Department of Pathology, Medical College of Wisconsin, Milwaukee, Wisconsin.
Department of Pathology and Laboratory Medicine, University of Miami Miller School of Medicine, Miami, Florida; Department of Urology, University of Miami Miller School of Medicine, Miami, Florida; Sylvester Comprehensive Cancer Center, University of Miami Miller School of Medicine, Miami, Florida.
J Urol. 2016 Oct;196(4):1076-81. doi: 10.1016/j.juro.2016.05.105. Epub 2016 Jun 2.
ISUP (International Society for Urologic Pathology) and WHO adopted prognostic Grade Groups 1 to 5 that simplify prostate cancer grading for prognosis. Grade Group 4 is Gleason score 8 cancer, which is heterogeneous, and it encompasses Gleason score 4 + 4 = 8, 3 + 5 = 8 and 5 + 3 = 8. The comparative prognostic implications of these various Gleason scores had not been studied by urological pathologists after a re-review of slides.
Patients with a highest biopsy Gleason score of 3 + 5 = 8 or 4 + 4 = 8 were included in the study. Controls were cases with a highest Gleason score of 4 + 3 = 7 or 9-10. A total of 423 prostatic biopsy cases accessioned from 2005 to 2013 at 2 institutions were reviewed. Clinicopathological findings and followup (median 33.4 months) were assessed.
Among Gleason score 8 cancers the cancer status outcome in 51 men with Gleason score 3 + 5 = 8 was marginally worse than in 114 with Gleason score 4 + 4 = 8 (p = 0.04). This was driven by a persistent nonmetastatic (after radiation/hormone therapy) cancer rate of 37% among Gleason score 3 + 5 = 8 cases vs 24% among Gleason score 4 + 4 = 8 cases. Conversely, cancer specific survival at 36-month followup was 97.8% in 3 + 5 cases vs 92.6% in 4 + 4 cases but this was not significant (p = 0.089). Cancer specific survival in the Gleason score 8 group was dichotomized by the presence of cribriform growth (p = 0.018). All Gleason score categories did not differ in the fraction of biopsy cores positive, clinical presentation or pathological findings, including the frequency of Gleason pattern 5, in 70 patients who underwent prostatectomy.
Using the most current standards of prostate cancer grading the prognosis is not different in Gleason score 3 + 5 = 8 and 4 + 4 = 8 cancers. This justifies including both in Grade Group 4.
国际泌尿科病理学会(ISUP)和世界卫生组织(WHO)采用了预后等级分组 1 至 5,简化了前列腺癌的分级以预测预后。等级分组 4 为 Gleason 评分 8 癌症,具有异质性,包括 Gleason 评分 4+4=8、3+5=8 和 5+3=8。在重新审查切片后,泌尿科病理学家尚未研究这些不同 Gleason 评分的比较预后意义。
本研究纳入了最高活检 Gleason 评分 3+5=8 或 4+4=8 的患者。对照组为 Gleason 评分最高为 4+3=7 或 9-10 的病例。对 2005 年至 2013 年在 2 家机构就诊的 423 例前列腺活检病例进行了回顾性研究。评估了临床病理特征和随访(中位随访 33.4 个月)。
在 Gleason 评分 8 的癌症中,51 例 Gleason 评分 3+5=8 的癌症患者的生存结局略差于 114 例 Gleason 评分 4+4=8 的患者(p=0.04)。这主要是由于 Gleason 评分 3+5=8 病例中有 37%的非转移性(放疗/激素治疗后)癌症率,而 Gleason 评分 4+4=8 病例中为 24%。相反,在 36 个月的随访中,Gleason 评分 3+5=8 病例的癌症特异性生存率为 97.8%,而 Gleason 评分 4+4=8 病例为 92.6%,但无统计学意义(p=0.089)。在 Gleason 评分 8 组中,根据有无筛状生长进行癌症特异性生存的二分法(p=0.018)。在接受前列腺切除术的 70 例患者中,所有 Gleason 评分类别在活检阳性核心比例、临床表现或病理发现方面均无差异,包括 Gleason 模式 5 的频率。
使用当前最先进的前列腺癌分级标准,Gleason 评分 3+5=8 和 4+4=8 癌症的预后无差异。这证明可以将两者均纳入等级分组 4。