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

被引:222
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 30 条
[11]   Outcomes of Active Surveillance for Men With Intermediate-Risk Prostate Cancer [J].
Cooperberg, Matthew R. ;
Cowan, Janet E. ;
Hilton, Joan F. ;
Reese, Adam C. ;
Zaid, Harras B. ;
Porten, Sima P. ;
Shinohara, Katsuto ;
Meng, Maxwell V. ;
Greene, Kirsten L. ;
Carroll, Peter R. .
JOURNAL OF CLINICAL ONCOLOGY, 2011, 29 (02) :228-234
[12]   Percent Gleason grade 4/5 as prognostic factor in prostate cancer diagnosed at transurethral resection [J].
Egevad, L ;
Granfors, T ;
Karlberg, L ;
Bergh, A ;
Stattin, P .
JOURNAL OF UROLOGY, 2002, 168 (02) :509-513
[13]   Standardization of Gleason grading among 337 European pathologists [J].
Egevad, Lars ;
Ahmad, Amar S. ;
Algaba, Ferran ;
Berney, Daniel M. ;
Boccon-Gibod, Liliane ;
Comperat, Eva ;
Evans, Andrew J. ;
Griffiths, David ;
Grobholz, Rainer ;
Kristiansen, Glen ;
Langner, Cord ;
Lopez-Beltran, Antonio ;
Montironi, Rodolfo ;
Moss, Sue ;
Oliveira, Pedro ;
Vainer, Ben ;
Varma, Murali ;
Camparo, Philippe .
HISTOPATHOLOGY, 2013, 62 (02) :247-256
[14]   Interactive digital slides with heat maps: a novel method to improve the reproducibility of Gleason grading [J].
Egevad, Lars ;
Algaba, Ferran ;
Berney, Daniel M. ;
Boccon-Gibod, Liliane ;
Comperat, Eva ;
Evans, Andrew J. ;
Grobholz, Rainer ;
Kristiansen, Glen ;
Langner, Cord ;
Lockwood, Gina ;
Lopez-Beltran, Antonio ;
Montironi, Rodolfo ;
Oliveira, Pedro ;
Schwenkglenks, Matthias ;
Vainer, Ben ;
Varma, Murali ;
Verger, Vincent ;
Camparo, Philippe .
VIRCHOWS ARCHIV, 2011, 459 (02) :175-182
[15]   The 2005 International Society of Urological Pathology (ISUP) Consensus Conference on Gleason Grading of Prostatic Carcinoma [J].
Epstein, JI ;
Allsbrook, WC ;
Amin, MB ;
Egevad, LL ;
Bastacky, S ;
Beltrán, AL ;
Berner, A ;
Billis, A ;
Boccon-Gibod, L ;
Cheng, L ;
Civantos, F ;
Cohen, C ;
Cohen, MB ;
Datta, M ;
Davis, C ;
Delahunt, B ;
Delprado, W ;
Eble, JN ;
Foster, CS ;
Furusato, M ;
Gaudin, PB ;
Grignon, DJ ;
Humphrey, PA ;
Iczkowski, KA ;
Jones, EC ;
Lucia, S ;
McCue, PA ;
Nazeer, T ;
Oliva, E ;
Pan, CC ;
Pizov, G ;
Reuter, V ;
Samaratunga, H ;
Sebo, T ;
Sesterhenn, I ;
Shevchuk, M ;
Srigley, JR ;
Suzigan, S ;
Takahashi, H ;
Tamboli, P ;
Tan, PH ;
Têtu, B ;
Tickoo, S ;
Tomaszewski, JE ;
Troncoso, P ;
Tsuzuki, T ;
True, LD ;
van der Kwast, T ;
Wheeler, TM ;
Wojno, KJ .
AMERICAN JOURNAL OF SURGICAL PATHOLOGY, 2005, 29 (09) :1228-1242
[16]  
Fajardo DA, 2011, AM J SURG PATHOL, V35, P1706, DOI [10.1097/PAS.0b013e318228571d, 10.1590/S1677-55382011000600022]
[17]   What is the optimal definition of misclassification in patients with very low-risk prostate cancer eligible for active surveillance? Results from a multi-institutional series [J].
Gandaglia, Giorgio ;
Ploussard, Guillaume ;
Isbarn, Hendrik ;
Suardi, Nazareno ;
De Visschere, Peter J. L. ;
Futterer, Jurgen J. ;
Ghadjar, Pirus ;
Massard, Christophe ;
Ost, Piet ;
Sooriakumaran, Prasanna ;
Surcel, Christian I. ;
van den Bergh, Roderick C. N. ;
Montorsi, Francesco ;
Ficarra, Vincenzo ;
Giannarini, Gianluca ;
Briganti, Alberto .
UROLOGIC ONCOLOGY-SEMINARS AND ORIGINAL INVESTIGATIONS, 2015, 33 (04) :164.e1-164.e9
[18]   HISTOLOGIC GRADING OF PROSTATE-CANCER - A PERSPECTIVE [J].
GLEASON, DF .
HUMAN PATHOLOGY, 1992, 23 (03) :273-279
[19]  
GLEASON DONALD F., 1966, CANCER CHEMO THERAP REP, V50, P125
[20]   EAU Guidelines on Prostate Cancer. Part 1: Screening, Diagnosis, and Local Treatment with Curative Intent-Update 2013 [J].
Heidenreich, Axel ;
Bastian, Patrick J. ;
Bellmunt, Joaquim ;
Bolla, Michel ;
Joniau, Steven ;
van der Kwast, Theodor ;
Mason, Malcolm ;
Matveev, Vsevolod ;
Wiegel, Thomas ;
Zattoni, F. ;
Mottet, Nicolas .
EUROPEAN UROLOGY, 2014, 65 (01) :124-137