Cargando…

Significant prognostic difference between Grade Group 4 and 5 in the 2014 International Society of Urological Pathology Grading System for High Grade Prostate Cancer with Bone Metastasis

BACKGROUND: To investigate prognostic difference between Gleason Score (GS) 8 and 9–10, as the 2014 International Society of Urological Pathology Gleason Grading Systems proposed, in patients with prostate cancer (PCa) with bone metastasis. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We retrospectively reviewed data on...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Yamada, Yasutaka, Sakamoto, Shinichi, Shimazaki, Jun, Sugiura, Masahiro, Amiya, Yoshiyasu, Sasaki, Makoto, Shima, Takayuki, Komiya, Akira, Suzuki, Noriyuki, Akakura, Koichiro, Ichikawa, Tomohiko, Nakatsu, Hiroomi
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Asian Pacific Prostate Society 2017
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5693457/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/29188201
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.prnil.2017.03.001
_version_ 1783279943277346816
author Yamada, Yasutaka
Sakamoto, Shinichi
Shimazaki, Jun
Sugiura, Masahiro
Amiya, Yoshiyasu
Sasaki, Makoto
Shima, Takayuki
Komiya, Akira
Suzuki, Noriyuki
Akakura, Koichiro
Ichikawa, Tomohiko
Nakatsu, Hiroomi
author_facet Yamada, Yasutaka
Sakamoto, Shinichi
Shimazaki, Jun
Sugiura, Masahiro
Amiya, Yoshiyasu
Sasaki, Makoto
Shima, Takayuki
Komiya, Akira
Suzuki, Noriyuki
Akakura, Koichiro
Ichikawa, Tomohiko
Nakatsu, Hiroomi
author_sort Yamada, Yasutaka
collection PubMed
description BACKGROUND: To investigate prognostic difference between Gleason Score (GS) 8 and 9–10, as the 2014 International Society of Urological Pathology Gleason Grading Systems proposed, in patients with prostate cancer (PCa) with bone metastasis. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We retrospectively reviewed data on 106 patients with GS 8–10 between 2006 and 2016. All patients received androgen deprivation therapy immediately. We validated biochemical recurrence, PCa-specific survival, and overall survival, and analyzed the predictive value for overall survival. RESULTS: Patients with GS 9–10 had significantly lower PCa-specific survival (50.5% vs. 83.4%, P = 0.01) and overall survival (38.8% vs. 66.3%, P = 0.04) at 5 years than those with GS 8, while biochemical recurrence rate was not significantly different (P = 0.26). Furthermore, these significant differences between GS 8 and 9–10 were also observed among high-risk groups proposed in Japan Cancer of the Prostate Risk Assessment Stratification (prostate cancer-specific survival: P = 0.03, overall survival: P = 0.04, respectively). Pathological GS 9–10 was an independent prognostic factor for overall survival (hazard ratio = 1.97, P = 0.04) in multivariable cox proportional hazard regression analysis. Among patients with GS 9–10, albumin level was an only prognostic factor for overall survival (hazard ratio = 0.33, P < 0.01). CONCLUSION: Pathological GS 9–10 predicts significantly worse outcomes than GS 8 in Japanese PCa patients with bone metastasis. Our data indicated clinical significance of discriminating the 2014 International Society of Urological Pathology Gleason Grading Group 4 and 5 among high-risk PCa patients with bone metastasis.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-5693457
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2017
publisher Asian Pacific Prostate Society
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-56934572017-11-29 Significant prognostic difference between Grade Group 4 and 5 in the 2014 International Society of Urological Pathology Grading System for High Grade Prostate Cancer with Bone Metastasis Yamada, Yasutaka Sakamoto, Shinichi Shimazaki, Jun Sugiura, Masahiro Amiya, Yoshiyasu Sasaki, Makoto Shima, Takayuki Komiya, Akira Suzuki, Noriyuki Akakura, Koichiro Ichikawa, Tomohiko Nakatsu, Hiroomi Prostate Int Original Article BACKGROUND: To investigate prognostic difference between Gleason Score (GS) 8 and 9–10, as the 2014 International Society of Urological Pathology Gleason Grading Systems proposed, in patients with prostate cancer (PCa) with bone metastasis. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We retrospectively reviewed data on 106 patients with GS 8–10 between 2006 and 2016. All patients received androgen deprivation therapy immediately. We validated biochemical recurrence, PCa-specific survival, and overall survival, and analyzed the predictive value for overall survival. RESULTS: Patients with GS 9–10 had significantly lower PCa-specific survival (50.5% vs. 83.4%, P = 0.01) and overall survival (38.8% vs. 66.3%, P = 0.04) at 5 years than those with GS 8, while biochemical recurrence rate was not significantly different (P = 0.26). Furthermore, these significant differences between GS 8 and 9–10 were also observed among high-risk groups proposed in Japan Cancer of the Prostate Risk Assessment Stratification (prostate cancer-specific survival: P = 0.03, overall survival: P = 0.04, respectively). Pathological GS 9–10 was an independent prognostic factor for overall survival (hazard ratio = 1.97, P = 0.04) in multivariable cox proportional hazard regression analysis. Among patients with GS 9–10, albumin level was an only prognostic factor for overall survival (hazard ratio = 0.33, P < 0.01). CONCLUSION: Pathological GS 9–10 predicts significantly worse outcomes than GS 8 in Japanese PCa patients with bone metastasis. Our data indicated clinical significance of discriminating the 2014 International Society of Urological Pathology Gleason Grading Group 4 and 5 among high-risk PCa patients with bone metastasis. Asian Pacific Prostate Society 2017-12 2017-03-16 /pmc/articles/PMC5693457/ /pubmed/29188201 http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.prnil.2017.03.001 Text en © 2017 Asian Pacific Prostate Society, Published by Elsevier Korea LLC. http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/ This is an open access article under the CC BY-NC-ND license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/).
spellingShingle Original Article
Yamada, Yasutaka
Sakamoto, Shinichi
Shimazaki, Jun
Sugiura, Masahiro
Amiya, Yoshiyasu
Sasaki, Makoto
Shima, Takayuki
Komiya, Akira
Suzuki, Noriyuki
Akakura, Koichiro
Ichikawa, Tomohiko
Nakatsu, Hiroomi
Significant prognostic difference between Grade Group 4 and 5 in the 2014 International Society of Urological Pathology Grading System for High Grade Prostate Cancer with Bone Metastasis
title Significant prognostic difference between Grade Group 4 and 5 in the 2014 International Society of Urological Pathology Grading System for High Grade Prostate Cancer with Bone Metastasis
title_full Significant prognostic difference between Grade Group 4 and 5 in the 2014 International Society of Urological Pathology Grading System for High Grade Prostate Cancer with Bone Metastasis
title_fullStr Significant prognostic difference between Grade Group 4 and 5 in the 2014 International Society of Urological Pathology Grading System for High Grade Prostate Cancer with Bone Metastasis
title_full_unstemmed Significant prognostic difference between Grade Group 4 and 5 in the 2014 International Society of Urological Pathology Grading System for High Grade Prostate Cancer with Bone Metastasis
title_short Significant prognostic difference between Grade Group 4 and 5 in the 2014 International Society of Urological Pathology Grading System for High Grade Prostate Cancer with Bone Metastasis
title_sort significant prognostic difference between grade group 4 and 5 in the 2014 international society of urological pathology grading system for high grade prostate cancer with bone metastasis
topic Original Article
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5693457/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/29188201
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.prnil.2017.03.001
work_keys_str_mv AT yamadayasutaka significantprognosticdifferencebetweengradegroup4and5inthe2014internationalsocietyofurologicalpathologygradingsystemforhighgradeprostatecancerwithbonemetastasis
AT sakamotoshinichi significantprognosticdifferencebetweengradegroup4and5inthe2014internationalsocietyofurologicalpathologygradingsystemforhighgradeprostatecancerwithbonemetastasis
AT shimazakijun significantprognosticdifferencebetweengradegroup4and5inthe2014internationalsocietyofurologicalpathologygradingsystemforhighgradeprostatecancerwithbonemetastasis
AT sugiuramasahiro significantprognosticdifferencebetweengradegroup4and5inthe2014internationalsocietyofurologicalpathologygradingsystemforhighgradeprostatecancerwithbonemetastasis
AT amiyayoshiyasu significantprognosticdifferencebetweengradegroup4and5inthe2014internationalsocietyofurologicalpathologygradingsystemforhighgradeprostatecancerwithbonemetastasis
AT sasakimakoto significantprognosticdifferencebetweengradegroup4and5inthe2014internationalsocietyofurologicalpathologygradingsystemforhighgradeprostatecancerwithbonemetastasis
AT shimatakayuki significantprognosticdifferencebetweengradegroup4and5inthe2014internationalsocietyofurologicalpathologygradingsystemforhighgradeprostatecancerwithbonemetastasis
AT komiyaakira significantprognosticdifferencebetweengradegroup4and5inthe2014internationalsocietyofurologicalpathologygradingsystemforhighgradeprostatecancerwithbonemetastasis
AT suzukinoriyuki significantprognosticdifferencebetweengradegroup4and5inthe2014internationalsocietyofurologicalpathologygradingsystemforhighgradeprostatecancerwithbonemetastasis
AT akakurakoichiro significantprognosticdifferencebetweengradegroup4and5inthe2014internationalsocietyofurologicalpathologygradingsystemforhighgradeprostatecancerwithbonemetastasis
AT ichikawatomohiko significantprognosticdifferencebetweengradegroup4and5inthe2014internationalsocietyofurologicalpathologygradingsystemforhighgradeprostatecancerwithbonemetastasis
AT nakatsuhiroomi significantprognosticdifferencebetweengradegroup4and5inthe2014internationalsocietyofurologicalpathologygradingsystemforhighgradeprostatecancerwithbonemetastasis