Abstract
Purpose ISUP (International Society for Urologic Pathology) and WHO adopted prognostic Grade Groups 1 to 5 that simplify prostate cancer grading for prognosis. Grade Group 4 is Gleason score 8 cancer, which is heterogeneous, and it encompasses Gleason score 4 + 4 = 8, 3 + 5 = 8 and 5 + 3 = 8. The comparative prognostic implications of these various Gleason scores had not been studied by urological pathologists after a re-review of slides. Materials and Methods Patients with a highest biopsy Gleason score of 3 + 5 = 8 or 4 + 4 = 8 were included in the study. Controls were cases with a highest Gleason score of 4 + 3 = 7 or 9-10. A total of 423 prostatic biopsy cases accessioned from 2005 to 2013 at 2 institutions were reviewed. Clinicopathological findings and followup (median 33.4 months) were assessed. Results Among Gleason score 8 cancers the cancer status outcome in 51 men with Gleason score 3 + 5 = 8 was marginally worse than in 114 with Gleason score 4 + 4 = 8 (p = 0.04). This was driven by a persistent nonmetastatic (after radiation/hormone therapy) cancer rate of 37% among Gleason score 3 + 5 = 8 cases vs 24% among Gleason score 4 + 4 = 8 cases. Conversely, cancer specific survival at 36-month followup was 97.8% in 3 + 5 cases vs 92.6% in 4 + 4 cases but this was not significant (p = 0.089). Cancer specific survival in the Gleason score 8 group was dichotomized by the presence of cribriform growth (p = 0.018). All Gleason score categories did not differ in the fraction of biopsy cores positive, clinical presentation or pathological findings, including the frequency of Gleason pattern 5, in 70 patients who underwent prostatectomy. Conclusions Using the most current standards of prostate cancer grading the prognosis is not different in Gleason score 3 + 5 = 8 and 4 + 4 = 8 cancers. This justifies including both in Grade Group 4.
| Original language | English (US) |
|---|---|
| Pages (from-to) | 1076-1081 |
| Number of pages | 6 |
| Journal | Journal of Urology |
| Volume | 196 |
| Issue number | 4 |
| DOIs | |
| State | Published - Oct 1 2016 |
Fingerprint
Keywords
- biopsy
- neoplasm grading
- neoplasm recurrence, local
- prostatic neoplasms
- World Health Organization
ASJC Scopus subject areas
- Urology
Cite this
Outcome of Gleason 3 + 5 = 8 Prostate Cancer Diagnosed on Needle Biopsy : Prognostic Comparison with Gleason 4 + 4 = 8. / Harding-Jackson, Nicholas; Kryvenko, Oleksandr; Whittington, Elizabeth E.; Eastwood, Daniel C.; Tjionas, George A.; Jorda, Merce; Iczkowski, Kenneth A.
In: Journal of Urology, Vol. 196, No. 4, 01.10.2016, p. 1076-1081.Research output: Contribution to journal › Article
}
TY - JOUR
T1 - Outcome of Gleason 3 + 5 = 8 Prostate Cancer Diagnosed on Needle Biopsy
T2 - Prognostic Comparison with Gleason 4 + 4 = 8
AU - Harding-Jackson, Nicholas
AU - Kryvenko, Oleksandr
AU - Whittington, Elizabeth E.
AU - Eastwood, Daniel C.
AU - Tjionas, George A.
AU - Jorda, Merce
AU - Iczkowski, Kenneth A.
PY - 2016/10/1
Y1 - 2016/10/1
N2 - Purpose ISUP (International Society for Urologic Pathology) and WHO adopted prognostic Grade Groups 1 to 5 that simplify prostate cancer grading for prognosis. Grade Group 4 is Gleason score 8 cancer, which is heterogeneous, and it encompasses Gleason score 4 + 4 = 8, 3 + 5 = 8 and 5 + 3 = 8. The comparative prognostic implications of these various Gleason scores had not been studied by urological pathologists after a re-review of slides. Materials and Methods Patients with a highest biopsy Gleason score of 3 + 5 = 8 or 4 + 4 = 8 were included in the study. Controls were cases with a highest Gleason score of 4 + 3 = 7 or 9-10. A total of 423 prostatic biopsy cases accessioned from 2005 to 2013 at 2 institutions were reviewed. Clinicopathological findings and followup (median 33.4 months) were assessed. Results Among Gleason score 8 cancers the cancer status outcome in 51 men with Gleason score 3 + 5 = 8 was marginally worse than in 114 with Gleason score 4 + 4 = 8 (p = 0.04). This was driven by a persistent nonmetastatic (after radiation/hormone therapy) cancer rate of 37% among Gleason score 3 + 5 = 8 cases vs 24% among Gleason score 4 + 4 = 8 cases. Conversely, cancer specific survival at 36-month followup was 97.8% in 3 + 5 cases vs 92.6% in 4 + 4 cases but this was not significant (p = 0.089). Cancer specific survival in the Gleason score 8 group was dichotomized by the presence of cribriform growth (p = 0.018). All Gleason score categories did not differ in the fraction of biopsy cores positive, clinical presentation or pathological findings, including the frequency of Gleason pattern 5, in 70 patients who underwent prostatectomy. Conclusions Using the most current standards of prostate cancer grading the prognosis is not different in Gleason score 3 + 5 = 8 and 4 + 4 = 8 cancers. This justifies including both in Grade Group 4.
AB - Purpose ISUP (International Society for Urologic Pathology) and WHO adopted prognostic Grade Groups 1 to 5 that simplify prostate cancer grading for prognosis. Grade Group 4 is Gleason score 8 cancer, which is heterogeneous, and it encompasses Gleason score 4 + 4 = 8, 3 + 5 = 8 and 5 + 3 = 8. The comparative prognostic implications of these various Gleason scores had not been studied by urological pathologists after a re-review of slides. Materials and Methods Patients with a highest biopsy Gleason score of 3 + 5 = 8 or 4 + 4 = 8 were included in the study. Controls were cases with a highest Gleason score of 4 + 3 = 7 or 9-10. A total of 423 prostatic biopsy cases accessioned from 2005 to 2013 at 2 institutions were reviewed. Clinicopathological findings and followup (median 33.4 months) were assessed. Results Among Gleason score 8 cancers the cancer status outcome in 51 men with Gleason score 3 + 5 = 8 was marginally worse than in 114 with Gleason score 4 + 4 = 8 (p = 0.04). This was driven by a persistent nonmetastatic (after radiation/hormone therapy) cancer rate of 37% among Gleason score 3 + 5 = 8 cases vs 24% among Gleason score 4 + 4 = 8 cases. Conversely, cancer specific survival at 36-month followup was 97.8% in 3 + 5 cases vs 92.6% in 4 + 4 cases but this was not significant (p = 0.089). Cancer specific survival in the Gleason score 8 group was dichotomized by the presence of cribriform growth (p = 0.018). All Gleason score categories did not differ in the fraction of biopsy cores positive, clinical presentation or pathological findings, including the frequency of Gleason pattern 5, in 70 patients who underwent prostatectomy. Conclusions Using the most current standards of prostate cancer grading the prognosis is not different in Gleason score 3 + 5 = 8 and 4 + 4 = 8 cancers. This justifies including both in Grade Group 4.
KW - biopsy
KW - neoplasm grading
KW - neoplasm recurrence, local
KW - prostatic neoplasms
KW - World Health Organization
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=84992707548&partnerID=8YFLogxK
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=84992707548&partnerID=8YFLogxK
U2 - 10.1016/j.juro.2016.05.105
DO - 10.1016/j.juro.2016.05.105
M3 - Article
C2 - 27265220
AN - SCOPUS:84992707548
VL - 196
SP - 1076
EP - 1081
JO - Journal of Urology
JF - Journal of Urology
SN - 0022-5347
IS - 4
ER -