Cargando…

Prognostic differences among Grade Group 4 subgroups in robotic‐assisted radical prostatectomy

OBJECTIVES: To investigate whether the International Society of Urological Pathology Grade Group 4 (GG 4) subgroups have different oncological outcomes in Japanese prostate cancer (PCa) patients undergoing robotic‐assisted radical prostatectomy (RARP). PATIENTS AND METHODS: We conducted a retrospect...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Sasaki, Takeshi, Ebara, Shin, Tatenuma, Tomoyuki, Ikehata, Yoshinori, Nakayama, Akinori, Kato, Daiki, Toide, Masahiro, Yoneda, Tatsuaki, Sakaguchi, Kazushige, Teishima, Jun, Makiyama, Kazuhide, Kitamura, Hiroshi, Saito, Kazutaka, Koie, Takuya, Koga, Fumitaka, Urakami, Shinji, Inoue, Takahiro
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: John Wiley and Sons Inc. 2022
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9349593/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/35950038
http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/bco2.160
_version_ 1784762135422697472
author Sasaki, Takeshi
Ebara, Shin
Tatenuma, Tomoyuki
Ikehata, Yoshinori
Nakayama, Akinori
Kato, Daiki
Toide, Masahiro
Yoneda, Tatsuaki
Sakaguchi, Kazushige
Teishima, Jun
Makiyama, Kazuhide
Kitamura, Hiroshi
Saito, Kazutaka
Koie, Takuya
Koga, Fumitaka
Urakami, Shinji
Inoue, Takahiro
author_facet Sasaki, Takeshi
Ebara, Shin
Tatenuma, Tomoyuki
Ikehata, Yoshinori
Nakayama, Akinori
Kato, Daiki
Toide, Masahiro
Yoneda, Tatsuaki
Sakaguchi, Kazushige
Teishima, Jun
Makiyama, Kazuhide
Kitamura, Hiroshi
Saito, Kazutaka
Koie, Takuya
Koga, Fumitaka
Urakami, Shinji
Inoue, Takahiro
author_sort Sasaki, Takeshi
collection PubMed
description OBJECTIVES: To investigate whether the International Society of Urological Pathology Grade Group 4 (GG 4) subgroups have different oncological outcomes in Japanese prostate cancer (PCa) patients undergoing robotic‐assisted radical prostatectomy (RARP). PATIENTS AND METHODS: We conducted a retrospective multicentre cohort study in PCa patients undergoing RARP at 10 institutions in Japan. Pre‐ and post‐operative variables were collected from enrolled patients. We evaluated biochemical recurrence and clinical and pathological variables in the different GG 4 subgroups. RESULTS: A total of 3195 patients were enrolled in the study. Among them, 298 patients with GG 4 tumours (pathological Gleason scores [GSs] of 3 + 5 [N = 37], 4 + 4 [N = 257] and 5 + 3 [N = 4]) based on RARP specimens were analysed. The median follow‐up period was 25.2 months. The 3‐year biochemical recurrence (BCR)‐free survival (BCRFS) rate in the overall population was 74.5%. The 3‐year BCRFS rates in the pathological GS 3 + 5, GS 4 + 4 and GS 5 + 3 subgroups were 93.8%, 71.9% and 50.0%, respectively (P = 0.01). In multivariate analysis, pathological GS based on RARP specimens, PSA levels at surgery, pathological T stage, pathological N stage and surgical margins were independent risk factors significantly associated with BCRFS. In particular, patients with pathological GSs 4 + 4 and 5 + 3 were at higher risk of BCR than patients with pathological GS 3 + 5 (hazard ratio 4.54, P = 0.03 and hazard ratio 11.2, P = 0.01, respectively). The study limitations include the lack of central pathological specimen evaluation. CONCLUSIONS: For patients with localized PCa undergoing RARP, pathological GS 4 + 4 and GS 5 + 3 were significantly associated with worse BCRFS than pathological GS 3 + 5. Pathological GS 3 + 5 may be overrated in GG 4. This observation emphasizes that primary and secondary GS should be considered to accurately stratify the risk of BCR after RARP.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-9349593
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2022
publisher John Wiley and Sons Inc.
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-93495932022-08-09 Prognostic differences among Grade Group 4 subgroups in robotic‐assisted radical prostatectomy Sasaki, Takeshi Ebara, Shin Tatenuma, Tomoyuki Ikehata, Yoshinori Nakayama, Akinori Kato, Daiki Toide, Masahiro Yoneda, Tatsuaki Sakaguchi, Kazushige Teishima, Jun Makiyama, Kazuhide Kitamura, Hiroshi Saito, Kazutaka Koie, Takuya Koga, Fumitaka Urakami, Shinji Inoue, Takahiro BJUI Compass To the Drawing Board OBJECTIVES: To investigate whether the International Society of Urological Pathology Grade Group 4 (GG 4) subgroups have different oncological outcomes in Japanese prostate cancer (PCa) patients undergoing robotic‐assisted radical prostatectomy (RARP). PATIENTS AND METHODS: We conducted a retrospective multicentre cohort study in PCa patients undergoing RARP at 10 institutions in Japan. Pre‐ and post‐operative variables were collected from enrolled patients. We evaluated biochemical recurrence and clinical and pathological variables in the different GG 4 subgroups. RESULTS: A total of 3195 patients were enrolled in the study. Among them, 298 patients with GG 4 tumours (pathological Gleason scores [GSs] of 3 + 5 [N = 37], 4 + 4 [N = 257] and 5 + 3 [N = 4]) based on RARP specimens were analysed. The median follow‐up period was 25.2 months. The 3‐year biochemical recurrence (BCR)‐free survival (BCRFS) rate in the overall population was 74.5%. The 3‐year BCRFS rates in the pathological GS 3 + 5, GS 4 + 4 and GS 5 + 3 subgroups were 93.8%, 71.9% and 50.0%, respectively (P = 0.01). In multivariate analysis, pathological GS based on RARP specimens, PSA levels at surgery, pathological T stage, pathological N stage and surgical margins were independent risk factors significantly associated with BCRFS. In particular, patients with pathological GSs 4 + 4 and 5 + 3 were at higher risk of BCR than patients with pathological GS 3 + 5 (hazard ratio 4.54, P = 0.03 and hazard ratio 11.2, P = 0.01, respectively). The study limitations include the lack of central pathological specimen evaluation. CONCLUSIONS: For patients with localized PCa undergoing RARP, pathological GS 4 + 4 and GS 5 + 3 were significantly associated with worse BCRFS than pathological GS 3 + 5. Pathological GS 3 + 5 may be overrated in GG 4. This observation emphasizes that primary and secondary GS should be considered to accurately stratify the risk of BCR after RARP. John Wiley and Sons Inc. 2022-06-02 /pmc/articles/PMC9349593/ /pubmed/35950038 http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/bco2.160 Text en © 2022 The Authors. BJUI Compass published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd on behalf of BJU International Company. https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/This is an open access article under the terms of the http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/) License, which permits use, distribution and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.
spellingShingle To the Drawing Board
Sasaki, Takeshi
Ebara, Shin
Tatenuma, Tomoyuki
Ikehata, Yoshinori
Nakayama, Akinori
Kato, Daiki
Toide, Masahiro
Yoneda, Tatsuaki
Sakaguchi, Kazushige
Teishima, Jun
Makiyama, Kazuhide
Kitamura, Hiroshi
Saito, Kazutaka
Koie, Takuya
Koga, Fumitaka
Urakami, Shinji
Inoue, Takahiro
Prognostic differences among Grade Group 4 subgroups in robotic‐assisted radical prostatectomy
title Prognostic differences among Grade Group 4 subgroups in robotic‐assisted radical prostatectomy
title_full Prognostic differences among Grade Group 4 subgroups in robotic‐assisted radical prostatectomy
title_fullStr Prognostic differences among Grade Group 4 subgroups in robotic‐assisted radical prostatectomy
title_full_unstemmed Prognostic differences among Grade Group 4 subgroups in robotic‐assisted radical prostatectomy
title_short Prognostic differences among Grade Group 4 subgroups in robotic‐assisted radical prostatectomy
title_sort prognostic differences among grade group 4 subgroups in robotic‐assisted radical prostatectomy
topic To the Drawing Board
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9349593/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/35950038
http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/bco2.160
work_keys_str_mv AT sasakitakeshi prognosticdifferencesamonggradegroup4subgroupsinroboticassistedradicalprostatectomy
AT ebarashin prognosticdifferencesamonggradegroup4subgroupsinroboticassistedradicalprostatectomy
AT tatenumatomoyuki prognosticdifferencesamonggradegroup4subgroupsinroboticassistedradicalprostatectomy
AT ikehatayoshinori prognosticdifferencesamonggradegroup4subgroupsinroboticassistedradicalprostatectomy
AT nakayamaakinori prognosticdifferencesamonggradegroup4subgroupsinroboticassistedradicalprostatectomy
AT katodaiki prognosticdifferencesamonggradegroup4subgroupsinroboticassistedradicalprostatectomy
AT toidemasahiro prognosticdifferencesamonggradegroup4subgroupsinroboticassistedradicalprostatectomy
AT yonedatatsuaki prognosticdifferencesamonggradegroup4subgroupsinroboticassistedradicalprostatectomy
AT sakaguchikazushige prognosticdifferencesamonggradegroup4subgroupsinroboticassistedradicalprostatectomy
AT teishimajun prognosticdifferencesamonggradegroup4subgroupsinroboticassistedradicalprostatectomy
AT makiyamakazuhide prognosticdifferencesamonggradegroup4subgroupsinroboticassistedradicalprostatectomy
AT kitamurahiroshi prognosticdifferencesamonggradegroup4subgroupsinroboticassistedradicalprostatectomy
AT saitokazutaka prognosticdifferencesamonggradegroup4subgroupsinroboticassistedradicalprostatectomy
AT koietakuya prognosticdifferencesamonggradegroup4subgroupsinroboticassistedradicalprostatectomy
AT kogafumitaka prognosticdifferencesamonggradegroup4subgroupsinroboticassistedradicalprostatectomy
AT urakamishinji prognosticdifferencesamonggradegroup4subgroupsinroboticassistedradicalprostatectomy
AT inouetakahiro prognosticdifferencesamonggradegroup4subgroupsinroboticassistedradicalprostatectomy