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