasize to lymph nodes? Am J Surg Pathol 2012; 36: 1346-52.
10. Epstein JI, Allsbrook WC, Amin MB, et al. The 2005 International Society of Urological Pathology (ISUP) Consensus Conference on Gleason Grading of Prostatic Carcinoma. Am J Surg Pathol 2005; 29: 1228-42.
11. 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.
12. Billis A, Guimaraes MS, Freitas LL, et al. The impact of the 2005 International Society of Urological Pathology Consensus Conference on standard Gleason grading of prostatic carcinoma in needle biopsies. JUrol 2008; 180: 548-52.
13. Delahunt B, Lamb DS, Srigley JR, et al. Gleason scoring: a comparison of classical and modified (International of Society of Urological Pathology) criteria using nadir PSA as a clinical end point. Pathology 2010; 42: 339-43.
14. Billis A, Quintal MM, Meirelles L, et al. The value of the 2005 International Society of Urological Pathology (ISUP) modified Gleason grading system as a predictor of biochemical recurrence after radical prostatectomy. Int Urol Nephrol 2014; 46: 935-40.
15. 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 2015; 39: (in press).
16. Epstein JI, Sjoberg DD, Zelefsky MJ, et al. A contemporary prostate cancer grading system: a validated alternative to Gleason score. Eur Urol 2015; Jul 9: (Epub ahead of print).
17. Denham JW, Joseph D, Lamb DS, et al. Short-term androgen suppression and radiotherapy versus intermediate-term androgen suppression and radiotherapy, with or without zoledronic acid, in men with locally advanced prostate cancer (TROG 03. 04 RADAR): an open-label, randomised phase 3 factorial trial. Lancet Oncol 2014; 15: 1076-89.
18. Denham JW, Steigler A, Joseph D, et al. Radiation dose escalation or longer androgen suppression for locally advanced prostate cancer? Data from the TROG 03.04 RADAR trial. Radiother Oncol 2015; 115: 3017.
19. Roach M III, Hanks G, Thames H Jr et al. Defining biochemical failure following radiotherapy with or without hormonal therapy in men with clinically localized prostate cancer: recommendation of the RTOG-ASTRO Phoenix Consensus Conference. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 2006; 65: 965-74.
20. Harrell FE Jr, Lee KL, Mark DB. Multivariable prognostic models: Issues in developing models, evaluating assumptions and adequacy, and measuring and reducing errors. Stat Med 1996; 15: 361-87.
21. Iczkowski KA, Torkko KC, Kotnis GR, et al. Digital quantification of five high-grade prostate cancer patterns, including the cribriform pattern, and their association with adverse outcome. Am J Clin Pathol 2011; 136: 98-107.
22. Dong F, Yang P, Wang C, et al. Architectural heterogeneity and cribriform pattern predict adverse clinical outcome for Gleason grade 4 prostatic adenocarcinoma. Am J Surg Pathol 2013; 37: 1855-61.
23. Osunkoya AO, Nielsen ME, Epstein JL. Prognosis of mucinous adneocarcinoma of the prostate treated by radical prostatectomy: a study of 47 cases. Am J Surg Pathol 2008; 32: 468-72.
24. Kendal WS, Mai KT. Histological subtypes of prostatic cancer: a comparative survival study. Can J Urol 2010; 17: 5355-9.
25. Pacelli A, Lopez-Beltran A, Egan AJ, Bostwick DG. Prostatic adenocarcinoma with glomeruloid features. Hum Pathol 1998; 29: 543-6.
26. Lotan TL, Epstein JI. Gleason grading of prostatic adenocarcinoma with glomeruloid features on needle biopsy. Hum Pathol 2009; 40: 471-7.
27. Liu Z, Chang B, Guo SM, et al. Prostatic adenocarcinoma with glomeruloid structure. Beijing Da Xue Xue Bao 2011; 43: 519-21.
28. Stark JR, Perner S, Stampfer MJ, et al. Gleason score and lethal cancer: does 3+4 = 4+3? J Clin Oncol 2009; 27: 3459-64.
29. Alenda O, Ploussard G, Mouracade P, et al. Impact of the primary Gleason pattern on a 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.
30. Chan Y, 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.
31. Lau WK, Blute ML, Bostwick PG, et al. Prognostic factors for survival of patients with pathological Gleason score 7 prostatic cancer: differences in outcome between primary Gleason grades 3 and 4. JUrol2001; 166: 1692-7.
32. Egevad L, Granfors T, Karlberg L, Bergh A, Stattin P. Percent Gleason grade 4/5 as prognostic factor in prostate cancer, diagnosed at transurethral resection. J Urol 2002; 168: 509-13.
33. Amin MB, Lin DW, Gori JI, et al. The critical role of the pathologist on determining eligibility for active surveillance as a management option in patients with prostate cancer. Consensus statement with recommendations supported by The College of American Pathologists, International Society of Urological Pathology, Association of Directors of Anatomic and Surgical Pathology, The New Zealand Society of Pathologists and the Prostate Cancer Foundation. Arch Pathol Lab Med 2014; 138: 1387-405.