Presence of biopsy Gleason pattern 5+3 is associated with higher mortality after radical prostatectomy but not after external beam radiotherapy compared to other Gleason Grade Group IV patterns

被引:4
作者
Wurnschimmel, Christoph [1 ,2 ]
Wenzel, Mike [2 ,3 ]
Chierigo, Francesco [2 ,4 ]
Flammia, Rocco S. [2 ,5 ]
Mori, Keiichiro [6 ,7 ]
Tian, Zhe [2 ]
Shariat, Shahrokh F. [6 ,8 ,9 ,10 ,11 ,12 ]
Saad, Fred [2 ]
Briganti, Alberto [13 ]
Suardi, Nazareno [4 ]
Terrone, Carlo [4 ]
Gallucci, Michele [5 ]
Chun, Felix K. H. [3 ]
Tilki, Derya [1 ,14 ]
Graefen, Markus [1 ]
Karakiewicz, Pierre I. [2 ]
机构
[1] Univ Hosp Hamburg Eppendorf, Martini Klin Prostate Canc Ctr, Martinistr 52, D-20246 Hamburg, Germany
[2] Univ Montreal Hlth Ctr, Div Urol, Canc Prognost & Hlth Outcomes Unit, Montreal, PQ, Canada
[3] Univ Hosp Frankfurt, Dept Urol, Frankfurt, Germany
[4] Univ Genoa, Dept Urol, Policlin San Martino Hosp, Genoa, Italy
[5] Sapienza Rome Univ, Dept Maternal Child & Urol Sci, Policlin Umberto I Hosp, Rome, Italy
[6] Med Univ Vienna, Dept Urol, Ctr Comprehens Canc, Vienna, Austria
[7] Jikei Univ, Dept Urol, Sch Med, Tokyo, Japan
[8] Weill Cornell Med Coll, Dept Urol, New York, NY USA
[9] Univ Texas Southwestern, Dept Urol, Dallas, TX USA
[10] Charles Univ Prague, Fac Med 2, Dept Urol, Prague, Czech Republic
[11] IM Sechenov First Moscow State Med Univ, Inst Urol & Reprod Hlth, Moscow, Russia
[12] Univ Jordan, Jordan Univ Hosp, Dept Special Surg, Div Urol, Amman, Jordan
[13] IRCCS San Raffaele Sci Inst, Urol Res Inst, Dept Urol, Div Expt Oncol, Milan, Italy
[14] Univ Hosp Hamburg Eppendorf, Dept Urol, Hamburg, Germany
关键词
Gleason; 8; Gleason grade group 4; 4+4; 3+5; 5+3; high risk; prostate cancer; CANCER; SYSTEM;
D O I
10.1002/pros.24175
中图分类号
R5 [内科学];
学科分类号
1002 ; 100201 ;
摘要
Background We hypothesized that Gleason Grade Group (GGG) IV patients treated with radical prostatectomy (RP) or external beam radiotherapy (EBRT) exhibit different cancer-specific mortality (CSM) rates according to underlying Gleason patterns (GP): 4 + 4 versus 3 + 5 versus 5 + 3. Materials and Methods We identified all GGG IV patients treated with either RP or EBRT within the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results 2004-2016 database. The effect of biopsy GP on CSM (3 + 5 vs. 4 + 4 vs. 5 + 3) was tested in Kaplan-Meier and multivariable competing risks regression models (adjusted for PSA, age at diagnosis, cT-, and cN-stage). Results Of 26,458 GGG IV patients, 14,203 (53.7%) were treated with EBRT and 12,255 (46.3%) with RP. Of RP patients, 15.3 versus 81.2 versus 3.4% exhibited biopsy GP 3 + 5 versus 4 + 4 versus 5 + 3 and respective 10-year CSM rates were 6.5 versus 6.2 versus 12.6% (p < .001). In multivariable analyses addressing RP patients, GP 5 + 3 was associated with two-fold higher CSM rate than GP 4 + 4 (p < .001), but not GP 3 + 5 (p = .1). Of EBRT patients, 7.6 versus 89.8 versus 2.6% exhibited biopsy GP 3 + 5 versus 4 + 4 versus 5 + 3 and respective 10-year CSM rates were 12.2 versus 13.8 versus 17.8% (p < .001). In multivariable analyses addressing EBRT patients, no CSM differences according to GP were observed (all p >= .4). Conclusion In GGG IV RP candidates, the presence of biopsy GP 5 + 3 purports a significantly higher CSM than in GP 4 + 4 or 3 + 5. In GGG IV EBRT candidates, no significant CSM differences according to GP were recorded.
引用
收藏
页码:778 / 784
页数:7
相关论文
共 14 条
  • [1] 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
    Epstein, Jonathan I.
    Egevad, Lars
    Amin, Mahul B.
    Delahunt, Brett
    Srigley, John R.
    Humphrey, Peter A.
    [J]. AMERICAN JOURNAL OF SURGICAL PATHOLOGY, 2016, 40 (02) : 244 - 252
  • [2] Radical Prostatectomy, External Beam Radiotherapy, or External Beam Radiotherapy With Brachytherapy Boost and Disease Progression and Mortality in Patients With Gleason Score 9-10 Prostate Cancer
    Kishan, Amar U.
    Cook, Ryan R.
    Ciezki, Jay P.
    Ross, Ashley E.
    Pomerantz, Mark M.
    Nguyen, Paul L.
    Shaikh, Talha
    Tian, Phuoc T.
    Sandler, Kiri A.
    Stock, Richard G.
    Merrick, Gregory S.
    Demanes, D. Jeffrey
    Spratt, Daniel E.
    Abu-Isa, Eyad I.
    Wedde, Trude B.
    Lilleby, Wolfgang
    Krauss, Daniel J.
    Shaw, Grace K.
    Alam, Ridwan
    Reddy, Chandana A.
    Stephenson, Andrew J.
    Klein, Eric A.
    Song, Daniel Y.
    Tosoian, Jeffrey J.
    Hegde, John V.
    Yoo, Sun Mi
    Fiano, Ryan
    D'Amico, Anthony V.
    Nickols, Nicholas G.
    Aronson, William J.
    Sadeghi, Ahmad
    Greco, Stephen
    Deville, Curtiland
    McNutt, Todd
    DeWeese, Theodore L.
    Reiter, Robert E.
    Said, Johnathan W.
    Steinberg, Michael L.
    Hoiwitz, Eric M.
    Kupelian, Patrick A.
    King, Christopher R.
    [J]. JAMA-JOURNAL OF THE AMERICAN MEDICAL ASSOCIATION, 2018, 319 (09): : 896 - 905
  • [3] Survival outcomes of radical prostatectomy vs. external beam radiation therapy in prostate cancer patients with Gleason Score 9-10 at biopsy: A population-based analysis
    Knipper, Sophie
    Palumbo, Carlotta
    Pecoraro, Angela
    Rosiello, Giuseppe
    Tian, Zhe
    Briganti, Alberto
    Zorn, Kevin C.
    Saad, Fred
    Tilki, Derya
    Graefen, Markus
    Karakiewicz, Pierre, I
    [J]. UROLOGIC ONCOLOGY-SEMINARS AND ORIGINAL INVESTIGATIONS, 2020, 38 (03) : 79.e9 - 79.e14
  • [4] Application of a Prognostic Gleason Grade Grouping System to Assess Distant Prostate Cancer Outcomes
    Leapman, Michael S.
    Cowan, Janet E.
    Simko, Jeffry
    Roberge, Gray
    Stohr, Bradley A.
    Carroll, Peter R.
    Cooperberg, Matthew R.
    [J]. EUROPEAN UROLOGY, 2017, 71 (05) : 750 - 759
  • [5] Gleason score 5+3=8 prostate cancer: much more like Gleason score 9?
    Mahal, Brandon A.
    Muralidhar, Vinayak
    Chen, Yu-Wei
    Choueiri, Toni K.
    Hoffman, Karen E.
    Hu, Jim C.
    Sweeney, Christopher J.
    Yu, James B.
    Feng, Felix Y.
    Quoc-Dien Trinh
    Nguyen, Paul L.
    [J]. BJU INTERNATIONAL, 2016, 118 (01) : 95 - 101
  • [6] Gleason Score 3+5 or 5+3 versus 4+4 Prostate Cancer: The Risk of Death
    Mai Anh Huynh
    Chen, Ming-Hui
    Wu, Jing
    Braccioforte, Michelle H.
    Moran, Brian J.
    D'Amico, Anthony V.
    [J]. EUROPEAN UROLOGY, 2016, 69 (06) : 976 - 979
  • [7] Differential prognostic impact of different Gleason patterns in grade group 4 in radical prostatectomy specimens
    Mori, Keiichiro
    Sharma, Vidit
    Comperat, Eva M.
    Sato, Shun
    Laukhtina, Ekaterina
    Schuettfort, Victor M.
    Pradere, Benjamin
    Parizi, Mehdi Kardoust
    Karakiewicz, Pierre I.
    Egawa, Shin
    Tilki, Derya
    Boorjian, Stephen A.
    Shariat, Shahrokh F.
    [J]. EJSO, 2021, 47 (05): : 1172 - 1178
  • [8] EAU-EANM-ESTRO-ESUR-SIOG Guidelines on Prostate Cancer-2020 Update. Part 1: Screening, Diagnosis, and Local Treatment with Curative Intent
    Mottet, Nicolas
    van den Bergh, Roderick C. N.
    Briers, Erik
    Van den Broeck, Thomas
    Cumberbatch, Marcus G.
    De Santis, Maria
    Fanti, Stefano
    Fossati, Nicola
    Gandaglia, Giorgio
    Gillessen, Silke
    Grivas, Nikos
    Grummet, Jeremy
    Henry, Ann M.
    van der Kwast, Theodorus H.
    Lam, Thomas B.
    Lardas, Michael
    Liew, Matthew
    Mason, Malcolm D.
    Moris, Lisa
    Oprea-Lager, Daniela E.
    van der Poel, Henk G.
    Rouviere, Olivier
    Schoots, Ivo G.
    Tilki, Derya
    Wiegel, Thomas
    Willemse, Peter-Paul M.
    Cornford, Philip
    [J]. EUROPEAN UROLOGY, 2021, 79 (02) : 243 - 262
  • [9] National Comprehensive Cancer Network, 2021, CLIN PRACTICE GUIDEL
  • [10] Pierorazio PM, 2013, BJU INT, V111, P753, DOI 10.1111/j.1464-410X.2012.11611.x