Validation of a Contemporary Five-tiered Gleason Grade Grouping Using Population-based Data

被引:45
作者
He, Jianming [1 ,2 ]
Albertsen, Peter C. [3 ]
Moore, Dirk [1 ,4 ]
Rotter, David [4 ]
Demissie, Kitaw [1 ]
Lu-Yao, Grace [5 ,6 ,7 ]
机构
[1] Rutgers State Univ, Sch Publ Hlth, Piscataway, NJ USA
[2] Janssen Global Serv LLC, Raritan, NJ USA
[3] Univ Connecticut, Dept Surg Urol, Ctr Hlth, Farmington, CT USA
[4] Rutgers State Univ, Canc Inst New Jersey, New Brunswick, NJ USA
[5] Thomas Jefferson Univ, Dept Med Oncol, Sidney Kimmel Med Coll, Philadelphia, PA 19107 USA
[6] Thomas Jefferson Univ, Jefferson Coll Populat Hlth, Philadelphia, PA 19107 USA
[7] Sidney Kimmel Canc Ctr Jefferson, Philadelphia, PA USA
关键词
Gleason score; Prostate cancer; Population-based study;
D O I
10.1016/j.eururo.2016.11.031
中图分类号
R5 [内科学]; R69 [泌尿科学(泌尿生殖系疾病)];
学科分类号
1002 ; 100201 ;
摘要
This population-based study assesses whether a proposed five-tiered Gleason grade grouping (GGG) system predicts prostate cancer-specific mortality (PCSM). Using the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER) database, we identified 331 320 prostate cancer patients who had primary and secondary Gleason patterns diagnosed between January 2006 and December 2012. We used the Fine and Gray proportional hazards model for subdistributions and the corresponding cumulative incidence to quantify the risk of PCSM. We found that the risk of PCSM approximately doubled with each GGG increase. Among men who underwent radical prostatectomy and using GGG1 (Gleason score <= 6) as the reference group, the adjusted hazard ratio for PCSMwas 1.13 (95% confidence interval [CI] 0.83-1.54) forGGG2, 1.87 (95% CI 1.33-2.65) for GGG3, 5.03 (95% CI 3.59-7.06) for GGG4, and 10.92 (CI 8.03-14.84) for GGG5. Similar patterns were observed regardless of the type of primary cancer treatment received or clinical stage. In summary, our study, with large, racially diverse populations that reflect realworld experiences, demonstrates that the newfive-tiered GGG system predicts PCSM well regardless of treatment received or clinical stage at diagnosis. Patient summary: In this report we examined prostate cancer mortality using the new five-tiered cancer grading system using data for a large US population. We found that the new five-tiered cancer grading system can predict prostate cancer-specific mortality well, regardless of the type of primary cancer treatment and clinical stage. We conclude that this new five-tiered cancer grading system is useful in guiding treatment decisions. (C) 2016 European Association of Urology. Published by Elsevier B. V. All rights reserved.
引用
收藏
页码:760 / 763
页数:4
相关论文
共 7 条
[1]   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
[2]   A Contemporary Prostate Cancer Grading System: A Validated Alternative to the Gleason Score [J].
Epstein, Jonathan I. ;
Zelefsky, Michael J. ;
Sjoberg, Daniel D. ;
Nelson, Joel B. ;
Egevad, Lars ;
Magi-Galluzzi, Cristina ;
Vickers, Andrew J. ;
Parwani, Anil V. ;
Reuter, Victor E. ;
Fine, Samson W. ;
Eastham, James A. ;
Wiklund, Peter ;
Han, Misop ;
Reddy, Chandana A. ;
Ciezki, Jay P. ;
Nyberg, Tommy ;
Klein, Eric A. .
EUROPEAN UROLOGY, 2016, 69 (03) :428-435
[3]   A proportional hazards model for the subdistribution of a competing risk [J].
Fine, JP ;
Gray, RJ .
JOURNAL OF THE AMERICAN STATISTICAL ASSOCIATION, 1999, 94 (446) :496-509
[4]   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
[5]   Evaluation of the 2015 Gleason Grade Groups in a Nationwide Population-based Cohort [J].
Loeb, Stacy ;
Folkvaljon, Yasin ;
Robinson, David ;
Lissbrant, Ingela Franck ;
Egevad, Lars ;
Stattin, Par .
EUROPEAN UROLOGY, 2016, 69 (06) :1135-1141
[6]   Prognostic Gleason grade grouping: data based on the modified Gleason scoring system [J].
Pierorazio, Phillip M. ;
Walsh, Patrick C. ;
Partin, Alan W. ;
Epstein, Jonathan I. .
BJU INTERNATIONAL, 2013, 111 (05) :753-760
[7]   Prostate Cancer Collaborative Stage Data Items-Their Definitions, Quality, Usage, and Clinical Implications: A Review of SEER Data for 2004-2010 [J].
Schymura, Maria J. ;
Sun, Leon ;
Percy-Laurry, Antoinette .
CANCER, 2014, 120 (23) :3758-3770