Size-adjusted Quantitative Gleason Score as a Predictor of Biochemical Recurrence after Radical Prostatectomy

European Urology

Volumn 70, Issue 2, 2016, Pages 248-253

  Deng, Fang Ming ^a   Donin, Nicholas M ^b   Pe Benito, Ruth ^a   Melamed, Jonathan ^a   Le Nobin, Julien ^a   Zhou, Ming ^a   Ma, Sisi ^a   Wang, Jinhua ^a   Lepor, Herbert ^a  

^a NEW YORK UNIVERSITY SCHOOL OF MEDICINE   (United States)

^b UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA   (United States)

Author keywords

Gleason score; Humans; Neoplasm grading; Neoplasm recurrence; Prognosis; Prostatectomy; Prostatic neoplasms; Risk assessment; Tumor volume

Indexed keywords

ADULT; AGED; ARTICLE; BIOCHEMICAL RECURRENCE; CANCER PATIENT; CANCER SIZE; COHORT ANALYSIS; GLEASON SCORE; HUMAN; MAJOR CLINICAL STUDY; MALE; MIDDLE AGED; OUTCOME ASSESSMENT; PREDICTION; PRIORITY JOURNAL; PROSTATECTOMY; QUANTITATIVE ANALYSIS; CANCER GRADING; PATHOLOGY; PROCEDURES; PROSTATE; PROSTATE TUMOR; RECURRENT DISEASE; RISK ASSESSMENT; TUMOR VOLUME;

PROSTATE SPECIFIC ANTIGEN;

AGED; HUMANS; MALE; MIDDLE AGED; NEOPLASM GRADING; OUTCOME ASSESSMENT (HEALTH CARE); PROSTATE; PROSTATE-SPECIFIC ANTIGEN; PROSTATECTOMY; PROSTATIC NEOPLASMS; RECURRENCE; RISK ASSESSMENT; TUMOR BURDEN;

EID: 84994128038     PISSN: 03022838     EISSN: 18737560     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.eururo.2015.10.026     Document Type: Article

References (19)

1. [1] Gleason, D., Classification of prostatic carcinomas. Cancer Chemother Rep, 50, 1966, 125.
2. [2] Epstein, J.I., Allsbrook, W.C. Jr., Amin, M.B., Egevad, L.L., The 2005 International Society of Urological Pathology (ISUP) consensus conference on Gleason grading of prostatic carcinoma. Am J Surg Pathol 29 (2005), 1228–1242.
3. [3] Epstein, J.I., Feng, Z., Trock, B.J., Pierorazio, P.M., Upgrading and downgrading of prostate cancer from biopsy to radical prostatectomy: incidence and predictive factors using the modified Gleason grading system and factoring in tertiary grades. Eur Urol 61 (2012), 1019–1024.
4. [4] Shariat, S.F., Karakiewicz, P.I., Suardi, N., Kattan, M.W., Comparison of nomograms with other methods for predicting outcomes in prostate cancer: a critical analysis of the literature. Clin Cancer Res 14 (2008), 4400–4407.
5. [5] Stamey, T.A., McNeal, J.E., Yemoto, C.M., Sigal, B.M., Johnstone, I.M., Biological determinants of cancer progression in men with prostate cancer. JAMA 281 (1999), 1395–1400.
6. [6] Reese, A.C., Cowan, J.E., Brajtbord, J.S., Harris, C.R., Carroll, P.R., Cooperberg, M.R., The quantitative Gleason score improves prostate cancer risk assessment. Cancer 118 (2012), 6046–6054.
7. [7] Hansen, J., Bianchi, M., Sun, M., et al. Percentage of high-grade tumour volume does not meaningfully improve prediction of early biochemical recurrence after radical prostatectomy compared with Gleason score. BJU Int 113 (2014), 399–407.
8. [8] Cheng, L., Koch, M.O., Juliar, B.E., et al. The combined percentage of Gleason patterns 4 and 5 is the best predictor of cancer progression after radical prostatectomy. J Clin Oncol 23 (2005), 2911–2917.
9. [9] Ross, H.M., Kryvenko, O.N., Cowan, J.E., Simko, J.P., Wheeler, T.M., Epstein, J.I., Do adenocarcinomas of the prostate with Gleason score (GS)
10. [10] Donin, N.M., Laze, J., Zhou, M., Ren, Q., Lepor, H., Gleason 6 prostate tumors diagnosed in the PSA era do not demonstrate the capacity for metastatic spread at the time of radical prostatectomy. Urology 82 (2013), 148–152.
11. [15] Grossfeld, G.D., Latini, D.M., Lubeck, D.P., Mehta, S.S., Carroll, P.R., Predicting recurrence after radical prostatectomy for patients with high risk prostate cancer. J Urol 169 (2003), 157–163.
12. [16] Hernandez, D.J., Nielsen, M.E., Han, M., et al. Natural history of pathologically organ-confined (pT2), Gleason score 6 or less, prostate cancer after radical prostatectomy. Urology 72 (2008), 172–176.
13. [17] Eggener, S.E., Scardino, P.T., Walsh, P.C., et al. Predicting 15-year prostate cancer specific mortality after radical prostatectomy. J Urol 185 (2011), 869–875.
14. [18] Vis, A.N., Roemeling, S., Kranse, R., Schröder, F.H., van der Kwast, T.H., Should we replace the Gleason score with the amount of high-grade prostate cancer?. Eur Urol 51 (2007), 931–939.
15. [19] Cheng, L., Davidson, D.D., Lin, H., Koch, M.O., Percentage of Gleason pattern 4 and 5 predicts survival after radical prostatectomy. Cancer 110 (2007), 1967–1972.
16. [20] Chan, T.Y., Partin, A.W., Walsh, P.C., Epstein, J.I., Prognostic significance of Gleason score 3+4 versus Gleason score 4+3 tumor at radical prostatectomy. Urology 56 (2000), 823–827.
17. [23] Kikuchi, E., Scardino, P.T., Wheeler, T.M., Slawin, K.M., Ohori, M., Is tumor volume an independent prognostic factor in clinically localized prostate cancer?. J Urol 172 (2004), 508–511.
18. [24] Chun, F.K.-H., Briganti, A., Jeldres, C., et al. Tumour volume and high grade tumour volume are the best predictors of pathologic stage and biochemical recurrence after radical prostatectomy. Eur J Cancer 43 (2007), 536–543.
19. [25] van der Kwast, T.H., Amin, M.B., Billis, A., et al. International Society of Urological Pathology (ISUP) consensus conference on handling and staging of radical prostatectomy specimens. Working group 2: T2 substaging and prostate cancer volume. Mod Pathol 24 (2010), 16–25.