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

被引:212
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
  • [41] 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
  • [42] The effect of modified Gleason grading on the score concordance between the Gleason scores of needle biopsy and radical prostatectomy specimens in prostatic carcinoma
    Ozok, Hakki Ugur
    Oktay, Murat
    Sagnak, Levent
    Karakoyunlu, Nihat
    Ersoy, Hamit
    Alper, Murat
    TURKISH JOURNAL OF UROLOGY, 2010, 36 (04): : 333 - 338
  • [43] Gleason Grading, Biochemical Failure, and Prostate Cancer-Specific Death
    Vollmer, Robin T.
    AMERICAN JOURNAL OF CLINICAL PATHOLOGY, 2017, 147 (03) : 273 - 277
  • [44] Utility of Gleason pattern 4 morphologies detected on transrectal ultrasound (TRUS)-guided biopsies for prediction of upgrading or upstaging in Gleason score 3 + 4 = 7 prostate cancer
    Trevor A. Flood
    Nicola Schieda
    Daniel T. Keefe
    Rodney H. Breau
    Chris Morash
    Kevin Hogan
    Eric C. Belanger
    Kien T. Mai
    Susan J. Robertson
    Virchows Archiv, 2016, 469 : 313 - 319
  • [45] Gleason scores in prostate needle biopsy and prostatectomy specimens in prostatic adenocarcinoma: A correlation study
    Awang, Asmawiza
    Isa, Nurismah Md
    Yunus, Rosna
    Shah, Shamsul Azhar
    Pauzi, Suria Hayati Md
    MALAYSIAN JOURNAL OF PATHOLOGY, 2019, 41 (03) : 253 - 257
  • [46] Impact on the Clinical Outcome of Prostate Cancer by the 2005 International Society of Urological Pathology Modified Gleason Grading System
    Dong, Fei
    Wang, Chaofu
    Farris, A. Brad
    Wu, Shulin
    Lee, Hang
    Olumi, Aria F.
    McDougal, W. Scott
    Young, Robert H.
    Wu, Chin-Lee
    AMERICAN JOURNAL OF SURGICAL PATHOLOGY, 2012, 36 (06) : 838 - 843
  • [47] Preoperative Gleason score, percent of positive prostate biopsies and PSA in predicting biochemical recurrence after radical prostatectomy
    Acimovic, M.
    Dabic-Stankovic, K.
    Pejcic, T.
    Dzamic, Z.
    Rafailovic, D.
    Hadzi-Djokic, J.
    JOURNAL OF BUON, 2013, 18 (04): : 954 - 960
  • [48] Tertiary Gleason pattern in radical prostatectomy specimens is associated with worse outcomes than the next higher Gleason score group in localized prostate cancer
    Oezsoy, Mehmet
    D'Andrea, David
    Moschini, Marco
    Foerster, Beat
    Abufaraj, Mohammad
    Mathieu, Romain
    Briganti, Alberto
    Karakiewicz, Pierre I.
    Roupret, Morgan
    Seitz, Christian
    Czech, Anna Katarzyna
    Susani, Martin
    Shariat, Shahrokh F.
    UROLOGIC ONCOLOGY-SEMINARS AND ORIGINAL INVESTIGATIONS, 2018, 36 (04) : 158.e1 - 158.e6
  • [49] Prostate Biopsy Specimens With Gleason 3+3=6 and Intraductal Carcinoma Radical Prostatectomy Findings and Clinical Outcomes
    Khani, Francesca
    Epstein, Jonathan I.
    AMERICAN JOURNAL OF SURGICAL PATHOLOGY, 2015, 39 (10) : 1383 - 1389
  • [50] Contemporary Gleason grading and novel Grade Groups in clinical practice
    Magi-Galluzzi, Cristina
    Montironi, Rodolfo
    Epstein, Jonathan I.
    CURRENT OPINION IN UROLOGY, 2016, 26 (05) : 488 - 492