Validation of a contemporary prostate cancer grading system using prostate cancer death as outcome

British Journal of Cancer

Volumn 114, Issue 10, 2016, Pages 1078-1083

  Berney, Daniel M ^a   Beltran, Luis ^a   Fisher, Gabrielle ^a   North, Bernard V ^a   Greenberg, David ^b   Møller, Henrik ^c   Soosay, Geraldine ^d   Scardino, Peter ^e   Cuzick, Jack ^a  

^a QUEEN MARY UNIVERSITY OF LONDON   (United Kingdom)

^b PUBLIC HEALTH ENGLAND   (United Kingdom)

^c KING'S COLLEGE LONDON   (United Kingdom)

^d QUEEN S HOSPITAL   (United Kingdom)

^e MEMORIAL SLOAN KETTERING CANCER CENTER   (United States)

Author keywords

Gleason grade; Gleason score; prostate

Indexed keywords

AGED; ARTICLE; CANCER GRADING; CANCER MORTALITY; CONSERVATIVE TREATMENT; FOLLOW UP; HUMAN; LOG RANK TEST; MAJOR CLINICAL STUDY; MALE; MULTIVARIATE ANALYSIS; OUTCOME ASSESSMENT; PRIORITY JOURNAL; PROSTATE CANCER; PROSTATE CANCER GRADING SYSTEM; SCORING SYSTEM; TUMOR BIOPSY; UNIVARIATE ANALYSIS; VALIDATION STUDY; METABOLISM; MIDDLE AGED; MORTALITY; PATHOLOGY; PROGNOSIS; PROSTATECTOMY; PROSTATIC NEOPLASMS; REGRESSION ANALYSIS; SURVIVAL ANALYSIS;

PROSTATE SPECIFIC ANTIGEN;

AGED; HUMANS; MALE; MIDDLE AGED; NEOPLASM GRADING; PROGNOSIS; PROSTATE-SPECIFIC ANTIGEN; PROSTATECTOMY; PROSTATIC NEOPLASMS; REGRESSION ANALYSIS; SURVIVAL ANALYSIS;

EID: 84964378569     PISSN: 00070920     EISSN: 15321827     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1038/bjc.2016.86     Document Type: Article

References (31)

1. Berney DM. (2007). The case for modifying the Gleason grading system. BJU Int. 100(4): 725-726.
2. Berney DM. (2007). Low Gleason score prostatic adenocarcinomas are no longer viable entities. Histopathology. 50(6): 683-690.
3. Berney DM, Algaba F, Camparo P, Comperat E, Griffiths D, Kristiansen G, Lopez-Beltran A, Montironi R, Varma M, Egevad L. (2013). The reasons behind variation in Gleason grading of prostatic biopsies: areas of agreement, and misconception among 266 European pathologists. Histopathology. 64(3): 405-411.
4. Berney DM, Fisher G, Kattan MW, Oliver RT, Moller H, Fearn P, Eastham J, Scardino P, Cuzick J, Reuter VE, Foster CS. (2007). Pitfalls in the diagnosis of prostatic cancer: retrospective review of 1791 cases with clinical outcome. Histopathology. 51(4): 452-457.
5. Bostwick DG, Chang L. (1999). Overdiagnosis of prostatic adenocarcinoma. Semin Urol Oncol. 17(4): 199-205.
6. Dong F, Yang P, Wang C, Wu S, Xiao Y, McDougal WS, Young RH, Wu CL. (2013). Architectural heterogeneity, and cribriform pattern predict adverse clinical outcome for Gleason grade 4 prostatic adenocarcinoma. Am J Surg Pathol. 37(12): 1855-1861.
7. Epstein JI. (2000). Gleason score 2-4 adenocarcinoma of the prostate on needle biopsy: a diagnosis that should not be made. Am J Surg Pathol. 24(4): 477-478.
8. Epstein JI. (2010). An update of the Gleason grading system. J Urol. 183(2): 433-440.
9. Epstein JI, Allsbrook Jr WC, Amin MB, Egevad LL. (2005). The 2005 International Society of Urological Pathology (ISUP) consensus conference on gleason grading of prostatic carcinoma. Am J Surg Pathol. 29(9): 1228-1242.
10. Epstein JI, Egevad L, Amin MB, Delahunt B, Srigley JR, Humphrey PA, Grading C. (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(2): 244-252.
11. Epstein JI, Zelefsky MJ, Sjoberg DD, Nelson JB, Egevad L, Magi-Galluzzi C, Vickers AJ, Parwani AV, Reuter VE, Fine SW, Eastham JA, Wiklund P, Han M, Reddy CA, Ciezki JP, Nyberg T, Klein EA. (2015) A contemporary prostate cancer grading system: a validated alternative to the gleason score. Eur Urol. 69(3): 428-435.
12. Gleason DF. (1966). Classification of prostatic carcinomas. Cancer Chemother Rep. 50: 125-128.
13. Gleason DF, Melliger GT. (1974). Prediction of prognosis for prostatic adenocarcinoma by combined histological grading, and clinical staging. J Urol. 11: 7.
14. Gobbi H, Simpson JF, Jensen RA, Coogan AC, Page DL. (1999). Prostatic adenocarcinoma with glomeruloid features. Hum Pathol. 30(1): 111-112.
15. Kir G, Sarbay BC, Gumus E, Topal CS. (2014). The association of the cribriform pattern with outcome for prostatic adenocarcinomas. Pathol Res Pract. 210(10): 640-644.
16. Kunju LP, Daignault S, Wei JT, Shah RB. (2009). Multiple prostate cancer cores with different Gleason grades submitted in the same specimen container without specific site designation: should each core be assigned an individual Gleason score?. Hum Pathol. 40(4): 558-564.
17. Kunz Jr GM, Epstein JI. (2003). Should each core with prostate cancer be assigned a separate gleason score?. Hum Pathol. 34(9): 911-914.
18. Kweldam CF, Wildhagen MF, Steyerberg EW, Bangma CH, van der Kwast TH, van Leenders GJ. (2014). Cribriform growth is highly predictive for postoperative metastasis, and disease-specific death in Gleason score 7 prostate cancer. Mod Pathol. 28(3): 457-464.
19. Liu Z, Chang B, Guo SM, Wang T, Li MC, Yang J, Chen K, Yang WM, Liu JH, Ye ZQ. (2011). Prostatic adenocarcinoma with glomeruloid structure. Beijing Da Xue Xue Bao. 43(4): 519-521.
20. Lotan TL, Epstein JI. (2009). Gleason grading of prostatic adenocarcinoma with glomeruloid features on needle biopsy. Hum Pathol. 40(4): 471-477.
21. Lughezzani G, Budaus L, Isbarn H, Sun M, Perrotte P, Haese A, Chun FK, Schlomm T, Steuber T, Heinzer H, Huland H, Montorsi F, Graefen M, Karakiewicz PI. (2010). Head-To-head comparison of the three most commonly used preoperative models for prediction of biochemical recurrence after radical prostatectomy. Eur Urol. 57(4): 562-568.
22. Martinez-Rodriguez M, Ramos D, Mayordomo E, Soriano P, Llombart-Bosch A. (2007). Analysis of cribriform Gleason grade 3 in prostatic carcinoma A histopathological, and immunohistochemical study of 32 cases. Histopathology. 51(5): 717-719.
23. May M, Knoll N, Siegsmund M, Fahlenkamp D, Vogler H, Hoschke B, Gralla O. (2007). Validity of the CAPRA score to predict biochemical recurrence-free survival after radical prostatectomy. Results from a european multicenter survey of 1, 296 patients. J Urol. 178(5): 1957-1962, discussion 1962.
24. Miyamoto H, Hernandez DJ, Epstein JI. (2009) A pathological reassessment of organ-confined, Gleason score 6 prostatic adenocarcinomas that progress after radical prostatectomy. Hum Pathol. 40(12): 1693-1698.
25. Oxley J, Simpkin A, Goepel J, Varma M, Griffiths D, Grigor K, Mayer N, Warren A, Deshmukh N, Bhattarai S, Dormer J, Hounsome L, Adamczyk LA, Metcalfe C, Lane JA, Davis M, Donovan JL, Neal DE, Hamdy FC, Robinson MC. T. S. G. Protec. (2015). Gleason drift in the NIHR ProtecT study. Histopathology. 66(3): 438-446.
26. Pacelli A, Lopez-Beltran A, Egan AJ, Bostwick DG. (1998). Prostatic adenocarcinoma with glomeruloid features. Hum Pathol. 29(5): 543-546.
27. Pierorazio PM, Walsh PC, Partin AW, Epstein JI. (2013). Prognostic Gleason grade grouping: data based on the modified Gleason scoring system. BJU Int. 111(5): 753-760.
28. Ross HM, Kryvenko ON, Cowan JE, Simko JP, Wheeler TM, Epstein JI. (2012). Do adenocarcinomas of the prostate with Gleason score (GS) r6 have the potential to metastasize to lymph nodes?. Am J Surg Pathol. 36(9): 1346-1352.
29. Rubin MA, Bismar TA, Curtis S, Montie JE. (2004). Prostate needle biopsy reporting: how are the surgical members of the Society of Urologic Oncology using pathology reports to guide treatment of prostate cancer patients?. Am J Surg Pathol. 28(7): 946-952.
30. Tolonen TT, Kujala PM, Tammela TL, Tuominen VJ, Isola JJ, Visakorpi T. (2011). Overall, and worst gleason scores are equally good predictors of prostate cancer progression. BMC Urol. 11: 21.
31. van der Kwast T. (2014). Re: architectural heterogeneity, and cribriform pattern predict adverse clinical outcome for Gleason grade 4 prostatic adenocarcinoma. Eur Urol. 66(1): 174.