Clinical Utility of Quantitative Gleason Grading in Prostate Biopsies and Prostatectomy Specimens

被引:213
|
作者
Sauter, Guido [1 ]
Steurer, Stefan [1 ]
Clauditz, Till Sebastian [1 ]
Krech, Till [1 ]
Wittmer, Corinna [1 ]
Lutz, Florian [1 ]
Lennartz, Maximilian [1 ]
Janssen, Tim [1 ]
Hakimi, Nayira [1 ]
Simon, Ronald [1 ]
von Petersdorff-Campen, Mareike [1 ]
Jacobsen, Frank [1 ]
von Loga, Katharina [1 ]
Wilczak, Waldemar [1 ]
Minner, Sarah [1 ]
Tsourlakis, Maria Christina [1 ]
Chirico, Viktoria [1 ]
Haese, Alexander [2 ]
Heinzer, Hans [2 ]
Beyer, Burkhard [2 ]
Graefen, Markus [2 ]
Michl, Uwe [2 ]
Salomon, Georg [2 ]
Steuber, Thomas [2 ]
Budaeus, Lars Henrik [2 ]
Hekeler, Elena [1 ]
Malsy-Mink, Julia [1 ]
Kutzera, Sven [1 ]
Fraune, Christoph [1 ]
Goebel, Cosima [1 ]
Huland, Hartwig [2 ]
Schlomm, Thorsten [2 ,3 ]
机构
[1] Univ Med Ctr Hamburg Eppendorf, Inst Pathol, Martinistr 52, Hamburg, Germany
[2] Univ Med Ctr Hamburg Eppendorf, Prostate Canc Ctr, Martini Klin, Hamburg, Germany
[3] Univ Med Ctr Hamburg Eppendorf, Sect Translat Prostate Canc Res, Dept Urol, Hamburg, Germany
关键词
Prostate cancer; Gleason score; Quantitative Gleason grade; Prognosis; ACTIVE SURVEILLANCE; PATTERN; 5; CANCER; MEN;
D O I
10.1016/j.eururo.2015.10.029
中图分类号
R5 [内科学]; R69 [泌尿科学(泌尿生殖系疾病)];
学科分类号
1002 ; 100201 ;
摘要
Background: Gleason grading is the strongest prognostic parameter in prostate cancer. Gleason grading is categorized as Gleason <= 6, 3 + 4, 4 + 3, 8, and 9-10, but there is variability within these subgroups. For example, Gleason 4 components may range from 5-45% in a Gleason 3 + 4 = 7 cancer. Objective: To assess the clinical relevance of the fractions of Gleason patterns. Design, setting, and participants: Prostatectomy specimens from 12 823 consecutive patients and of 2971 matched preoperative biopsies for which clinical data with an annual follow-up between 2005 and 2014 were available from the Martini-Klinik database. Outcome measurements and statistical analysis: To evaluate the utility of quantitative grading, the fraction of Gleason 3, 4, and 5 patterns seen in biopsies and prostatectomies were recorded. Gleason grade fractions were compared with prostatectomy findings and prostate-specific antigen recurrence. Results and limitations: Our data suggest a striking utility of quantitative Gleason grading. In prostatectomy specimens, there was a continuous increase of the risk of prostate-specific antigen recurrence with increasing percentage of Gleason 4 fractions with remarkably small differences in outcome at clinically important thresholds (0% vs 5%; 40% vs 60% Gleason 4), distinguishing traditionally established prognostic groups. Also, in biopsies, the quantitative Gleason scoring identified various intermediate risk groups with respect to Gleason findings in corresponding prostatectomies. Quantitative grading may also reduce the clinical impact of interobserver variability because borderline findings such as tumors with 5%, 40%, or 60% Gleason 4 fractions and very small Gleason 5 fractions (with pivotal impact on the Gleason score) are disclaimed. Conclusions: Quantitative Gleason pattern data should routinely be provided in addition to Gleason score categories, both in biopsies and in prostatectomy specimens. Patient summary: Gleason score is the most important prognostic parameter in prostate cancer, but prone to interobserver variation. The results of our study show that morphological aspects that define the Gleason grade in prostate cancer represent a continuum. Quantitation of Gleason patterns provides clinically relevant information beyond the traditional Gleason grading categories <= 3 + 3, 3 + 4, 4 + 3, 8, 9-10. Quantitative Gleason scoring can help to minimize variations between different pathologists and substantially aid in optimized therapy decision-making. (C) 2015 European Association of Urology. Published by Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.
引用
收藏
页码:592 / 598
页数:7
相关论文
共 50 条
  • [1] Integrating Tertiary Gleason 5 Patterns into Quantitative Gleason Grading in Prostate Biopsies and Prostatectomy Specimens
    Sauter, Guido
    Clauditz, Till
    Steurer, Stefan
    Wittmer, Corinna
    Buescheck, Franziska
    Krech, Till
    Lutz, Florian
    Lennartz, Maximilian
    Harms, Luisa
    Lawrenz, Lisa
    Moeller-Koop, Christina
    Simon, Ronald
    Jacobsen, Frank
    Wilczak, Waldemar
    Minner, Sarah
    Tsourlakis, Maria Christina
    Chirico, Viktoria
    Weidemann, Soeren
    Haese, Alexander
    Steuber, Thomas
    Salomon, Georg
    Matiu, Michael
    Vettorazzi, Eik
    Michl, Uwe
    Budaeus, Lars
    Tilki, Derya
    Thederan, Imke
    Pehrke, Dirk
    Beyer, Burkhard
    Fraune, Christoph
    Goebel, Cosima
    Heinrich, Marie
    Juhnke, Manuela
    Moeller, Katharina
    Bawahab, Ahmed Abdulwahab Abdullah
    Uhlig, Ria
    Huland, Hartwig
    Heinzer, Hans
    Graefen, Markus
    Schlomm, Thorsten
    EUROPEAN UROLOGY, 2018, 73 (05) : 674 - 683
  • [2] Gleason grading of prostate carcinoma in needle biopsies vs. radical prostatectomy specimens
    Mazzucchelli, R
    Barbisan, F
    Tarquini, LM
    Filosa, A
    Campanini, N
    Galosi, AB
    ANALYTICAL AND QUANTITATIVE CYTOLOGY AND HISTOLOGY, 2005, 27 (03): : 125 - 133
  • [3] Concordance between Gleason score of prostate biopsies and radical prostatectomy specimens and its predictive factors
    Ariafar, Ali
    Rezaeian, Ali
    Zare, Ali
    Zeighami, Shahryar
    Hosseini, Seyed Hossein
    Nikbakht, Hossein-Ali
    Narouie, Behzad
    UROLOGIA JOURNAL, 2023, 90 (02) : 236 - 243
  • [4] Gleason grading of prostate cancer in needle biopsies or radical prostatectomy specimens: contemporary approach, current clinical significance and sources of pathology discrepancies
    Montironi, R
    Mazzuccheli, R
    Scarpelli, M
    Lopez-Beltran, A
    Fellegara, G
    Algaba, F
    BJU INTERNATIONAL, 2005, 95 (08) : 1146 - 1152
  • [5] Importance of prostate-specific antigen (PSA) as a predictive factor for concordance between the Gleason scores of prostate biopsies and RADICAL prostatectomy specimens
    de Lima, Nelson Gianni
    Gomes Soares, Daniel de Freitas
    Rhoden, Ernani Luis
    CLINICS, 2013, 68 (06) : 820 - 824
  • [6] Correlation between Gleason scores on prostatic biopsies and prostatectomy specimens
    Prost, J
    Gros, N
    Bastide, C
    Bladou, F
    Serment, G
    Rossi, D
    PROGRES EN UROLOGIE, 2001, 11 (01): : 45 - 48
  • [7] Gleason grading of prostate cancer in needle biopsies vs. radical prostatectomy spectmens
    Vidal-Jimenez, Alfredo
    ANALYTICAL AND QUANTITATIVE CYTOLOGY AND HISTOLOGY, 2006, 28 (06): : 340 - 341
  • [8] External validation of an artificial intelligence model for Gleason grading of prostate cancer on prostatectomy specimens
    Schmidt, Bogdana
    Soerensen, Simon John Christoph
    Bhambhvani, Hriday P.
    Fan, Richard E.
    Bhattacharya, Indrani
    Choi, Moon Hyung
    Kunder, Christian A.
    Kao, Chia-Sui
    Higgins, John
    Rusu, Mirabela
    Sonn, Geoffrey A.
    BJU INTERNATIONAL, 2025, 135 (01) : 133 - 139
  • [9] Usefulness of the 2005 International Society of Urologic Pathology Gleason grading system in prostate biopsy and radical prostatectomy specimens
    Uemura, Hiroji
    Hoshino, Koji
    Sasaki, Takeshi
    Miyoshi, Yasuhide
    Ishiguro, Hitoshi
    Inayama, Yoshiaki
    Kubota, Yoshinobu
    BJU INTERNATIONAL, 2009, 103 (09) : 1190 - 1194
  • [10] Accuracy of prostate biopsies for predicting Gleason score in radical prostatectomy specimens: nationwide trends 2000-2012
    Danneman, Daniela
    Drevin, Linda
    Delahunt, Brett
    Samaratunga, Hemamali
    Robinson, David
    Bratt, Ola
    Loeb, Stacy
    Stattin, Par
    Egevad, Lars
    BJU INTERNATIONAL, 2017, 119 (01) : 50 - 56