Premium
Prognostic implications of 2005 Gleason grade modification. Population‐based study of biochemical recurrence following radical prostatectomy
Author(s) -
Thomsen Frederik B.,
Folkvaljon Yasin,
Brasso Klaus,
Loeb Stacy,
Robinson David,
Egevad Lars,
Stattin Pär
Publication year - 2016
Publication title -
journal of surgical oncology
Language(s) - English
Resource type - Journals
SCImago Journal Rank - 1.201
H-Index - 111
eISSN - 1096-9098
pISSN - 0022-4790
DOI - 10.1002/jso.24408
Subject(s) - medicine , prostatectomy , biochemical recurrence , urology , prostate cancer , oncology , cancer
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;114:664–670 . © 2016 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.