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
  • [21] Targeted Multiparametric Magnetic Resonance Imaging/Ultrasound Fusion Biopsy for Quantitative Gleason 4 Grading Prediction in Radical Prostatectomy Specimens: Implications for Active Surveillance Candidate Selection
    Kachanov, Mykyta
    Budaeus, Lars
    Beyersdorff, Dirk
    Karakiewicz, Pierre I.
    Tian, Zhe
    Falkenbach, Fabian
    Tilki, Derya
    Maurer, Tobias
    Sauter, Guido
    Graefen, Markus
    Leyh-Bannurah, Sami-Ramzi
    EUROPEAN UROLOGY FOCUS, 2023, 9 (02): : 303 - 308
  • [22] The value of artificial intelligence for detection and grading of prostate cancer in human prostatectomy specimens: a validation study
    Kudo, Maira Suzuka
    Gomes de Souza, Vinicius Meneguette
    Neubarth Estivallet, Carmen Liane
    de Amorim, Henrique Alves
    Kim, Fernando J.
    Moreira Leite, Katia Ramos
    Moraes, Matheus Cardoso
    PATIENT SAFETY IN SURGERY, 2022, 16 (01)
  • [23] Prognostic Utility of the Gleason Grading System Revisions and Histopathological Factors Beyond Gleason Grade
    Zelic, Renata
    Giunchi, Francesca
    Fridfeldt, Jonna
    Carlsson, Jessica
    Davidsson, Sabina
    Lianas, Luca
    Mascia, Cecilia
    Zugna, Daniela
    Molinaro, Luca
    Vincent, Per Henrik
    Zanetti, Gianluigi
    Andren, Ove
    Richiardi, Lorenzo
    Akre, Olof
    Fiorentino, Michelangelo
    Pettersson, Andreas
    CLINICAL EPIDEMIOLOGY, 2022, 14 : 59 - 70
  • [24] Interobserver reproducibility of Gleason grading in prostate biopsy samples
    Bori Rita
    Salamon Ferenc
    Moczar Csaba
    Cserni Gabor
    ORVOSI HETILAP, 2013, 154 (31) : 1219 - 1225
  • [25] Gleason Score and Laterality Concordance between Prostate Biopsy and Prostatectomy Specimens
    Nepple, Kenneth G.
    Wahls, Terry L.
    Hillis, Stephen L.
    Joudi, Fadi N.
    INTERNATIONAL BRAZ J UROL, 2009, 35 (05): : 559 - 564
  • [26] Gleason Score Correlation Between Prostate Biopsy and Radical Prostatectomy Specimens
    Ozturk, Erdem
    Yikilmaz, Taha Numan
    UROONKOLOJI BULTENI-BULLETIN OF UROONCOLOGY, 2018, 17 (01): : 1 - 4
  • [27] An Artificial Intelligence-based Support Tool for Automation and Standardisation of Gleason Grading in Prostate Biopsies
    Marginean, Felicia
    Arvidsson, Ida
    Simoulis, Athanasios
    Overgaard, Niels Christian
    Astrom, Kalle
    Heyden, Anders
    Bjartell, Anders
    Krzyzanowska, Agnieszka
    EUROPEAN UROLOGY FOCUS, 2021, 7 (05): : 995 - 1001
  • [28] Incidence and Variables Predicting Gleason Score Up-Grading between Trans-Rectal Ultrasound-Guided Prostate Biopsies and Radical Prostatectomy
    Bright, Elizabeth
    Manuel, Clare
    Goddard, Jonathan C.
    Khan, Masood A.
    UROLOGIA INTERNATIONALIS, 2010, 84 (02) : 180 - 184
  • [29] Changes in Gleason score grading on serial follow-up biopsies in prostate cancer patients undergoing active surveillance
    Guijarro, A.
    Hernandez, V.
    Lopez, B.
    Capitan, C.
    Perez-Fernandez, E.
    de la Pena, E.
    de la Morena, J. M.
    Llorente, C.
    ACTAS UROLOGICAS ESPANOLAS, 2015, 39 (03): : 139 - 143
  • [30] A PYRAMIDAL CNN-BASED GLEASON GRADING SYSTEM USING DIGITIZED PROSTATE BIOPSY SPECIMENS
    Hammouda, K.
    Khalifa, F.
    Ghazal, M.
    Darwish, H. E.
    Yousaf, J.
    El-Baz, A.
    2022 26TH INTERNATIONAL CONFERENCE ON PATTERN RECOGNITION (ICPR), 2022, : 4277 - 4284