Prognostic significance of percentage and architectural types of contemporary gleason pattern 4 prostate cancer in radical prostatectomy

American Journal of Surgical Pathology

Volumn 40, Issue 10, 2016, Pages 1400-1406

  Choy, Bonnie ^a   Pearce, Shane M ^a   Anderson, Blake B ^a   Shalhav, Arieh L ^a   Zagaja, Gregory ^a   Eggener, Scott E ^a   Paner, Gladell P ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF CHICAGO   (United States)

Author keywords

Architecture; Cribriform; Gleason; Glomeruloid; Percent; Prostate

Indexed keywords

ADULT; CANCER GRADING; FOLLOW UP; HUMAN; MALE; MIDDLE AGED; MORTALITY; PATHOLOGY; PROGNOSIS; PROSTATECTOMY; PROSTATIC NEOPLASMS; RETROSPECTIVE STUDY; SURVIVAL ANALYSIS;

ADULT; FOLLOW-UP STUDIES; HUMANS; MALE; MIDDLE AGED; NEOPLASM GRADING; PROGNOSIS; PROSTATECTOMY; PROSTATIC NEOPLASMS; RETROSPECTIVE STUDIES; SURVIVAL ANALYSIS;

EID: 84977156598     PISSN: 01475185     EISSN: 15320979     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1097/PAS.0000000000000691     Document Type: Article

References (36)

1. 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.
2. Epstein JI. A new contemporary prostate cancer grading system. Pathol Int. 2015. [Epub ahead of print].
3. Epstein JI. Prostate cancer grading: a contemporary photomontage. Am J Surg Pathol. 2016;40:137.
4. Gleason DF, Mellinger GT. Veterans Administration Cooperative Urological Research Group. Prediction of prognosis for prostatic adenocarcinoma by combined histological grading and clinical staging. 1974. J Urol. 2002;167:953-958.
5. 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.
6. 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: 1855-1861.
7. Kir G, Sarbay BC, Gumus E, et al. The association of the cribriform pattern with outcome for prostatic adenocarcinomas. Pathol Res Pract. 2014;210:640-644.
8. Sarbay BC, Kir G, Topal CS, et al. Significance of the cribriform pattern in prostatic adenocarcinomas. Pathol Res Pract. 2014;210: 554-557.
9. Trudel D, Downes MR, Sykes J, et al. Prognostic impact of intraductal carcinoma and large cribriform carcinoma architecture after prostatectomy in a contemporary cohort. Eur J Cancer. 2014; 50:1610-1616.
10. Siadat F, Sykes J, Zlotta AR, et al. Not all Gleason pattern 4 prostate cancers are created equal: A study of latent prostatic carcinomas in a cystoprostatectomy and autopsy series. Prostate. 2015;75:1277-1284.
11. Kweldam CF, Wildhagen MF, Steyerberg EW, et al. Cribriform growth is highly predictive for postoperative metastasis and diseasespecific death in Gleason score 7 prostate cancer. Mod Pathol. 2015;28:457-464.
12. Lotan TL, Epstein JI. Gleason grading of prostatic adenocarcinoma with glomeruloid features on needle biopsy. Hum Pathol. 2009;40: 471-477.
13. Pierorazio PM, Walsh PC, Partin AW, et al. Prognostic Gleason grade grouping: data based on the modified Gleason scoring system. BJU Int. 2013;111:753-760.
14. 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.
15. Samaratunga H, Delahunt B, Gianduzzo T, et al. The prognostic significance of the 2014 International Society of Urological Pathology (ISUP) grading system for prostate cancer. Pathology. 2015;47:515-519.
16. 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.
17. Loeb S, Folkvaljon Y, Robinson D, et al. Evaluation of the 2015 Gleason grade groups in a nationwide population-based cohort. Eur Urol. 2015. [Epub ahead of print].
18. Chan TY, Partin AW, Walsh PC, et al. Prognostic significance of Gleason score 3+4 versus Gleason score 4+3 tumor at radical prostatectomy. Urology. 2000;56:823-827.
19. Lau WK, Blute ML, Bostwick DG, et al. Prognostic factors for survival of patients with pathological Gleason score 7 prostate cancer: differences in outcome between primary Gleason grades 3 and 4. J Urol. 2001;166:1692-1697.
20. Stark JR, Perner S, Stampfer MJ, et al. Gleason score and lethal prostate cancer: does 3+4=4+3? J Clin Oncol. 2009;27: 3459-3464.
21. Alenda O, Ploussard G, Mouracade P, 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;29:671-676.
22. Sauter G, Steurer S, Clauditz TS, et al. Clinical utility of quantitative Gleason grading in prostate biopsies and prostatectomy specimens. Eur Urol. 2016;69:592-598.
23. Kryvenko ON, Epstein JI. Prostate cancer grading: a decade after the 2005 modified Gleason grading system. Arch Pathol Lab Med. 2016. [Epub ahead of print].
24. American Joint Committee on Cancer. AJCC Cancer Staging Manual, 7th Ed. New York, NY: Springer; 2010.
25. McNeal JE, Villers AA, Redwine EA, et al. Histologic differentiation, cancer volume, and pelvic lymph node metastasis in adenocarcinoma of the prostate. Cancer. 1990;66:1225-1233.
26. Stamey TA, McNeal JE, Yemoto CM, et al. Biological determinants of cancer progression in men with prostate cancer. JAMA. 1999;281:1395-1400.
27. Cheng L, Koch MO, Juliar BE, et al. The combined percentage of Gleason patterns 4 and 5 is the best predictor of cancer progression after radical prostatectomy. J Clin Oncol. 2005;23:2911-2917.
28. Cheng L, Davidson DD, Lin H, et al. Percentage of Gleason pattern 4 and 5 predicts survival after radical prostatectomy. Cancer. 2007;110:1967-1972.
29. Egevad L, Granfors T, Karlberg L, et al. Percent Gleason grade 4/5 as prognostic factor in prostate cancer diagnosed at transurethral resection. J Urol. 2002;168:509-513.
30. Glaessgen A, Hamberg H, Pihl CG, et al. Interobserver reproducibility of percent Gleason grade 4/5 in total prostatectomy specimens. J Urol. 2002;168:2006-2010.
31. Egevad L, Delahunt B, Samaratunga H, et al. Utility of reporting the percentage of high-grade prostate cancer. Eur Urol. 2016;69: 599-600.
32. Reese AC, Cowan JE, Brajtbord JS, et al. The quantitative Gleason score improves prostate cancer risk assessment. Cancer. 2012;118: 6046-6054.
33. Deng FM, Donin NM, Pe Benito R, et al. Size-adjusted quantitative Gleason score as a predictor of biochemical recurrence after radical prostatectomy. Eur Urol. 2015. [Epub ahead of print].
34. Cole AI, Morgan TM, Spratt DE, et al. Prognostic value of percent Gleason grade 4 at prostate biopsy on predicting prostatectomy pathology and recurrence. J Urol. 2016. [Epub ahead of print].
35. Keefe DT, Schieda N, El Hallani S, et al. Cribriform morphology predicts upstaging after radical prostatectomy in patients with Gleason score 3+4=7 prostate cancer at transrectal ultrasound (TRUS)-guided needle biopsy. Virchows Arch. 2015;467:437-442.
36. Samaratunga H, Montironi R, True L, et al. International Society of Urological Pathology (ISUP) consensus conference on handling and staging of radical prostatectomy specimens. working group 1: specimen handling. Mod Pathol. 2011;24:6-15.