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...
Autores principales: | , , , , , , , , , , , |
---|---|
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 |