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
  • [31] SEXTANT PROSTATE BIOPSIES - A HISTOPATHOLOGIC CORRELATION WITH RADICAL PROSTATECTOMY SPECIMENS
    PELLER, PA
    YOUNG, DC
    MARMADUKE, DP
    MARSH, WL
    BADALAMENT, RA
    CANCER, 1995, 75 (02) : 530 - 538
  • [32] Artificial intelligence assistance significantly improves Gleason grading of prostate biopsies by pathologists
    Bulten, Wouter
    Balkenhol, Maschenka
    Belinga, Jean-Joel Awoumou
    Brilhante, Americo
    Cakir, Asli
    Egevad, Lars
    Eklund, Martin
    Farre, Xavier
    Geronatsiou, Katerina
    Molinie, Vincent
    Pereira, Guilherme
    Roy, Paromita
    Saile, Gunter
    Salles, Paulo
    Schaafsma, Ewout
    Tschui, Joelle
    Vos, Anne-Marie
    van Boven, Hester
    Vink, Robert
    van der Laak, Jeroen
    Hulsbergen-van der Kaa, Christina
    Litjens, Geert
    MODERN PATHOLOGY, 2021, 34 (03) : 660 - 671
  • [33] The use of targeted MR-guided prostate biopsy reduces the risk of Gleason upgrading on radical prostatectomy
    Arsov, Christian
    Becker, Nikolaus
    Rabenalt, Robert
    Hiester, Andreas
    Quentin, Michael
    Dietzel, Frederic
    Antoch, Gerald
    Gabbert, Helmut E.
    Albers, Peter
    Schimmoeller, Lars
    JOURNAL OF CANCER RESEARCH AND CLINICAL ONCOLOGY, 2015, 141 (11) : 2061 - 2068
  • [34] Aggressive Cancer Behavior of Latent Gleason Pattern 5 in Prostatectomy Specimens
    Fujimura, Tetsuya
    Fukuhara, Hiroshi
    Yamada, Yuta
    Taguchi, Satoru
    Sugihara, Toru
    Niimi, Aya
    Nakamura, Masaki
    Nakagawa, Tohru
    Igawa, Yasuhiko
    Homma, Yukio
    Kume, Haruki
    ANTICANCER RESEARCH, 2018, 38 (11) : 6529 - 6535
  • [35] Current practice of Gleason grading of prostate carcinoma
    Antonio Lopez-Beltran
    Gregor Mikuz
    Rafael J. Luque
    Roberta Mazzucchelli
    Rodolfo Montironi
    Virchows Archiv, 2006, 448 : 111 - 118
  • [36] Prognostic influence of the third Gleason grade in prostatectomy specimens
    Cedeno Diaz, Oderay Mabel
    Fernandez Acenero, Maria Jesus
    Alvarez Fernandez, Emilio
    UROLOGIC ONCOLOGY-SEMINARS AND ORIGINAL INVESTIGATIONS, 2012, 30 (04) : 386 - 390
  • [37] Current practice of Gleason grading of prostate carcinoma
    Lopez-Beltran, A
    Mikuz, G
    Luque, R
    Mazzucchelli, R
    Montironi, R
    VIRCHOWS ARCHIV, 2006, 448 (02) : 111 - 118
  • [38] Gleason grading and prognostic factors in carcinoma of the prostate
    Humphrey, PA
    MODERN PATHOLOGY, 2004, 17 (03) : 292 - 306
  • [39] Current perspectives on Gleason grading of prostate cancer
    Iczkowski K.A.
    Lucia M.S.
    Current Urology Reports, 2011, 12 (3) : 216 - 222
  • [40] Gleason grade accuracy of transperineal and transrectal prostate biopsies in MRI-naive patients
    Qu, Liang G.
    Al-Shawi, Modher
    Howard, Tess
    Papa, Nathan
    Poyet, Cedric
    Kelly, Brian
    Egan, A. J. Matthew
    Lawrentschuk, Nathan
    Bolton, Damien
    Jack, Gregory S.
    INTERNATIONAL UROLOGY AND NEPHROLOGY, 2021, 53 (12) : 2445 - 2452