Gleason scoring: a comparison of classical and modified (International Society of Urological Pathology) criteria using nadir PSA as a clinical end point

被引:43
作者
Delahunt, Brett [1 ]
Lamb, David S. [1 ]
Srigley, John R. [1 ,3 ]
Murray, Judy D. [1 ]
Wilcox, Chantelle [4 ,5 ]
Samaratunga, Hemamali
Atkinson, Christopher [2 ]
Spry, Nigel A. [6 ]
Joseph, David [6 ]
Denham, James W. [4 ,5 ]
机构
[1] Univ Otago, Dept Pathol & Mol Med, Wellington Sch Med & Heath Sci, Wellington 6242, New Zealand
[2] Christchurch Hosp, Oncol Serv, Christchurch, New Zealand
[3] McMaster Univ, Dept Pathol & Mol Med, Hamilton, ON L8S 4L8, Canada
[4] Newcastle Prostate Canc Ctr, Newcastle, NSW, Australia
[5] Univ Newcastle, Callaghan, NSW 2308, Australia
[6] Sir Charles Gairdner Hosp, Dept Radiat Oncol, Perth, WA, Australia
关键词
Prostate; adenocarcinoma; Gleason grade; International Society of Urological Pathology; prostate specific antigen; PROSTATE-SPECIFIC ANTIGEN; CONSENSUS CONFERENCE; CARCINOMA; BIOPSY; CANCER; IMPACT;
D O I
10.3109/00313021003787924
中图分类号
R36 [病理学];
学科分类号
100103 [病原生物学];
摘要
Methods: Classical and modified Gleason grades and scores were assigned to cases of prostate carcinoma accessioned by the Trans-Tasman Radiation Oncology Group RADAR trial. Separate scores were derived for each grading system based on the percentage of each Gleason grade per case (area-based score) and the score of the highest scoring core. The predictive performance of each of the four Gleason scores assigned to each case was evaluated using nadir prostate specific antigen (nPSA) as a clinical end point. Results: Modified Gleason scoring resulted in an upward shift of scores, primarily resulting from the reclassification of classical pattern 3 to modified pattern 4. On re-grading classical Gleason score 7 cores, there was a 64% decrease in the number of cores with < 25% Gleason pattern 4 tumour, while the number of cores with 75-100% Gleason pattern 4 tumour increased by 96%. All four scoring models performed reasonably well as predictors of nPSA; however, on comparison of the prognostic gradients of the grade groupings, classical Gleason scoring outperformed modified Gleason scoring. Conclusion: The overlap of the predictive performance of Gleason pattern 3 with Gleason pattern 4, suggests that review of the defining features of modified pattern 4 may improve the prognostic prediction of modified Gleason scoring.
引用
收藏
页码:339 / 343
页数:5
相关论文
共 19 条
[1]
Prognostic and predictive factors and reporting of prostate carcinoma in prostate needle biopsy specimens [J].
Amin, M ;
Boccon-Gibod, L ;
Egevad, L ;
Epstein, JI ;
Humphrey, PA ;
Mikuz, G ;
Newling, D ;
Nilsson, S ;
Sakr, W ;
Srigley, JR ;
Wheeler, TM ;
Montironi, R .
SCANDINAVIAN JOURNAL OF UROLOGY AND NEPHROLOGY, 2005, 39 :20-33
[2]
The impact of the 2005 International Society of Urological Pathology consensus conference on standard Gleason grading of prostatic carcinoma in needle biopsies [J].
Billis, Athanase ;
Guimaraes, Marbele S. ;
Freitas, Leandro L. L. ;
Meirelles, Luciana ;
Magna, Luis A. ;
Ferreira, Ubirajara .
JOURNAL OF UROLOGY, 2008, 180 (02) :548-552
[3]
Understanding the Epidemiology, Natural History, and Key Pathways Involved in Prostate Cancer [J].
Crawford, E. David .
UROLOGY, 2009, 73 (5A) :4-10
[4]
RENAL-CELL CARCINOMA .2. HISTOLOGICAL INDICATORS OF PROGNOSIS [J].
DELAHUNT, B ;
NACEY, JN .
PATHOLOGY, 1987, 19 (03) :258-263
[5]
Gleason grading: consensus and controversy [J].
Delahunt, Brett ;
Srigley, John R. ;
Lamb, David S. .
PATHOLOGY, 2009, 41 (07) :613-614
[6]
Time to biochemical failure and prostate-specific antigen doubling time as surrogates for prostate cancer-specific mortality: evidence from the TROG 96.01 randomised controlled trial [J].
Denham, James W. ;
Steigler, Allison ;
Wilcox, Chantelle ;
Lamb, David S. ;
Joseph, David ;
Atkinson, Chris ;
Matthews, John ;
Tai, Keen-Hun ;
Spry, Nigel A. ;
Christie, David ;
Gleeson, Paul S. ;
Greer, Peter B. ;
D'Este, Catherine .
LANCET ONCOLOGY, 2008, 9 (11) :1058-1068
[7]
The 2005 International Society of Urological Pathology (ISUP) Consensus Conference on Gleason Grading of Prostatic Carcinoma [J].
Epstein, JI ;
Allsbrook, WC ;
Amin, MB ;
Egevad, LL ;
Bastacky, S ;
Beltrán, AL ;
Berner, A ;
Billis, A ;
Boccon-Gibod, L ;
Cheng, L ;
Civantos, F ;
Cohen, C ;
Cohen, MB ;
Datta, M ;
Davis, C ;
Delahunt, B ;
Delprado, W ;
Eble, JN ;
Foster, CS ;
Furusato, M ;
Gaudin, PB ;
Grignon, DJ ;
Humphrey, PA ;
Iczkowski, KA ;
Jones, EC ;
Lucia, S ;
McCue, PA ;
Nazeer, T ;
Oliva, E ;
Pan, CC ;
Pizov, G ;
Reuter, V ;
Samaratunga, H ;
Sebo, T ;
Sesterhenn, I ;
Shevchuk, M ;
Srigley, JR ;
Suzigan, S ;
Takahashi, H ;
Tamboli, P ;
Tan, PH ;
Têtu, B ;
Tickoo, S ;
Tomaszewski, JE ;
Troncoso, P ;
Tsuzuki, T ;
True, LD ;
van der Kwast, T ;
Wheeler, TM ;
Wojno, KJ .
AMERICAN JOURNAL OF SURGICAL PATHOLOGY, 2005, 29 (09) :1228-1242
[8]
PREDICTION OF PROGNOSIS FOR PROSTATIC ADENOCARCINOMA BY COMBINED HISTOLOGICAL GRADING AND CLINICAL STAGING [J].
GLEASON, DF ;
MELLINGE.GT .
JOURNAL OF UROLOGY, 1974, 111 (01) :58-64
[9]
GLEASON DONALD F., 1966, CANCER CHEMO THERAP REP, V50, P125
[10]
Harrell FE, 1996, STAT MED, V15, P361, DOI 10.1002/(SICI)1097-0258(19960229)15:4<361::AID-SIM168>3.0.CO