Suppr超能文献

质疑现状:在前列腺癌根治术前风险列线图中,Gleason 分级分组 1 是否应被视为“阴性核心”?一项国际多中心分析。

Questioning the Status Quo: Should Gleason Grade Group 1 Prostate Cancer be Considered a "Negative Core" in Pre-Radical Prostatectomy Risk Nomograms? An International Multicenter Analysis.

机构信息

Department of Urology, Sidney Kimmel Cancer Center, Thomas Jefferson University, Philadelphia, PA.

Division of Urology, Department of Surgical Oncology, University of Toronto and University Health Network, Toronto, Canada.

出版信息

Urology. 2020 Mar;137:102-107. doi: 10.1016/j.urology.2019.10.012. Epub 2019 Nov 6.

Abstract

OBJECTIVE

To assess the impact of excluding Gleason Grade Group 1 (GG1) prostate cancer (CaP) cores from current pre-radical prostatectomy (RP) nomograms.

METHODS

Multi-institutional retrospective chart review was performed on all RP patients with prostate biopsy between 2008 and 2018. Patients were individually assessed using the Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center (MSKCC) and Briganti nomograms using the following iterations: (1) Original [ORIG] - all available core data and (2) Selective [SEL] - GG1 cores considered negative. Nomogram outcomes - lymph node invasion (LNI), extracapsular extension (ECE), organ-confined disease (OCD), seminal vesicle invasion (SVI), were compared across iterations and stratified based on biopsy GG. Clinically significant impact on management (CSIM) was defined as change in LNI risk above or below 2% or 5% (Δ2/Δ5). Nomogram outcomes were validated with RP pathology.

RESULTS

7718 men met inclusion criteria. In men with GG2 who also had GG1 cores, SEL better predicted LNI (MSKCC - ORIG 4.97% vs SEL 3.50%; Briganti - ORIG 4.81% vs SEL 2.49%, RP outcome 2.46%), OCD (MSKCC - ORIG 40.91% vs SEL 48.44%, RP outcome: 68.46%) and ECE (MSKCC - ORIG 57.87% vs SEL 50.38%, RP outcome: 30.41%), but not SVI (MSKCC - ORIG 5.42% vs SEL 3.34%, RP outcome: 5.62%). This was also consistent in patients with GG3-5 disease. The greatest CSIM was on GG1-2 CaP; Δ2 and Δ5 in GG1 patients was 26.3%-31.0% and 1.5%-5.2%, respectively, and Δ2 and Δ5 in GG2 patients was 3.4%-22.2% and 12.3%-13.6%, respectively.

CONCLUSION

Excluding GG1 CaP cores from pre-RP nomograms better predicts final RP pathologic outcomes. More importantly, this may better reflect extent of true cancer burden.

摘要

目的

评估从当前根治性前列腺切除术(RP)前列腺癌(CaP)nomogram 中排除 Gleason 分级组 1(GG1)前列腺癌核心的影响。

方法

对 2008 年至 2018 年间接受前列腺活检的所有 RP 患者进行多机构回顾性图表审查。使用 Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center(MSKCC)和 Briganti nomogram 分别对每位患者进行评估,采用以下迭代:(1)原始 [ORIG] - 所有可用的核心数据和(2)选择性 [SEL] - GG1 核心被认为是阴性的。nomogram 结果 - 淋巴结侵犯(LNI)、包膜外侵犯(ECE)、器官局限性疾病(OCD)、精囊侵犯(SVI),在迭代之间进行比较,并根据活检 GG 进行分层。临床显著管理影响(CSIM)定义为 LNI 风险增加或减少 2%或 5%(Δ2/Δ5)。使用 RP 病理学验证 nomogram 结果。

结果

7718 名男性符合纳入标准。在同时具有 GG2 且具有 GG1 核心的男性中,SEL 更好地预测了 LNI(MSKCC-ORIG 4.97% vs SEL 3.50%;Briganti-ORIG 4.81% vs SEL 2.49%,RP 结果:2.46%)、OCD(MSKCC-ORIG 40.91% vs SEL 48.44%,RP 结果:68.46%)和 ECE(MSKCC-ORIG 57.87% vs SEL 50.38%,RP 结果:30.41%),但 SVI 并非如此(MSKCC-ORIG 5.42% vs SEL 3.34%,RP 结果:5.62%)。在 GG3-5 疾病患者中也是如此。最大的 CSIM 是在 GG1-2 CaP 中;GG1 患者的 Δ2 和 Δ5 分别为 26.3%-31.0%和 1.5%-5.2%,GG2 患者的 Δ2 和 Δ5 分别为 3.4%-22.2%和 12.3%-13.6%。

结论

从 RP 前 nomogram 中排除 GG1 CaP 核心可以更好地预测最终的 RP 病理结果。更重要的是,这可能更好地反映真正的癌症负担程度。

文献AI研究员

20分钟写一篇综述,助力文献阅读效率提升50倍。

立即体验

用中文搜PubMed

大模型驱动的PubMed中文搜索引擎

马上搜索

文档翻译

学术文献翻译模型,支持多种主流文档格式。

立即体验