Skip to main content
Top
Published in: Annals of Surgical Oncology 13/2021

01-12-2021 | Prostate Cancer | Urologic Oncology

Prognostic Impact of Different Gleason Patterns on Biopsy Within Grade Group 4 Prostate Cancer

Authors: Keiichiro Mori, MD, Vidit Sharma, MD, Eva M. Comperat, MD, Shun Sato, MD, Ekaterina Laukhtina, MD, Victor M. Schuettfort, MD, Benjamin Pradere, MD, Reza Sari Motlagh, MD, Hadi Mostafaei, MD, Fahad Quhal, MD, Mehdi Kardoust Parizi, MD, Mohammad Abufaraj, MD, Pierre I. Karakiewicz, MD, Shin Egawa, MD, Derya Tilki, MD, Stephen A. Boorjian, MD, Shahrokh F. Shariat, MD

Published in: Annals of Surgical Oncology | Issue 13/2021

Login to get access

Abstract

Background

Grade group (GG) 4 prostate cancer (PC) is considered a single entity; however, there are questions regarding prognostic heterogeneity. This study assessed the prognostic differences among various Gleason scores (GSs) classified as GG 4 PC on biopsy before radical prostatectomy (RP).

Methods

We conducted a multicenter retrospective study, and a total of 1791 patients (GS 3 + 5: 190; GS 4 + 4: 1557; and GS 5 + 3: 44) with biopsy GG 4 were included for analysis. Biochemical recurrence (BCR)-free survival, cancer-specific survival, and overall survival were analyzed using the Kaplan–Meier method and the log-rank test. Logistic regression analysis was performed to identify factors associated with high-risk surgical pathologic features. Cox regression models were used to analyze time-dependent oncologic endpoints.

Results

Over a median follow-up of 75 months, 750 patients (41.9%) experienced BCR, 146 (8.2%) died of any causes, and 57 (3.2%) died of PC. Biopsy GS 5 + 3 was associated with significantly higher rates of GS upgrading in RP specimens than GS 3 + 5 and GS 4 + 4. On multivariable analysis adjusted for clinicopathologic features, different GSs within GG 4 were significantly associated with BCR (p = 0.03) but not PC-specific or all-cause mortality. Study limitations include the lack of central pathological specimen evaluation.

Conclusions

Patients with GG 4 at biopsy exhibited some limited biological and clinical heterogeneity. Specifically, GS 5 + 3 had an increased risk of GS upgrading. This can help individualize patients’ counseling and encourage further study to refine biopsy specimen-based GG classification.
Appendix
Available only for authorised users
Literature
1.
go back to reference Humphrey PA. Gleason grading and prognostic factors in carcinoma of the prostate. Mod Pathol. 2004;17(3):292–306.CrossRef Humphrey PA. Gleason grading and prognostic factors in carcinoma of the prostate. Mod Pathol. 2004;17(3):292–306.CrossRef
2.
go back to reference Pierorazio PM, Walsh PC, Partin AW, Epstein JI. Prognostic Gleason grade grouping: data based on the modified Gleason scoring system. BJU Int. 2013;111(5):753–60.CrossRef Pierorazio PM, Walsh PC, Partin AW, Epstein JI. Prognostic Gleason grade grouping: data based on the modified Gleason scoring system. BJU Int. 2013;111(5):753–60.CrossRef
3.
go back to reference Chun FK, Briganti A, Shariat SF, et al. Significant upgrading affects a third of men diagnosed with prostate cancer: predictive nomogram and internal validation. BJU Int. 2006;98(2):329–34.CrossRef Chun FK, Briganti A, Shariat SF, et al. Significant upgrading affects a third of men diagnosed with prostate cancer: predictive nomogram and internal validation. BJU Int. 2006;98(2):329–34.CrossRef
4.
go back to reference Epstein JI, Zelefsky MJ, Sjoberg DD, et al. A Contemporary prostate cancer grading system: a validated alternative to the Gleason score. Eur Urol. 2016;69(3):428–35.CrossRef Epstein JI, Zelefsky MJ, Sjoberg DD, et al. A Contemporary prostate cancer grading system: a validated alternative to the Gleason score. Eur Urol. 2016;69(3):428–35.CrossRef
5.
go back to reference Epstein JI, Egevad L, Amin MB, Delahunt B, Srigley JR, Humphrey PA. The 2014 International Society of Urological Pathology (ISUP) Consensus Conference on Gleason Grading of Prostatic Carcinoma: Definition of Grading Patterns and Proposal for a New Grading System. The American journal of surgical pathology. Feb 2016;40(2):244–252. Epstein JI, Egevad L, Amin MB, Delahunt B, Srigley JR, Humphrey PA. The 2014 International Society of Urological Pathology (ISUP) Consensus Conference on Gleason Grading of Prostatic Carcinoma: Definition of Grading Patterns and Proposal for a New Grading System. The American journal of surgical pathology. Feb 2016;40(2):244–252.
6.
go back to reference Khoddami SM, Shariat SF, Lotan Y, et al. Predictive value of primary Gleason pattern 4 in patients with Gleason score 7 tumours treated with radical prostatectomy. BJU Int. 2004;94(1):42–6.CrossRef Khoddami SM, Shariat SF, Lotan Y, et al. Predictive value of primary Gleason pattern 4 in patients with Gleason score 7 tumours treated with radical prostatectomy. BJU Int. 2004;94(1):42–6.CrossRef
7.
go back to reference Mahal BA, Muralidhar V, Chen YW, et al. Gleason score 5 + 3 = 8 prostate cancer: much more like Gleason score 9? BJU Int. 2016;118(1):95–101.CrossRef Mahal BA, Muralidhar V, Chen YW, et al. Gleason score 5 + 3 = 8 prostate cancer: much more like Gleason score 9? BJU Int. 2016;118(1):95–101.CrossRef
8.
go back to reference Huynh MA, Chen MH, Wu J, Braccioforte MH, Moran BJ, D’Amico AV. Gleason score 3 + 5 or 5 + 3 versus 4 + 4 prostate cancer: the risk of death. Eur Urol. 2016;69(6):976–9.CrossRef Huynh MA, Chen MH, Wu J, Braccioforte MH, Moran BJ, D’Amico AV. Gleason score 3 + 5 or 5 + 3 versus 4 + 4 prostate cancer: the risk of death. Eur Urol. 2016;69(6):976–9.CrossRef
9.
go back to reference Nanda A, Chen MH, Renshaw AA, D’Amico AV. Gleason pattern 5 prostate cancer: further stratification of patients with high-risk disease and implications for future randomized trials. Int J Rad Oncol Biol Phys. 2009;74(5):1419–23.CrossRef Nanda A, Chen MH, Renshaw AA, D’Amico AV. Gleason pattern 5 prostate cancer: further stratification of patients with high-risk disease and implications for future randomized trials. Int J Rad Oncol Biol Phys. 2009;74(5):1419–23.CrossRef
10.
go back to reference Lim SK, Kim KH, Shin TY, et al. Gleason 5 + 4 has worse oncological and pathological outcomes compared with Gleason 4 + 5: significance of Gleason 5 pattern. Ann Surg Oncol. 2013;20(9):3127–32.CrossRef Lim SK, Kim KH, Shin TY, et al. Gleason 5 + 4 has worse oncological and pathological outcomes compared with Gleason 4 + 5: significance of Gleason 5 pattern. Ann Surg Oncol. 2013;20(9):3127–32.CrossRef
11.
go back to reference Yamada Y, Sakamoto S, Shimazaki J, et al. Significant prognostic difference between grade group 4 and 5 in the 2014 international society of urological pathology grading system for high grade prostate cancer with bone metastasis. Prostate Int. 2017;5(4):143–8.CrossRef Yamada Y, Sakamoto S, Shimazaki J, et al. Significant prognostic difference between grade group 4 and 5 in the 2014 international society of urological pathology grading system for high grade prostate cancer with bone metastasis. Prostate Int. 2017;5(4):143–8.CrossRef
12.
go back to reference Mori K, Miura N, Comperat E, et al. A systematic review and meta-analysis of prognostic impact of different Gleason patterns in ISUP grade group 4. Minerva urologica e nefrologica. 2021;73(1):42–9. Mori K, Miura N, Comperat E, et al. A systematic review and meta-analysis of prognostic impact of different Gleason patterns in ISUP grade group 4. Minerva urologica e nefrologica. 2021;73(1):42–9.
13.
go back to reference Mori K, Sharma V, Comperat EM, et al. Differential prognostic impact of different Gleason patterns in grade group 4 in radical prostatectomy specimens. Eur J Surg Oncol. 2021;47(5):1172–8.CrossRef Mori K, Sharma V, Comperat EM, et al. Differential prognostic impact of different Gleason patterns in grade group 4 in radical prostatectomy specimens. Eur J Surg Oncol. 2021;47(5):1172–8.CrossRef
14.
go back to reference King CR. Patterns of prostate cancer biopsy grading: trends and clinical implications. Int J Cancer. 2000;90(6):305–11.CrossRef King CR. Patterns of prostate cancer biopsy grading: trends and clinical implications. Int J Cancer. 2000;90(6):305–11.CrossRef
15.
go back to reference Kvåle R, Møller B, Wahlqvist R, et al. Concordance between Gleason scores of needle biopsies and radical prostatectomy specimens: a population-based study. BJU Int. 2009;103(12):1647–54.CrossRef Kvåle R, Møller B, Wahlqvist R, et al. Concordance between Gleason scores of needle biopsies and radical prostatectomy specimens: a population-based study. BJU Int. 2009;103(12):1647–54.CrossRef
16.
go back to reference Müntener M, Epstein JI, Hernandez DJ, et al. Prognostic significance of Gleason score discrepancies between needle biopsy and radical prostatectomy. Eur Urol. 2008;53(4):767–775; discussion 775–766. Müntener M, Epstein JI, Hernandez DJ, et al. Prognostic significance of Gleason score discrepancies between needle biopsy and radical prostatectomy. Eur Urol. 2008;53(4):767–775; discussion 775–766.
17.
go back to reference Soenens C, Dekuyper P, De Coster G, et al. Concordance between biopsy and radical prostatectomy Gleason scores: evaluation of determinants in a large-scale study of patients undergoing RARP in Belgium. Pathol Oncol Res. 2020;26(4):2605–12.CrossRef Soenens C, Dekuyper P, De Coster G, et al. Concordance between biopsy and radical prostatectomy Gleason scores: evaluation of determinants in a large-scale study of patients undergoing RARP in Belgium. Pathol Oncol Res. 2020;26(4):2605–12.CrossRef
18.
go back to reference Stephenson AJ, Kattan MW, Eastham JA, et al. Defining biochemical recurrence of prostate cancer after radical prostatectomy: a proposal for a standardized definition. J Clin Oncol 2006;24(24):3973-3978. Stephenson AJ, Kattan MW, Eastham JA, et al. Defining biochemical recurrence of prostate cancer after radical prostatectomy: a proposal for a standardized definition. J Clin Oncol 2006;24(24):3973-3978.
19.
go back to reference Harding-Jackson N, Kryvenko ON, Whittington EE, et al. Outcome of Gleason 3 + 5 = 8 prostate cancer diagnosed on needle biopsy: prognostic comparison with Gleason 4 + 4 = 8. J Urol. 2016;196(4):1076–81.CrossRef Harding-Jackson N, Kryvenko ON, Whittington EE, et al. Outcome of Gleason 3 + 5 = 8 prostate cancer diagnosed on needle biopsy: prognostic comparison with Gleason 4 + 4 = 8. J Urol. 2016;196(4):1076–81.CrossRef
20.
go back to reference Sauter G, Steurer S, Clauditz TS, et al. Clinical utility of quantitative Gleason grading in prostate biopsies and prostatectomy specimens. Eur Urol. 2016;69(4):592–8.CrossRef Sauter G, Steurer S, Clauditz TS, et al. Clinical utility of quantitative Gleason grading in prostate biopsies and prostatectomy specimens. Eur Urol. 2016;69(4):592–8.CrossRef
21.
go back to reference Cheng L, Davidson DD, Lin H, Koch MO. Percentage of Gleason pattern 4 and 5 predicts survival after radical prostatectomy. Cancer. 2007;110(9):1967–72.CrossRef Cheng L, Davidson DD, Lin H, Koch MO. Percentage of Gleason pattern 4 and 5 predicts survival after radical prostatectomy. Cancer. 2007;110(9):1967–72.CrossRef
22.
go back to reference Cheng L, Koch MO, Juliar BE, et al. The combined percentage of Gleason patterns 4 and 5 is the best predictor of cancer progression after radical prostatectomy. J Clin Oncol. 2005;23(13):2911–7.CrossRef Cheng L, Koch MO, Juliar BE, et al. The combined percentage of Gleason patterns 4 and 5 is the best predictor of cancer progression after radical prostatectomy. J Clin Oncol. 2005;23(13):2911–7.CrossRef
23.
go back to reference Gandaglia G, Karnes RJ, Sivaraman A, et al. Are all grade group 4 prostate cancers created equal? Implications for the applicability of the novel grade grouping. Urol Oncol. 2017;35(7):461.e467-461.e414.CrossRef Gandaglia G, Karnes RJ, Sivaraman A, et al. Are all grade group 4 prostate cancers created equal? Implications for the applicability of the novel grade grouping. Urol Oncol. 2017;35(7):461.e467-461.e414.CrossRef
24.
go back to reference Gansler T, Fedewa S, Qi R, Lin CC, Jemal A, Moul JW. Most Gleason 8 biopsies are downgraded at prostatectomy-does 4 + 4 = 7? J Urol. 2018;199(3):706–12.CrossRef Gansler T, Fedewa S, Qi R, Lin CC, Jemal A, Moul JW. Most Gleason 8 biopsies are downgraded at prostatectomy-does 4 + 4 = 7? J Urol. 2018;199(3):706–12.CrossRef
25.
go back to reference van den Bergh RC, van der Kwast TH, de Jong J, et al. Validation of the novel international society of urological pathology 2014 five-tier Gleason grade grouping: biochemical recurrence rates for 3 + 5 disease may be overestimated. BJU Int. 2016;118(4):502–5.CrossRef van den Bergh RC, van der Kwast TH, de Jong J, et al. Validation of the novel international society of urological pathology 2014 five-tier Gleason grade grouping: biochemical recurrence rates for 3 + 5 disease may be overestimated. BJU Int. 2016;118(4):502–5.CrossRef
26.
go back to reference Epstein JI. Prostate cancer grading: a decade after the 2005 modified system. Mod Pathol. 2018;31(Suppl 1):S47-63.CrossRef Epstein JI. Prostate cancer grading: a decade after the 2005 modified system. Mod Pathol. 2018;31(Suppl 1):S47-63.CrossRef
27.
go back to reference Kryvenko ON, Williamson SR, Schwartz LE, Epstein JI. Gleason score 5 + 3 = 8 (grade group 4) prostate cancer—a rare occurrence with contemporary grading. Human Pathol. 2020;97:40–51.CrossRef Kryvenko ON, Williamson SR, Schwartz LE, Epstein JI. Gleason score 5 + 3 = 8 (grade group 4) prostate cancer—a rare occurrence with contemporary grading. Human Pathol. 2020;97:40–51.CrossRef
Metadata
Title
Prognostic Impact of Different Gleason Patterns on Biopsy Within Grade Group 4 Prostate Cancer
Authors
Keiichiro Mori, MD
Vidit Sharma, MD
Eva M. Comperat, MD
Shun Sato, MD
Ekaterina Laukhtina, MD
Victor M. Schuettfort, MD
Benjamin Pradere, MD
Reza Sari Motlagh, MD
Hadi Mostafaei, MD
Fahad Quhal, MD
Mehdi Kardoust Parizi, MD
Mohammad Abufaraj, MD
Pierre I. Karakiewicz, MD
Shin Egawa, MD
Derya Tilki, MD
Stephen A. Boorjian, MD
Shahrokh F. Shariat, MD
Publication date
01-12-2021
Publisher
Springer International Publishing
Published in
Annals of Surgical Oncology / Issue 13/2021
Print ISSN: 1068-9265
Electronic ISSN: 1534-4681
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1245/s10434-021-10257-x

Other articles of this Issue 13/2021

Annals of Surgical Oncology 13/2021 Go to the issue