Spratt D E, Jackson W C, Abugharib A, Tomlins S A, Dess R T, Soni P D, Lee J Y, Zhao S G, Cole A I, Zumsteg Z S, Sandler H, Hamstra D, Hearn J W, Palapattu G, Mehra R, Morgan T M, Feng F Y
Department of Radiation Oncology, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI, USA.
Department of Pathology, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI, USA.
Prostate Cancer Prostatic Dis. 2016 Sep;19(3):292-7. doi: 10.1038/pcan.2016.18. Epub 2016 May 24.
There has been a recent proposal to change the grading system of prostate cancer into a five-tier grade grouping system. The prognostic impact of this has been demonstrated in regards only to biochemical recurrence-free survival (bRFS) with short follow-up (3 years).
Between 1990 and 2013, 847 consecutive men were treated with definitive external beam radiation therapy at a single academic center. To validate the new grade grouping system, bRFS, distant metastases-free survival (DMFS) and prostate cancer-specific survival (PCSS) were calculated. Adjusted Kaplan-Meier and multivariable Cox regression analyses were performed to assess the independent impact of the new grade grouping system. Discriminatory analyses were performed to compare the commonly used three-tier Gleason score system (6, 7 and 8-10) to the new system.
The median follow-up of our cohort was 88 months. The 5-grade groups independently validated differing risks of bRFS (group 1 as reference; adjusted hazard ratio (aHR) 1.35, 2.16, 1.79 and 3.84 for groups 2-5, respectively). Furthermore, a clear stratification was demonstrated for DMFS (aHR 2.03, 3.18, 3.62 and 13.77 for groups 2-5, respectively) and PCSS (aHR 3.00, 5.32, 6.02 and 39.02 for groups 2-5, respectively). The 5-grade group system had improved prognostic discrimination for all end points compared with the commonly used three-tiered system (that is, Gleason score 6, 7 and 8-10).
In a large independent radiotherapy cohort with long-term follow-up, we have validated the bRFS benefit of the proposed five-tier grade grouping system. Furthermore, we have demonstrated that the system is highly prognostic for DMFS and PCSS. Grade group 5 had markedly worse outcomes for all end points, and future work is necessary to improve outcomes in these patients.
最近有人提议将前列腺癌的分级系统改为五级分组系统。仅在短期随访(3年)的生化无复发生存期(bRFS)方面已证明了其对预后的影响。
1990年至2013年间,在一个学术中心对847名连续男性进行了根治性外照射放疗。为验证新的分级系统,计算了bRFS、无远处转移生存期(DMFS)和前列腺癌特异性生存期(PCSS)。进行了调整后的Kaplan-Meier分析和多变量Cox回归分析,以评估新分级系统的独立影响。进行了判别分析,以比较常用的三级Gleason评分系统(6、7和8 - 10)与新系统。
我们队列的中位随访时间为88个月。五级分组独立验证了不同的bRFS风险(以1组为参照;2 - 5组的调整后风险比(aHR)分别为1.35、2.16、1.79和3.84)。此外,DMFS(2 - 5组的aHR分别为2.03、3.18、3.62和13.77)和PCSS(2 - 5组的aHR分别为3.00、5.32、6.02和39.02)也表现出明显的分层。与常用的三级系统(即Gleason评分6、7和8 - 10)相比,五级分组系统对所有终点的预后判别能力有所提高。
在一个进行长期随访的大型独立放疗队列中,我们验证了提议的五级分组系统对bRFS的益处。此外,我们证明该系统对DMFS和PCSS具有高度预后价值。5级组在所有终点的结局明显更差,未来有必要开展工作以改善这些患者的结局。