Home
November 2008 December 2008 January 2009
Su Mo Tu We Th Fr Sa
Week 49 1 2 3 4 5 6
Week 50 7 8 9 10 11 12 13
Week 51 14 15 16 17 18 19 20
Week 52 21 22 23 24 25 26 27
Week 1 28 29 30 31

European Urology - Should We Replace the Gleason Score with the Amount of High-Grade Prostate Cancer? Show Comments PDF Print E-mail
  
Monday, 02 April 2007
Volume 51, Issue 4, Pages 931-939 (April 2007)

Abstract -

Objectives:

The stage and grade shift of currently diagnosed prostate cancer has led to a diminished prognostic power of the Gleason score system. We investigated the predictive value of the amount of high-grade cancer (Gleason growth patterns 4/5) in the biopsy for prostate-specific antigen (PSA) and clinical relapse after radical prostatectomy.

Methods

PSA-tested participants (N=281) of the European Randomized Study of Screening for Prostate Cancer (ERSPC) who underwent radical prostatectomy were analyzed. Besides clinical features, and serum-PSA, histopathologic features as determined in the diagnostic biopsy and matching radical prostatectomy specimen were related to patient outcome.

Results

At a median follow-up of 7 yr, 39 (13.9%), 24 (8.5%), and 12 (4.3%) patients had PSA ≥0.1ng/ml, PSA ≥1.0ng/ml, and clinical relapse after radical prostatectomy, respectively. Using Cox proportional hazards, PSA level (p=0.002), length of tumour (p=0.040), and length of high-grade cancer (p=0.006) in the biopsy, but not Gleason score, were independent prognostic factors for biochemical relapse (PSA ≥0.1ng/ml) when assessed as continuous variables. In radical prostatectomies, the proportion of high-grade cancer (p<0.001) was most predictive of relapse (PSA ≥0.1ng/ml). For PSA ≥1.0ng/ml and clinical relapse, the amount of high-grade cancer, both in the biopsy specimen (p=0.016 and p=0.004, respectively) and radical prostatectomy specimen (p=0.002 and p=0.005, respectively), but not Gleason score, was an independent predictor.

Conclusions

In biopsy and radical prostatectomy specimens of surgically treated prostate cancer, the amount of high-grade cancer is superior to the Gleason grading system in predicting patient outcome. We propose that, in addition to the Gleason score, the amount of Gleason growth patterns 4/5 in the biopsy (whether absolute length or proportion) should be mentioned in the pathology report.

André N. Vis, Stijn Roemeling, Ries Kranse, Fritz H. Schröder, Theo H. van der Kwast

Department of Urology, Erasmus Medical Center, Rotterdam, The Netherlands

Comprehensive Cancer Center Rotterdam, Rotterdam, The Netherlands

Department of Pathology & Laboratory Medicine, Princess Margaret Hospital, Toronto, Ontario, Canada

Accepted 28 July 2006 published online 16 August 2006.

Reader Comments

Please log-in or register in order to submit comments.

Powered by AkoComment!

 
User Rating: / 0
PoorBest


 
< Prev   Next >