|
|
Impact of tertiary Gleason pattern 5 on prostate cancer aggressiveness: Lessons from a contemporary single institution radical prostatectomy series |
Zachary B. Koloff1, Daniel A. Hamstra2, John T. Wei1, Jeffrey S. Montgomery1, Scott A. Tomlins3, Angela J. Wu3, Todd M. Morgan1, Javed Siddiqui1, Kellie Paich1, Arul M. Chinnaiyan3, Felix Y. Feng3, Alon Z. Weizer1, Lakshmi P. Kunju3, Brent K. Hollenbeck1, David C. Miller1, Ganesh S. Palapattu1, Rohit Mehra3
|
1. Department of Urology, University of Michigan Medical School, Ann Arbor, MI, USA;
2. Department of Radiation Oncology, University of Michigan Medical School, Ann Arbor, MI, USA;
3. Department of Pathology, University of Michigan Medical School, Ann Arbor, MI, USA |
|
|
Abstract Objective: To better evaluate tertiary Gleason pattern reporting and to evaluate the impact of tertiary Gleason pattern 5 (TP5) on prostate cancer pathological features and biochemical recurrence at our large single institution. Methods: We retrospectively reviewed 1962 patients who underwent radical prostatectomy (RP) for prostate cancer; TP5 was reported in 159 cases (8.1%). Men with Gleason score (GS) 7 and GS 8 disease were divided into subgroups with and without TP5, and histopathological features were compared. Multivariate analyses were conducted to assess the impact on TP5 on biochemical-free survival (BFS). Results: Tumors possessing GS 3+4 with TP5 were more likely to exhibit extraprostatic extension (EPE) and had a larger tumor diameter (TD) than GS 3+4 alone. GS 3+4 with TP5 was also associated with positive surgical margins (SM), seminal vesicle involvement (SVI), and higher pre-operative prostate-specific antigen (PSA) values, but without statistical significance. GS 4+3 with TP5 more commonly presented with EPE, positive SM, SVI, and greater TD and pre-operative PSA level than GS 4+3 alone. In multivariate analysis, Gleason score, EPE, and TP5 were overall independent risk factors for PSA recurrence in this cohort. Additionally, GS 4+3 with TP5 was associated with shorter time to recurrence versus GS 4+3 alone. Conclusion: Our results emphasize the importance of TP5 and suggest that criteria for tertiary pattern reporting in prostate cancer should be standardized. Further studies are needed to evaluate the role of tertiary patterns in prognostic models.
|
Received: 18 July 2014
Published: 06 February 2015
|
Fund:R.M. and A.M.C. are supported by the Prostate Cancer Foundation. |
Corresponding Authors:
Rohit Mehra
E-mail: mrohit@med.umich.edu
|
|
|
TRENDMD: |
|
|
Cite this article: |
Zachary B. Koloff,Daniel A. Hamstra,John T. Wei, et al. Impact of tertiary Gleason pattern 5 on prostate cancer aggressiveness: Lessons from a contemporary single institution radical prostatectomy series[J]. Asian Journal of Urology,
2015, 2(1): 53-58.
|
|
|
|
URL: |
http://www.ajurology.com/EN/ OR http://www.ajurology.com/EN/Y2015/V2/I1/53 |
[1] |
Chan TY, Partin AW, Walsh PC, Epstein JI. Prognostic significance of Gleason score 3+4 versus Gleason score 4+3 tumor at radical prostatectomy. Urology 2000;56:823-7.
|
[2] |
Herman CM, Kattan MW, Ohori M, Scardino PT, Wheeler TM. Primary Gleason pattern as a predictor of disease progression in Gleason score 7 prostate cancer: a multivariate analysis of 823 men treated with radical prostatectomy. Am J Surg Pathol 2001;25:657-60.
|
[3] |
Hoedemaeker RF, Rietbergen JB, Kranse R, Schroder FH, van der Kwast TH. Histopathological prostate cancer characteristics at radical prostatectomy after population based screening. J Urol 2000;164:411-5.
|
[4] |
Epstein JI, Partin AW, Sauvageot J, Walsh PC. Prediction of progression following radical prostatectomy. A multivariate analysis of 721 men with long-term follow-up. Am J Surg Pathol 1996;20:286-92.
|
[5] |
Partin AW, Kattan MW, Subong EN, Walsh PC, Wojno KJ, Oesterling JE, et al. Combination of prostate-specific antigen, clinical stage, and Gleason score to predict pathological stage of localized prostate cancer. A multi-institutional update. J Am Med Assoc 1997;277:1445-51.
|
[6] |
Epstein JI. An update of the Gleason grading system. J Urol 2010;183:433-40.
|
[7] |
Gleason DF. Histological grading and clinical staging of prostatic carcinoma. Philadelphia: Lea & Feibiger; 1977. p. 171-98.
|
[8] |
Hashine K, Yuasa A, Shinomori K, Shirato A, Ninomiya I, Teramoto N. Tertiary Gleason pattern 5 and oncological outcomes after radical prostatectomy. Jan J Clin Oncol 2011;41: 571-6.
|
[9] |
Rasiah KK, Stricker PD, Haynes AM, Delprado W, Turner JJ, Golovsky D, et al. Prognostic significance of Gleason pattern in patients with Gleason score 7 prostate carcinoma. Cancer 2003;98:2560-5.
|
[10] |
Sim HG, Telesca D, Culp SH, Ellis WJ, Lange PH, True LD, et al. Tertiary Gleason pattern 5 in Gleason 7 prostate cancer predicts pathological stage and biochemical recurrence. J Urol 2008;179:1775-9.
|
[11] |
Whittemore DE, Hick EJ, Carter MR, Moul JW, Miranda-Sousa AJ, Sexton WJ. Significance of tertiary Gleason pattern 5 in Gleason score 7 radical prostatectomy specimens. J Urol 2008;179:516-22.
|
[12] |
Mosse CA, Magi-Galluzzi C, Tsuzuki T, Epstein JI. The prognostic significance of tertiary Gleason pattern 5 in radical prostatectomy specimens. Am J Surg Pathol 2004;28:394-8.
|
[13] |
Pan CC, Potter SR, Partin AW, Epstein JI. The prognostic significance of tertiary Gleason patterns of higher grade in radical prostatectomy specimens: a proposal to modify the Gleason grading system. Am J Surg Pathol 2000;24:563-9.
|
[14] |
Epstein JI, Allsbrook Jr WC, Amin MB, Egevad LL, Committee IG. The 2005 International Society of Urological Pathology (ISUP) consensus conference on Gleason grading of prostatic carcinoma. Am J Surg Pathol 2005;29:1228-42.
|
[15] |
Turker P, Bas E, Bozkurt S, Günlüsoy B, Sezgin A, Postac? H, et al. Presence of high grade tertiary Gleason pattern upgrades the Gleason sum score and is inversely associated with biochemical recurrence-free survival. Urol Oncol 2013;31:93-8.
|
[16] |
Trock BJ, Guo CC, Gonzalgo ML, Magheli A, Loeb S, Epstein JI. Tertiary Gleason patterns and biochemical recurrence after prostatectomy: proposal for a modified Gleason scoring system. J Urol 2009;182:1364-70.
|
[17] |
Harnden P, Shelley MD, Coles B, Staffurth J, Mason MD. Should the Gleason grading system for prostate cancer be modified to account for high-grade tertiary components? A systematic review and meta-analysis. Lancet Oncol 2007;8:411-9.
|
[18] |
McNeal JE, Bostwick DG, Kindrachuk RA, Redwine EA, Freiha FS, Stamey TA. Patterns of progression in prostate cancer. Lancet 1986;1:60-3.
|
[19] |
McNeal JE, Villers AA, Redwine EA, Freiha FS, Stamey TA. Histologic differentiation, cancer volume, and pelvic lymph node metastasis in adenocarcinoma of the prostate. Cancer 1990;66:1225-33.
|
[20] |
Cheng L, Koch MO, Juliar BE, Daggy JK, Foster RS, Bihrle R, et al. The combined percentage of Gleason patterns 4 and 5 is the best predictor of cancer progression after radical prostatectomy. J Clin Oncol 2005;23:2911-7.
|
[21] |
Stamey TA, McNeal JE, Yemoto CM, Sigal BM, Johnstone IM. Biological determinants of cancer progression in men with prostate cancer. J Am Med Assoc 1999;281:1395-400.
|
[22] |
Jackson W, Hamstra DA, Johnson S, Zhou J, Foster B, Foster C, et al. Gleason pattern 5 is the strongest pathologic predictor of recurrence, metastasis, and prostate cancer-specific death in patients receiving salvage radiation therapy following radical prostatectomy. Cancer 2013;119:3287-94.
|
[23] |
Pierorazio PM, Walsh PC, Partin AW, Epstein JI. Prognostic Gleason grade grouping: data based on the modified Gleason scoring system. BJU Int 2013;111:753-60.
|
[24] |
Servoll E, Saeter T, Vlatkovic L, Lund T, Nesland J, Waaler G, et al. Impact of a tertiary Gleason pattern 4 or 5 on clinical failure and mortality after radical prostatectomy for clinically localised prostate cancer. BJU Int 2012;109:1489-94.
|
[25] |
Nanda A, Chen MH, Renshaw AA, D'Amico AV. Gleason pattern 5 prostate cancer: further stratification of patients with highrisk disease and implications for future randomized trials. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 2009;74:1419-23.
|
[26] |
Di Blasio CJ, Rhee AC, Cho D, Scardino PT, Kattan MW. Predicting clinical end points: treatment nomograms in prostate cancer. Semin Oncol 2003;30:567-86.
|
[1] |
S. Sfanos Karen,Yegnasubramanian Srinivasan,G. Nelson William,L. Lotan Tamara,Kulac Ibrahim,L. Hicks Jessica,Zheng Qizhi,J. Bieberich Charles,C. Haffner Michael,M. De Marzo Angelo. If this is true, what does it imply? How end-user antibody validation facilitates insights into biology and disease[J]. Asian Journal of Urology, 2019, 6(1): 10-25. |
[2] |
Dong Liang,C. Zieren Richard,Xue Wei,M. de Reijke Theo,J. Pienta Kenneth. Metastatic prostate cancer remains incurable, why?[J]. Asian Journal of Urology, 2019, 6(1): 26-41. |
[3] |
M. Armstrong Cameron,C. Gao Allen. Current strategies for targeting the activity of androgen receptor variants[J]. Asian Journal of Urology, 2019, 6(1): 42-49. |
[4] |
B. Isaacs William,Xu Jianfeng. Current progress and questions in germline genetics of prostate cancer[J]. Asian Journal of Urology, 2019, 6(1): 3-9. |
[5] |
Etheridge Tyler,Damodaran Shivashankar,Schultz Adam,A. Richards Kyle,Gawdzik Joseph,Yang Bing,Cryns Vincent,F. Jarrard David. Combination therapy with androgen deprivation for hormone sensitive prostate cancer: A new frontier[J]. Asian Journal of Urology, 2019, 6(1): 57-64. |
[6] |
Chia-Yi Chu Gina,W.K. Chung Leland,Gururajan Murali,Hsieh Chia-Ling,Josson Sajni,Nandana Srinivas,Sung Shian-Ying,Wang Ruoxiang,Boyang Wu Jason,E. Zhau Haiyen. Regulatory signaling network in the tumor microenvironment of prostate cancer bone and visceral organ metastases and the development of novel therapeutics[J]. Asian Journal of Urology, 2019, 6(1): 65-81. |
[7] |
Dicken Haley,J. Hensley Patrick,Kyprianou Natasha. Prostate tumor neuroendocrine differentiation via EMT: The road less traveled[J]. Asian Journal of Urology, 2019, 6(1): 82-90. |
[8] |
Xu Lingfan,Chen Junyi,Liu Weipeng,Liang Chaozhao,Hu Hailiang,Huang Jiaoti. Targeting androgen receptor-independent pathways in therapy-resistant prostate cancer[J]. Asian Journal of Urology, 2019, 6(1): 91-98. |
[9] |
Chen Kenneth,Jack Tay Kae,Mee Law Yan,Aydin Hakan,Ho Henry,Cheng Christopher,Shyi Peng Yuen John. Outcomes of combination MRI-targeted and transperineal template biopsy in restaging low-risk prostate cancer for active surveillance[J]. Asian Journal of Urology, 2018, 5(3): 184-193. |
[10] |
Chen Shulian,Gao Rang,Li Hong,Wang Kunjie. Management of acquired rectourethral fistulas in adults[J]. Asian Journal of Urology, 2018, 5(3): 149-154. |
[11] |
Chen Kenneth,Sim Allen,Kan Alex Ford. The effect of adjunct caudal block on postoperative analgesia in robot-assisted laparoscopic radical prostatectomy: A prospective randomized controlled, single blinded pilot study in a tertiary centre[J]. Asian Journal of Urology, 2018, 5(2): 122-126. |
[12] |
Su Jiarui,Jonathan Aslim Edwin,Aydin Hakan,HoonTan Puay,Sun SienHo Henry. A rare case of isolated castrate resistant bilateral testicular metastases in advanced prostate cancer[J]. Asian Journal of Urology, 2018, 5(2): 127-130. |
[13] |
Per-Anders Abrahamsson. Intermittent androgen deprivation therapy in patients with prostate cancer:Connecting the dots[J]. Asian Journal of Urology, 2017, 4(4): 208-222. |
[14] |
Yoshiyasu Amiya, Yasutaka Yamada, Masahiro Sugiura, Makoto Sasaki, Takayuki Shima, Noriyuki Suzuki, Hiroomi Nakatsu, Shino Murakami, Jun Shimazaki. Outcomes of patients older than 75 years with non-metastatic prostate cancer[J]. Asian Journal of Urology, 2017, 4(2): 102-106. |
[15] |
Dingwei Ye, Yiran Huang, Fangjian Zhou, Keji Xie, Vsevolod Matveev, Changling Li, Boris Alexeev, Ye Tian, Mingxing Qiu, Hanzhong Li, Tie Zhou, Peter De Porre, Margaret Yu, Vahid Naini, Hongchuan Liang, Zhuli Wu, Yinghao Sun. A phase 3, double-blind, randomized placebo-controlled efficacy and safety study of abiraterone acetate in chemotherapynaïve patients with mCRPC in China, Malaysia, Thailand and Russia[J]. Asian Journal of Urology, 2017, 4(2): 75-85. |
|
|
|
|