Prognostic implications of 2005 Gleason grade modification. Population-based study of biochemical recurrence following radical prostatectomy

Frederik B Thomsen, Yasin Folkvaljon, Klaus Brasso, Stacy Loeb, David Robinson, Lars Egevad, Pär Stattin

    10 Citations (Scopus)

    Abstract

    OBJECTIVE: To assess the impact of the 2005 modification of the Gleason classification on risk of biochemical recurrence (BCR) after radical prostatectomy (RP).

    PATIENTS AND METHODS: In the Prostate Cancer data Base Sweden (PCBaSe), 2,574 men assessed with the original Gleason classification and 1,890 men assessed with the modified Gleason classification, diagnosed between 2003 and 2007, underwent primary RP. Histopathology was reported according to the Gleason Grading Groups (GGG): GGG1 = Gleason score (GS) 6, GGG2 = GS 7(3 + 4), GGG3 = GS 7(4 + 3), GGG4 = GS 8 and GGG5 = GS 9-10. Cumulative incidence and multivariable Cox proportional hazards regression models were used to assess difference in BCR.

    RESULTS: The cumulative incidence of BCR was lower using the modified compared to the original classification: GGG2 (16% vs. 23%), GGG3 (21% vs. 35%) and GGG4 (18% vs. 34%), respectively. Risk of BCR was lower for modified versus original classification, GGG2 Hazard ratio (HR) 0.66, (95%CI 0.49-0.88), GGG3 HR 0.57 (95%CI 0.38-0.88) and GGG4 HR 0.53 (95%CI 0.29-0.94).

    CONCLUSION: Due to grade migration following the 2005 Gleason modification, outcome after RP are more favourable. Consequently, outcomes from historical studies cannot directly be applied to a contemporary setting. J. Surg. Oncol. © 2016 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.

    Original languageEnglish
    JournalJournal of Surgical Oncology
    Volume114
    Issue number6
    Pages (from-to)664-670
    ISSN0022-4790
    DOIs
    Publication statusPublished - Nov 2016

    Fingerprint

    Dive into the research topics of 'Prognostic implications of 2005 Gleason grade modification. Population-based study of biochemical recurrence following radical prostatectomy'. Together they form a unique fingerprint.

    Cite this