Department of Pathology, The Johns Hopkins Medical Institutions, Baltimore, Maryland, USA.
J Urol. 2011 Oct;186(4):1286-90. doi: 10.1016/j.juro.2011.05.075.
There have been only a few contradictory publications assessing whether Gleason score 4 + 3 = 7 has a worse prognosis than 3 + 4 = 7 on biopsy material in predicting pathological stage and biochemical recurrence. Older studies predated the use of the modified Gleason grading system established in 2005.
We retrospectively studied 1,791 cases of Gleason score 7 on prostatic biopsy to determine whether the breakdown of Gleason score 7 into 3 + 4 vs 4 + 3 has prognostic significance in the modern era.
There was no difference in patient age, preoperative serum prostate specific antigen, maximum tumor percent per core or the number of positive cores between Gleason score 3 + 4 = 7 and Gleason score 4 + 3 = 7. Gleason score 4 + 3 = 7 showed an overall correlation with pathological stage (organ confined, focal extraprostatic extension, nonfocal extraprostatic extension, seminal vesicle invasion/lymph node metastases, p = 0.005). On multivariate analysis Gleason score 4 + 3 = 7 (p = 0.03), number of positive cores (p = 0.002), maximum percent of cancer per core (p = 0.006) and preoperative serum prostate specific antigen (p = 0.03) all correlated with pathological stage. Gleason score 4 + 3 = 7 on biopsy was also associated with an increased risk of biochemical progression after radical prostatectomy (p = 0.0001). On multivariate analysis Gleason score 4 + 3 = 7 (p = 0.001), maximum percent of cancer per core (p <0.0001) and preoperative serum prostate specific antigen (p <0.0001) but not number of positive cores correlated with the risk of biochemical progression after radical prostatectomy.
Our study further demonstrates that Gleason score 7 should not be considered a homogenous group for the purposes of disease management and prognosis.
仅有少数相互矛盾的研究评估了在活检标本上,格里森评分 4+3=7 与 3+4=7 相比,预测病理分期和生化复发方面是否具有更差的预后。较早期的研究早于 2005 年建立的改良格里森分级系统的应用。
我们回顾性研究了 1791 例前列腺活检格里森评分 7 的病例,以确定在现代时代,格里森评分 7 细分为 3+4 与 4+3 是否具有预后意义。
在格里森评分 3+4=7 与 4+3=7 之间,患者年龄、术前血清前列腺特异性抗原、每个核心中最大肿瘤百分比或阳性核心数量无差异。格里森评分 4+3=7 与病理分期(器官局限、局限性前列腺外扩展、非局限性前列腺外扩展、精囊侵犯/淋巴结转移)总体相关(p=0.005)。多变量分析显示,格里森评分 4+3=7(p=0.03)、阳性核心数量(p=0.002)、每个核心中最大肿瘤百分比(p=0.006)和术前血清前列腺特异性抗原(p=0.03)均与病理分期相关。在前列腺根治性切除术后,活检中格里森评分 4+3=7 也与生化进展风险增加相关(p=0.0001)。多变量分析显示,格里森评分 4+3=7(p=0.001)、每个核心中最大肿瘤百分比(p<0.0001)和术前血清前列腺特异性抗原(p<0.0001)与前列腺根治性切除术后生化进展风险相关,但阳性核心数量与生化进展风险不相关。
我们的研究进一步表明,在疾病管理和预后方面,格里森评分 7 不应被视为一个同质的群体。