Primary Gleason Pattern as a Predictor of Disease Progression in Gleason Score 7 Prostate Cancer

2001 ◽  
Vol 25 (5) ◽  
pp. 657-660 ◽  
Author(s):  
C. M. Herman ◽  
M. W. Kattan ◽  
M. Ohori ◽  
P. T. Scardino ◽  
T. M. Wheeler
2009 ◽  
Vol 27 (21) ◽  
pp. 3459-3464 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jennifer R. Stark ◽  
Sven Perner ◽  
Meir J. Stampfer ◽  
Jennifer A. Sinnott ◽  
Stephen Finn ◽  
...  

Purpose Gleason grading is an important predictor of prostate cancer (PCa) outcomes. Studies using surrogate PCa end points suggest outcomes for Gleason score (GS) 7 cancers vary according to the predominance of pattern 4. These studies have influenced clinical practice, but it is unclear if rates of PCa mortality differ for 3 + 4 and 4 + 3 tumors. Using PCa mortality as the primary end point, we compared outcomes in Gleason 3 + 4 and 4 + 3 cancers, and the predictive ability of GS from a standardized review versus original scoring. Patients and Methods Three study pathologists conducted a blinded standardized review of 693 prostatectomy and 119 biopsy specimens to assign primary and secondary Gleason patterns. Tumor specimens were from PCa patients diagnosed between 1984 and 2004 from the Physicians' Health Study and Health Professionals Follow-Up Study. Lethal PCa (n = 53) was defined as development of bony metastases or PCa death. Hazard ratios (HR) were estimated according to original GS and standardized GS. We compared the discrimination of standardized and original grading with C-statistics from models of 10-year survival. Results For prostatectomy specimens, 4 + 3 cancers were associated with a three-fold increase in lethal PCa compared with 3 + 4 cancers (95% CI, 1.1 to 8.6). The discrimination of models of standardized scores from prostatectomy (C-statistic, 0.86) and biopsy (C-statistic, 0.85) were improved compared to models of original scores (prostatectomy C-statistic, 0.82; biopsy C-statistic, 0.72). Conclusion Ignoring the predominance of Gleason pattern 4 in GS 7 cancers may conceal important prognostic information. A standardized review of GS can improve prediction of PCa survival.


2019 ◽  
Vol 143 (5) ◽  
pp. 550-564 ◽  
Author(s):  
Gladell P. Paner ◽  
Jatin Gandhi ◽  
Bonnie Choy ◽  
Mahul B. Amin

Context.— Within this decade, several important updates in prostate cancer have been presented through expert international consensus conferences and influential publications of tumor classification and staging. Objective.— To present key updates in prostate carcinoma. Data Sources.— The study comprised a review of literature and our experience from routine and consultation practices. Conclusions.— Grade groups, a compression of the Gleason system into clinically meaningful groups relevant in this era of active surveillance and multidisciplinary care management for prostate cancer, have been introduced. Refinements in the Gleason patterns notably result in the contemporarily defined Gleason score 6 cancers having a virtually indolent behavior. Grading of tertiary and minor higher-grade patterns in radical prostatectomy has been clarified. A new classification for prostatic neuroendocrine tumors has been promulgated, and intraductal, microcystic, and pleomorphic giant cell carcinomas have been officially recognized. Reporting the percentage of Gleason pattern 4 in Gleason score 7 cancers has been recommended, and data on the enhanced risk for worse prognosis of cribriform pattern are emerging. In reporting biopsies for active surveillance criteria–based protocols, we outline approaches in special situations, including variances in sampling or submission. The 8th American Joint Commission on Cancer TNM staging for prostate cancer has eliminated pT2 subcategorization and stresses the importance of nonanatomic factors in stage groupings and outcome prediction. As the clinical and pathology practices for prostate cancer continue to evolve, it is of utmost importance that surgical pathologists become fully aware of the new changes and challenges that impact their evaluation of prostatic specimens.


Cancer ◽  
2007 ◽  
Vol 110 (2) ◽  
pp. 289-296 ◽  
Author(s):  
Gregory S. Merrick ◽  
Robert W. Galbreath ◽  
Wayne M. Butler ◽  
Kent E. Waller ◽  
Zachariah A. Allen ◽  
...  

2020 ◽  
Vol 38 (15_suppl) ◽  
pp. e17554-e17554
Author(s):  
Ioana Danciu ◽  
Samantha Erwin ◽  
Greeshma Agasthya ◽  
Tate Janet ◽  
Benjamin McMahon ◽  
...  

e17554 Background: The ability to understand and predict at the time of diagnosis the trajectories of prostate cancer patients is critical for deciding the appropriate treatment plan. Evidence-based approaches for outcome prediction include predictive machine learning algorithms that harness health record data. Methods: All our analyses used the Veterans Affairs Clinical Data Warehouse (CDW). We included all individuals with a non-metastatic (early stage) prostate cancer diagnosis between 2002 and 2017 as documented in the CDW cancer registry (N = 111351). Our predictors were demographics (age at diagnosis, race), disease staging parameters abstracted at diagnosis ( Stage grouping AJCC, Gleason score, SEER summary stage) and prostate specific antigen (PSA) laboratory values in the last 5 years prior to diagnosis (last value, the value before last, average, minimum, maximum, rate of the change of the last 2 PSAs and density). The predicted outcome was disease progression at 2 years (N = 3469) and 5 years (N = 6325) defined as metastasis - taking either Abiraterone, Sipuleucel-T, Enzalutamide or Radium 223, registry cancer related death or PSA > 50. We used 4 different machine learning classifiers to train prediction models: random forest, k-nearest neighbor, decision trees, and xgboost all with hyper parameter optimization. For testing, we used two approaches: (1) 20% sample held out at the beginning of the study, and (2) stratified test/train split on the remaining data. Results: The table below shows the performance of the best classifier, xgboost. The top five predictors of disease progression were the last PSA, Gleason Score, maximum PSA, age at diagnosis, and SEER summary stage. The last PSA had a significantly higher contribution than the other predictors. More than one PSA value is important for prediction, emphasizing the need for investigating the PSA trajectory in the period before diagnosis. The models are overall very robust going from outcome at 2 years compared to 5 years. Conclusions: A machine learning based xgboost classifier can be integrated in clinical decision support at diagnosis, to robustly predict disease progression at 2 and 5 years. [Table: see text]


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document