Sauter Guido, Steurer Stefan, Clauditz Till Sebastian, Krech Till, Wittmer Corinna, Lutz Florian, Lennartz Maximilian, Janssen Tim, Hakimi Nayira, Simon Ronald, von Petersdorff-Campen Mareike, Jacobsen Frank, von Loga Katharina, Wilczak Waldemar, Minner Sarah, Tsourlakis Maria Christina, Chirico Viktoria, Haese Alexander, Heinzer Hans, Beyer Burkhard, Graefen Markus, Michl Uwe, Salomon Georg, Steuber Thomas, Budäus Lars Henrik, Hekeler Elena, Malsy-Mink Julia, Kutzera Sven, Fraune Christoph, Göbel Cosima, Huland Hartwig, Schlomm Thorsten
Institute of Pathology, University Medical Center Hamburg-Eppendorf, Germany.
Institute of Pathology, University Medical Center Hamburg-Eppendorf, Germany.
Eur Urol. 2016 Apr;69(4):592-598. doi: 10.1016/j.eururo.2015.10.029. Epub 2015 Nov 2.
Gleason grading is the strongest prognostic parameter in prostate cancer. Gleason grading is categorized as Gleason ≤ 6, 3 + 4, 4 + 3, 8, and 9-10, but there is variability within these subgroups. For example, Gleason 4 components may range from 5-45% in a Gleason 3 + 4 = 7 cancer.
To assess the clinical relevance of the fractions of Gleason patterns.
DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: Prostatectomy specimens from 12823 consecutive patients and of 2971 matched preoperative biopsies for which clinical data with an annual follow-up between 2005 and 2014 were available from the Martini-Klinik database.
To evaluate the utility of quantitative grading, the fraction of Gleason 3, 4, and 5 patterns seen in biopsies and prostatectomies were recorded. Gleason grade fractions were compared with prostatectomy findings and prostate-specific antigen recurrence.
Our data suggest a striking utility of quantitative Gleason grading. In prostatectomy specimens, there was a continuous increase of the risk of prostate-specific antigen recurrence with increasing percentage of Gleason 4 fractions with remarkably small differences in outcome at clinically important thresholds (0% vs 5%; 40% vs 60% Gleason 4), distinguishing traditionally established prognostic groups. Also, in biopsies, the quantitative Gleason scoring identified various intermediate risk groups with respect to Gleason findings in corresponding prostatectomies. Quantitative grading may also reduce the clinical impact of interobserver variability because borderline findings such as tumors with 5%, 40%, or 60% Gleason 4 fractions and very small Gleason 5 fractions (with pivotal impact on the Gleason score) are disclaimed.
Quantitative Gleason pattern data should routinely be provided in addition to Gleason score categories, both in biopsies and in prostatectomy specimens.
Gleason score is the most important prognostic parameter in prostate cancer, but prone to interobserver variation. The results of our study show that morphological aspects that define the Gleason grade in prostate cancer represent a continuum. Quantitation of Gleason patterns provides clinically relevant information beyond the traditional Gleason grading categories ≤ 3 + 3, 3 + 4, 4 + 3, 8, 9 -1 0. Quantitative Gleason scoring can help to minimize variations between different pathologists and substantially aid in optimized therapy decision-making.
Gleason分级是前列腺癌最强的预后参数。Gleason分级分为Gleason≤6、3 + 4、4 + 3、8和9 - 10,但这些亚组内存在变异性。例如,在Gleason 3 + 4 = 7的癌症中,Gleason 4成分可能在5% - 45%之间。
评估Gleason模式分数的临床相关性。
设计、设置和参与者:从Martini-Klinik数据库中获取了12823例连续患者的前列腺切除标本以及2971例匹配的术前活检标本,这些标本有2005年至2014年的年度随访临床数据。
为了评估定量分级的效用,记录了活检和前列腺切除标本中Gleason 3、4和5模式的分数。将Gleason分级分数与前列腺切除结果和前列腺特异性抗原复发情况进行比较。
我们的数据表明定量Gleason分级有显著效用。在前列腺切除标本中,随着Gleason 4分数百分比的增加,前列腺特异性抗原复发风险持续增加,在临床上重要的阈值(0%对5%;40%对60% Gleason 4)下结果差异非常小,区分了传统确定的预后组。此外,在活检中,定量Gleason评分在相应前列腺切除标本的Gleason结果方面识别出了各种中间风险组。定量分级还可能降低观察者间变异性的临床影响,因为诸如Gleason 4分数为5%、40%或60%以及Gleason 5分数非常小(对Gleason评分有关键影响)的临界结果被排除。
除了Gleason评分类别外,活检和前列腺切除标本中都应常规提供定量Gleason模式数据。
Gleason评分是前列腺癌最重要的预后参数,但容易出现观察者间差异。我们的研究结果表明,定义前列腺癌Gleason分级形态学方面代表一个连续体。Gleason模式的定量提供了超出传统Gleason分级类别≤3 + 3、3 + 4、4 + 3、8、9 - 10的临床相关信息。定量Gleason评分有助于最小化不同病理学家之间的差异,并极大地有助于优化治疗决策。