The prognostic significance of tertiary Gleason pattern 5 in radical prostatectomy specimens

被引:82
|
作者
Mosse, CA [1 ]
Magi-Galluzzi, C [1 ]
Tsuzuki, T [1 ]
Epstein, JI [1 ]
机构
[1] Johns Hopkins Univ Hosp, Dept Pathol, Baltimore, MD 21287 USA
关键词
prostate cancer; Gleason score; pathologic stage; margins;
D O I
10.1097/00000478-200403000-00014
中图分类号
R36 [病理学];
学科分类号
100104 ;
摘要
In the Gleason grading system for prostatic cancer only the two most prevalent patterns are reported, although a third (tertiary) pattern grade may be present. We compared the pathologic stage of 227 radical prostatectomies with tertiary pattern 5 to the pathologic stage of 604 radical prostatectomies lacking a tertiary component. Gleason score 3 + 4 tumors with a tertiary pattern of 5 were more likely to present with higher stage disease than those Gleason score 3 + 4 tumors without a tertiary component (P = 0.012) and at a stage similar to Gleason score 3 + 5 tumors. Gleason score 4 + 3 tumors with a tertiary pattern of 5 were less likely to be organ-confined than Gleason score 4 + 3 tumors (P = 0.02) and less likely to have lymph node metastases than Gleason score 4 + 4 tumors (P = 0.027). However, Gleason score 4 + 4 with a tertiary pattern of 5 were indistinguishable from Gleason score 4 + 4 tumors. The relative effects of a tertiary pattern of 5 were greatest when the primary and secondary stages were low but become obscured by the already aggressive nature of advanced primary and secondary patterns. Therefore, except for very high-grade tumors, tertiary scoring of prostatic adenocarcinoma at radical prostatectomy should be reported as it has prognostic significance.
引用
收藏
页码:394 / 398
页数:5
相关论文
共 50 条
  • [41] Prostate carcinoma I: prognostic factors in radical prostatectomy specimens and pelvic lymph nodes
    Montironi, R
    Mazzucchelli, R
    Scarpelli, M
    Lopez-Beltran, A
    Mikuz, G
    BJU INTERNATIONAL, 2006, 97 (03) : 485 - 491
  • [42] The prognostic significance of Gleason pattern 5 in prostate cancer patients treated with Pd-103 brachytherapy
    Mitsuyama, Hiroki
    Wallner, Kent
    Merrick, Gregory
    Virgin, Jeffrey
    Orio, Peter
    Montgomery, Bruce
    True, Lawrence D.
    AMERICAN JOURNAL OF CLINICAL ONCOLOGY-CANCER CLINICAL TRIALS, 2007, 30 (06): : 597 - 600
  • [43] Predictive value of primary Gleason pattern 4 in patients with Gleason score 7 tumours treated with radical prostatectomy
    Khoddami, SM
    Shariat, SF
    Lotan, Y
    Saboorian, H
    McConnell, JD
    Sagalowsky, AI
    Roehrborn, CG
    Koeneman, KS
    BJU INTERNATIONAL, 2004, 94 (01) : 42 - 46
  • [44] The Prognostic Significance of Capsular Incision Into Tumor During Radical Prostatectomy
    Preston, Mark A.
    Carriere, Mathieu
    Raju, Gaayana
    Morash, Christopher
    Doucette, Steve
    Gerridzen, Ronald G.
    Bella, Anthony J.
    Eastham, James A.
    Scardino, Peter T.
    Cagiannos, Ilias
    EUROPEAN UROLOGY, 2011, 59 (04) : 613 - 618
  • [45] The effect of modified Gleason grading on the score concordance between the Gleason scores of needle biopsy and radical prostatectomy specimens in prostatic carcinoma
    Ozok, Hakki Ugur
    Oktay, Murat
    Sagnak, Levent
    Karakoyunlu, Nihat
    Ersoy, Hamit
    Alper, Murat
    TURKISH JOURNAL OF UROLOGY, 2010, 36 (04): : 333 - 338
  • [46] Clinical Utility of Quantitative Gleason Grading in Prostate Biopsies and Prostatectomy Specimens
    Sauter, Guido
    Steurer, Stefan
    Clauditz, Till Sebastian
    Krech, Till
    Wittmer, Corinna
    Lutz, Florian
    Lennartz, Maximilian
    Janssen, Tim
    Hakimi, Nayira
    Simon, Ronald
    von Petersdorff-Campen, Mareike
    Jacobsen, Frank
    von Loga, Katharina
    Wilczak, Waldemar
    Minner, Sarah
    Tsourlakis, Maria Christina
    Chirico, Viktoria
    Haese, Alexander
    Heinzer, Hans
    Beyer, Burkhard
    Graefen, Markus
    Michl, Uwe
    Salomon, Georg
    Steuber, Thomas
    Budaeus, Lars Henrik
    Hekeler, Elena
    Malsy-Mink, Julia
    Kutzera, Sven
    Fraune, Christoph
    Goebel, Cosima
    Huland, Hartwig
    Schlomm, Thorsten
    EUROPEAN UROLOGY, 2016, 69 (04) : 592 - 598
  • [47] Gleason 5+4 Has Worse Oncological and Pathological Outcomes Compared with Gleason 4+5: Significance of Gleason 5 Pattern
    Lim, Sey Kiat
    Kim, Kwang Hyun
    Shin, Tae-Young
    Chung, Byung Ha
    Hong, Sung Joon
    Choi, Young Deuk
    Rha, Koon Ho
    ANNALS OF SURGICAL ONCOLOGY, 2013, 20 (09) : 3127 - 3132
  • [48] Cribriform architecture outperforms Gleason pattern 4 percentage and tertiary Gleason pattern 5 in predicting the outcome of Grade Group 2 prostate cancer patients
    Seyrek, Neslisah
    Hollemans, Eva
    Osanto, Susanne
    Pelger, Rob C. M.
    van der Poel, Henk G.
    Bekers, Elise
    Bangma, Chris H.
    Rietbergen, John
    Roobol, Monique J.
    Schoots, Ivo G.
    van Leenders, Geert J. L. H.
    HISTOPATHOLOGY, 2022, 80 (03) : 558 - 565
  • [49] Handling of radical prostatectomy specimens
    Egevad, Lars
    HISTOPATHOLOGY, 2012, 60 (01) : 118 - 124
  • [50] Gleason group concordance between biopsy and radical prostatectomy specimens: A cohort study from Prostate Cancer Outcome Registry - Victoria
    Evans, Sue M.
    Bandarage, Varuni Patabendi
    Kronborg, Caroline
    Earnest, Arul
    Millar, Jeremy
    Clouston, David
    PROSTATE INTERNATIONAL, 2016, 4 (04) : 145 - 151