Prognostic Value of Percent Gleason Grade 4 at Prostate Biopsy in Predicting Prostatectomy Pathology and Recurrence

Journal of Urology

Volumn 196, Issue 2, 2016, Pages 405-411

  Cole, Adam I ^a   Morgan, Todd M ^a   Spratt, Daniel E ^a   Palapattu, Ganesh S ^a   He, Chang ^a   Tomlins, Scott A ^a   Weizer, Alon Z ^a   Feng, Felix Y ^a   Wu, Angela ^a   Siddiqui, Javed ^a   Chinnaiyan, Arul M ^a   Montgomery, Jeffrey S ^a   Kunju, Lakshmi P ^a   Miller, David C ^a   Hollenbeck, Brent K ^a   Wei, John T ^a   Mehra, Rohit ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF MICHIGAN MEDICAL SCHOOL   (United States)

Author keywords

biopsy; neoplasm grading; prostatectomy; prostatic neoplasms; recurrence

Indexed keywords

ADULT; ADVERSE OUTCOME; ARTICLE; BIOCHEMICAL RECURRENCE; CANCER GRADING; CANCER PROGNOSIS; CANCER RECURRENCE; GLEASON SCORE; HUMAN; HUMAN TISSUE; MAJOR CLINICAL STUDY; MALE; OUTCOME ASSESSMENT; PRIORITY JOURNAL; PROSTATE BIOPSY; PROSTATE CANCER; PROSTATECTOMY; RISK ASSESSMENT; ADENOCARCINOMA; AGED; MIDDLE AGED; MULTIVARIATE ANALYSIS; PATHOLOGY; PROGNOSIS; PROPORTIONAL HAZARDS MODEL; PROSTATE TUMOR; RETROSPECTIVE STUDY; STATISTICAL MODEL; TUMOR RECURRENCE;

ADENOCARCINOMA; ADULT; AGED; HUMANS; LOGISTIC MODELS; MALE; MIDDLE AGED; MULTIVARIATE ANALYSIS; NEOPLASM GRADING; NEOPLASM RECURRENCE, LOCAL; PROGNOSIS; PROPORTIONAL HAZARDS MODELS; PROSTATECTOMY; PROSTATIC NEOPLASMS; RETROSPECTIVE STUDIES;

EID: 84979656995     PISSN: 00225347     EISSN: 15273792     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.juro.2016.01.120     Document Type: Article

References (29)

1. 1 Makarov, D.V., Trock, B.J., Humphreys, E.B., 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, 69, 2007, 1095.
2. 2 Grossfeld, G.D., Latini, D.M., Lubeck, D.P., et al. Predicting recurrence after radical prostatectomy for patients with high risk prostate cancer. J Urol, 169, 2003, 157.
3. 3 Zhou, P., Chen, M.H., McLeod, D., et al. Predictors of prostate cancer-specific mortality after radical prostatectomy or radiation therapy. J Clin Oncol, 23, 2005, 6992.
4. 4 Epstein, J.I., Allsbrook, W.C. Jr., Amin, M.B., et al. The 2005 International Society of Urological Pathology (ISUP) Consensus Conference on Gleason Grading of Prostatic Carcinoma. Am J Surg Pathol, 29, 2005, 1228.
5. 5 Tollefson, M.K., Leibovich, B.C., Slezak, J.M., et al. Long-term prognostic significance of primary Gleason pattern in patients with Gleason score 7 prostate cancer: impact on prostate cancer specific survival. J Urol, 175, 2006, 547.
6. 6 Stark, J.R., Perner, S., Stampfer, M.J., et al. Gleason score and lethal prostate cancer: does 3 + 4 = 4 + 3?. J Clin Oncol, 27, 2009, 3459.
7. 7 Spratt, D.E., Zumsteg, Z., Ghadjar, P., et al. Prognostic importance of Gleason 7 disease among patients treated with external beam radiation therapy for prostate cancer: results of a detailed biopsy core analysis. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys, 85, 2013, 1254.
8. 8 Pierorazio, P.M., Walsh, P.C., Partin, A.W., et al. Prognostic Gleason grade grouping: data based on the modified Gleason scoring system. BJU Int, 111, 2013, 753.
9. 9 Epstein, J.I., Egevad, L., Amin, M.B., 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, 40, 2016, 244.
10. 10 Epstein, J.I., Zelefsky, M.J., Sjoberg, D.D., et al. A contemporary prostate cancer grading system: a validated alternative to the Gleason score. Eur Urol, 69, 2016, 428.
11. 11 Lughezzani, G., Briganti, A., Karakiewicz, P.I., et al. Predictive and prognostic models in radical prostatectomy candidates: a critical analysis of the literature. Eur Urol, 58, 2010, 687.
12. 12 Bishoff, J.T., Freedland, S.J., Gerber, L., et al. Prognostic utility of the cell cycle progression score generated from biopsy in men treated with prostatectomy. J Urol, 192, 2014, 409.
13. 13 Klein, M.E., Dabbs, D.J., Shuai, Y., et al. Prediction of the Oncotype DX recurrence score: use of pathology-generated equations derived by linear regression analysis. Mod Pathol, 26, 2013, 658.
14. 14 Siddiqui, M.M., Rais-Bahrami, S., Turkbey, B., et al. Comparison of MR/ultrasound fusion-guided biopsy with ultrasound-guided biopsy for the diagnosis of prostate cancer. JAMA, 313, 2015, 390.
15. 15 Reese, A.C., Cowan, J.E., Brajtbord, J.S., et al. The quantitative Gleason score improves prostate cancer risk assessment. Cancer, 118, 2012, 6046.
16. 16 Koloff, Z.B., Hamstra, D.A., Wei, J.T., et al. Impact of tertiary Gleason pattern 5 on prostate cancer aggressiveness: lessons from a contemporary single institution radical prostatectomy series. Asian J Urol, 2, 2015, 53.
17. 17 Kozminski, M.A., Tomlins, S., Singhal, U., et al. Defining adverse pathology for lower risk men undergoing radical prostatectomy. J Urol, 193(suppl.), 2015, e6 abstract MP1-14.
18. 18 Huang, C.C., Kong, M.X., Zhou, M., et al. Gleason score 3 + 4=7 prostate cancer with minimal quantity of Gleason pattern 4 on needle biopsy is associated with low-risk tumor in radical prostatectomy specimen. Am J Surg Pathol, 38, 2014, 1096.
19. 19 Stamey, T.A., McNeal, J.E., Yemoto, C.M., et al. Biological determinants of cancer progression in men with prostate cancer. JAMA, 281, 1999, 1395.
20. 20 Deng, F.M., Donin, N.M., 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.
21. 21 Vis, A.N., Roemeling, S., Kranse, R., et al. Should we replace the Gleason score with the amount of high-grade prostate cancer?. Eur Urol, 51, 2007, 931.
22. 22 Klotz, L., Vesprini, D., Sethukavalan, P., et al. Long-term follow-up of a large active surveillance cohort of patients with prostate cancer. J Clin Oncol, 33, 2014, 272.
23. 23 Raldow, A.C., Zhang, D., Chen, M.H., et al. Risk group and death from prostate cancer: implications for active surveillance in men with favorable intermediate-risk prostate cancer. JAMA Oncol, 1, 2015, 334.
24. 24 Kryvenko, O.N., Epstein, J.I., Changes in prostate cancer grading: including a new patient-centric grading system. Prostate, 76, 2016, 427.
25. 25 Jones, C.U., Hunt, D., McGowan, D.G., et al. Radiotherapy and short-term androgen deprivation for localized prostate cancer. N Engl J Med, 365, 2011, 107.
26. 26 Denham, J.W., Steigler, A., Lamb, D.S., et al. Short-term neoadjuvant androgen deprivation and radiotherapy for locally advanced prostate cancer: 10-year data from the TROG 96.01 randomised trial. Lancet Oncol, 12, 2011, 451.
27. 27 D'Amico, A.V., Manola, J., Loffredo, M., et al. 6-Month androgen suppression plus radiation therapy vs radiation therapy alone for patients with clinically localized prostate cancer: a randomized controlled trial. JAMA, 292, 2004, 821.
28. 28 Castle, K.O., Hoffman, K.E., Levy, L.B., et al. Is androgen deprivation therapy necessary in all intermediate-risk prostate cancer patients treated in the dose escalation era?. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys, 85, 2013, 693.
29. 29 Keane, F.K., Chen, M.H., Zhang, D., et al. The likelihood of death from prostate cancer in men with favorable or unfavorable intermediate-risk disease. Cancer, 120, 2014, 1787.