Expression of MicroRNAs associated with Gleason grading system in prostate cancer: miR‐182‐5p is a useful marker for high grade prostate cancer

The Prostate ◽  
2012 ◽  
Vol 73 (8) ◽  
pp. 827-834 ◽  
Author(s):  
Katsuki Tsuchiyama ◽  
Hideaki Ito ◽  
Minekatsu Taga ◽  
Seiji Naganuma ◽  
Yukinosuke Oshinoya ◽  
...  
2007 ◽  
Vol 8 (5) ◽  
pp. 411-419 ◽  
Author(s):  
Patricia Harnden ◽  
Mike D Shelley ◽  
Bernadette Coles ◽  
John Staffurth ◽  
Malcom D Mason

2017 ◽  
Vol 35 (6_suppl) ◽  
pp. 49-49 ◽  
Author(s):  
Michael Donovan ◽  
Phillipp Torkler ◽  
Johan Skog ◽  
Mikkel Noerholm ◽  
Peter Carroll

49 Background: Overdetection and overtreatment of indolent prostate cancer (PCa) remains a significant health issue requiring noninvasive assays to guide the prostate biopsy decision process. We demonstrated that a urine exosome gene expression assay (ExoDx P rostate ( I ntelliScore) (EPI) discriminates GS 7 PCa from GS 6 and benign disease, potentially reducing the number of unnecessary biopsies. The International Society of Urological Pathology (ISUP) proposed a prognostic PCa grading system to accurately reflect the biology of PCa; ISUP separates GS 7 PCa into group 2 (GS 3+4) and group 3 (GS 4+3). We sought to evaluate the performance of the EPI test according to the newly proposed ISUP system. Methods: The 519 patient validation cohort was re-annotated using ISUP and assessed benign (B) +/- ISUP 1 and B+ISUP 1+2 (GS 3+3, GS 3+4) from ISUP 3-5 (GS >= 4+3). We used validated / adjusted cut-points to assess performance with the AUC, sensitivity, specificity and NPV. In addition, we investigated the association of the EPI score with the benign biopsies (BB) and ISUP groups in the combined training and test cohort (n=774). Results: Applying the adjusted cut point (EPI 20) on the 519 ISUP cohort discriminated benign biopsies (BB) + ISUP 1 from >/=ISUP 2, 37% of biopsies avoided, NPV of 90%, equivalent to Gleason grading. Utilizing either the validated (15.6) or adjusted cut points on BB+ISUP 1+ 2 vs. >/=ISUP 3 (dominant pattern 4), 26% vs 37% biopsies avoided, with an improved NPV 98%. In the combined training / test cohort, higher EPI scores were significantly associated with ISUP categories. In this analysis EPI in BB vs. all ISUP groups (p<0.0001); BB+ISUP 1 vs. >/= ISUP2 (p<0.0001) and BB+ISUP 1+2 vs. >/=ISUP3 (p<0.0001); supporting accurate discrimination in high grade PCa. Conclusions: The EPI test is a noninvasive, first-catch non-DRE gene expression assay that accurately discriminates low-grade from high-grade PCa in both ISUP as well as Gleason score based grading systems. The test has the potential to reduce the number of unnecessary biopsies and performs equally well in contemporary approaches to PCa stratification.


2018 ◽  
Vol 73 (5) ◽  
pp. 684-686 ◽  
Author(s):  
Rodolfo Montironi ◽  
Liang Cheng ◽  
Marina Scarpelli ◽  
Antonio Lopez-Beltran

2012 ◽  
Author(s):  
Katsuki Tsuchiyama ◽  
Hideaki Ito ◽  
Minekatsu Taga ◽  
Konosuke Oshinoya ◽  
Kenichi Nagano ◽  
...  

2019 ◽  
pp. 1-10
Author(s):  
Ashwyna Sunassee ◽  
Ghadah Al Sannaa ◽  
Jae Y. Ro

The Gleason grading system for prostatic carcinoma is widely used internationally and is based on microscopic architectural patterns of tumors. Over the years, there have been modifications to the original grading system established by Donald F Gleason in 1966 and refined in 1974 which have subsequently been established by the World Health Organization in its WHO Classification of Tumors of the Urinary System and Male Genital Organs book, published in 2016. There have been certain practical issues associated with the changes, of note, the addition of intraductal carcinoma of prostate (IDC-P), which unlike its breast counterpart rarely occurs in isolation without association with invasive carcinoma and tends to be associated with high-grade invasive carcinoma. In addition, the Grade group system has been introduced which categorizes tumors into prognostically relevant groups based on the histological grade scores. The grade group system brings to light the importance of making accurate scoring and subsequent grouping of the tumors as it affects the clinical treatment, prognostic implication and stage assignment. Molecular pathology of the prostate is not widely utilized in clinical practice, but is emerging. The most common genomic aberration in prostate cancer includes gene fusion, amplification, deletion, and mutation. In addition, up and down regulation of gene expression in critical cellular pathways is also at play. A series of long noncoding RNA expression changes have been also unveiled from transcriptome sequencing data. They play a regulatory role in prostate cancer and are promising diagnostic and potentially prognostic markers as well as molecular treatment strategy. In this review, we summarize recent advances in molecular pathology of prostate cancer and their emerging clinical utility with currently available molecular tests. In this review article, we discuss the followings: 1) Gleason grading system with its modification, 2) Grade group, 3) Intraductal carcinoma, and 4) molecular pathology. Additionally, we present that molecular studies continue to emerge, and there is significant opportunity for targeted therapeutic options that remains to be explored in depth.


2013 ◽  
Vol 137 (12) ◽  
pp. 1740-1746 ◽  
Author(s):  
M. Scott Lucia ◽  
David G. Bostwick ◽  
Matthew C. Somerville ◽  
Ivy L. Fowler ◽  
Roger S. Rittmaster

Context.—Use of the International Society of Urological Pathology (ISUP) 2005 modified Gleason score may result in higher scores compared with the classic Gleason scoring system. Objective.—To compare scores derived using the 2 scoring systems. Design.—On-study and for-cause biopsies were centrally reviewed and assigned a classic Gleason score in the Reduction by Dutasteride of prostate Cancer Events trial. Positive biopsies were reviewed by an independent pathologist in a secondary review using the ISUP 2005 modified Gleason score. The independent pathologist also recorded a classic Gleason score. Results.—In total, 1482/1507 (98%) positive biopsy results were independently reviewed. Scores assigned by the 2 pathologists (classic versus modified) agreed in 83% (1230 of 1481) of cases; 99% (1471 of 1481) of cancers were within ±1 of their previous score. Of discordant cases, similar numbers of biopsies were upgraded and downgraded in the secondary review, with minor differences in the score distributions. Interobserver agreement was good, with κ values ranging from 0.62 (95% confidence interval [CI], 0.56–0.67) to 0.70 (95% CI, 0.65–0.76). The overall number of high-grade tumors (Gleason score 8–10; n = 48) remained constant between reviews, with 3 fewer cases in the placebo group (n = 16) and 3 more in the dutasteride group (n = 32) in the secondary review. When comparing the independent pathologist's modified scores versus the classic, 17 of 1481 cancers (1.1%) were upgraded (including 9 of 17 upgrades [53%] to high-grade tumors). Conclusions.—This analysis showed similar score distributions between the classic and modified Gleason scoring systems. The differences seen between the 2 pathologists' scores likely reflect differences in interpretation rather than the scoring system chosen.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document