4.7 Article

Trends in distribution and prognostic significance of Gleason grades on radical retropubic prostatectomy specimens between 1989 and 2001

Journal

CANCER
Volume 106, Issue 12, Pages 2630-2635

Publisher

WILEY
DOI: 10.1002/cncr.21924

Keywords

prostate cancer; radical prostatectomy; Gleason grade; time trends; survival

Categories

Ask authors/readers for more resources

BACKGROUND. The objectives of the current study were to examine time trends in the prevalence of Gleason grades of prostate cancer on radical retropubic prostatectomy (RRP) specimens and to assess the resultant impact on prognosis. METHODS. The authors examined the prevalence over time of each grade and Gleason score (GS) on RRP specimens from 8750 patients who were treated between 1989 and 2001. Biochemical recurrence-free survival (BRFS), which was estimated by using Kaplan-Meier methodology, was examined in subgroups of patients defined by tumor grade and era of surgery. RESULTS. The prevalence of Grade 3 prostate cancers increased (86% vs. 49% for primary Gleason grade and 71% vs. 47% for secondary Gleason grade; 1999-2001 vs. 1989-1990, respectively), whereas the prevalence of Grade 2 tumors decreased (0.4% vs. 38% for primary Gleason grade and 1.3% vs. 28% for secondary Gleason grade, respectively) over the study period, leading to fewer GS 4 and 5 tumors and more GS 6 and 7 tumors. BRFS improved over time for patients who had GS 5 tumors (hazards ratio [HR], 0.92 per year; P =.003) and GS 6 tumors (HR, 0.93; P <.001) but remained unchanged for GS 7 tumors (HR 0.99; P =.462) and GS 8-10 tumors (HR 1.02; P =.360). Patients who were treated in the recent era (1997-2001) had greater differentiation of BRFS based on GS or Gleason grade compared with patients who were treated earlier (1989-1991). CONCLUSIONS. The current results confirmed that there were changes in the prevalence of Gleason grades on RRP specimens between 1989 and 2001. A chronological change in pathologic grading classification is suggested by evolving prognostic implications, which must be accounted for when comparing outcomes from different eras.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.7
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available