ORIGINAL ARTICLE
Grade migration and important prognostic factors in a pathology specimen for radical radiotherapy in prostate cancer patients
1
Radiotherapy Department, Maria Skłodowska-Curie National Research Institute of Oncology, Gliwice, Poland
2
University of Technology, Faculty of Medicine, Katowice, Poland
3
Department of Breast Cancer, Centre of Postgraduate Medical Education, Warsaw, Poland
4
Department of Brachytherapy, Maria Skłodowska-Curie National Research Institute of Oncology, Gliwice, Poland
5
Breast Unit, Maria Skłodowska-Curie National Research Institute of Oncology, Gliwice, Poland
6
Department of Genetic and Molecular Diagnostics of Cancer, Maria Skłodowska-Curie National Research Institute of Oncology, Gliwice, Poland
7
Department of Pathology, Medical University of Silesia, Katowice, Poland
8
Third Clinic of Radiotherapy and Chemotherapy, Maria Skłodowska-Curie National Research Institute of Oncology, Gliwice, Poland
Submission date: 2021-11-25
Final revision date: 2022-01-10
Acceptance date: 2022-01-12
Publication date: 2022-06-29
Pol J Pathol 2022;73(1):27-33
KEYWORDS
TOPICS
ABSTRACT
The study aimed to evaluate grade migration and prognosis depending on pathologic features in patients with prostate cancer treated with radical external beam radiotherapy. The study included 139 patients with an initial Gleason score of 7 (3+4 or 4+3) i.e., Grade Group 2-3 (GG2-GG3) treated between 2008 and 2013. The clinical outcome was assessed with respect to biochemical control (BC) and biochemical disease-free survival (bDFS). After re-evaluation, the majority of patients (96 patients – 69%) were up-graded from GG2-3. Finally, there were 4 patients (3%) with grade GG1, 12 patients (9%) – GG2, 27 patients (19%) – GG3, 51 patients (37%) – GG4 and 45 patients (32%) – GG5. In 42 patients (30%) a cribriform pattern was observed.
Among the analyzed factors only the GGs were important for BC (p = 0.011) and the cribriform pattern was of borderline significance (p = 0.06). The 5-year biochemical control was 100% in GG1-3 and 84% in GG4-5. The 5-year biochemical control was 81% and 93%, if cribriform or no cribriform pattern was detected, respectively.
In conclusion, re-evaluation and verification of pathology specimens in accordance with contemporary rules upgraded the Gleason score in the majority of patients. The aggressive behavior of prostate cancer starts to occur from GG 4. Cribriform pattern almost tripled the biochemical failure rate.
Among the analyzed factors only the GGs were important for BC (p = 0.011) and the cribriform pattern was of borderline significance (p = 0.06). The 5-year biochemical control was 100% in GG1-3 and 84% in GG4-5. The 5-year biochemical control was 81% and 93%, if cribriform or no cribriform pattern was detected, respectively.
In conclusion, re-evaluation and verification of pathology specimens in accordance with contemporary rules upgraded the Gleason score in the majority of patients. The aggressive behavior of prostate cancer starts to occur from GG 4. Cribriform pattern almost tripled the biochemical failure rate.
REFERENCES (27)
1.
Epstein JI, Egevad L, Amin MB, et al. The 2014 International Society of Urological Pathology (ISUP) Consensus Conference on Gleason Grading of Prostatic Carcinoma: definition of grading patterns and proposal for a new grading system. Am J Surg Pathol 2016; 40: 244-252.
2.
Meier R, Kaplan I, Bloch D. et al. 10-year outcome of ultrahypofractionated stereotactic RT from two multicenter prostate cancer trials. (abstract). Radiother Oncol 2021; 161 (Suppl 1): S391-S392.
3.
Pompe RS, Davis-Bondarenko H, Zaffuto E, et al. Population-based validation of the 2014 ISUP Gleason grade groups in patients treated with radical prostatectomy, brachytherapy, external beam radiation or no local treatment. Prostate 2017; 77: 686-693.
4.
Spratt DE, Cole AI, Palapattu GS, et al. Independent surgical validation of the new prostate grade-grouping system. BJU Int 2016; 118: 763-769.
5.
Spratt DE, Jackson WC, Abugharib A, et al. Independent validation of the prognostic capacity of the ISUP prostate cancer grade grouping system for radiation treated patients with long-term follow-up. Prostate Cancer Prostatic Dis 2016; 19: 292-297.
6.
Stock RG, Berkowitz S, Backburg SR, et al. Gleason 7 prostate cancer treated with low-dose-rate brachytherapy: lack of impact of primary Gleason pattern on biochemical failure. BJU Int 2012; 110: 1257-1261.
7.
Toby J, Eade T, Hruby G, et al. Assessing the International society of urological pathology (ISUP) prostate cancer grade groups in patients treated with definitive dose escalated external beam radiation. Radiother Oncol 2021; 162: 91-97.
8.
Alshak MN, Patel N, Gross MD, et al. Persistent discordance in grade, stage and NCCN risk stratification in men undergoing targeted biopsy and radical prostatectomy. Urology 2020; 135: 117-123.
9.
Cohen MS, Hanley RS, Kurteva T, et al. Comparing the Gleason prostate biopsy and Gleason postprostatectomy grading system: the Lahey Clinic Medical Center experience and an international meta-analysis. Eur Urol 2008; 54: 371-378.
10.
Moussa AS, Li J, Soriano M, et al. Prostate biopsy clinical and pathological variables that predict significant grading changes in patients with intermediate and high grade prostate cancer. BJU Int 2009; 103: 43-48.
11.
Keefe DT, Schieda N, El Hallani S, et al. Cribriform morphology predicts upstaging after radical prostatectomy in patients with Gleason score 3+4=7 prostate cancer at transrectal ultrasound (TRUS)-guided needle biopsy. Virchows Arch 2015; 467: 437-442.
12.
Kok D, Gill S, Bressel M, et al. Late toxicity and biochemical control in 554 prostate cancer patients treated with and without dose escalated image guided radiotherapy. Radiother Oncol 2013; 107: 140-146.
13.
Tamihardja J, Schortmann M, Lawrenz I, et al. Moderately hypofractionated radiotherapy for localized prostate cancer: updated long-term outcome and toxicity analysis. Strahlenther Oncol 2021; 197: 124-132.
14.
Zumsteg ZS, Spratt DE, Romesser PB, et al. The natural history and predictors of outcome following biochemical relapse in the dose escalation era for prostate cancer patients undergoing definitive external beam radiotherapy. Eur Urol 2015; 67: 1009-1016.
15.
Roach M, Moughan J, Lawton CAF, et al. Sequence of hormonal therapy and radiotherapy field size in unfavourable, localised prostate cancer (NRG/RTOG 9413): long-term results of a randomized phase 3 trial. Lancet Oncol 2018; 19: 1504-1515.
16.
Brimo F, Schultz L, Epstein JI. The value of mandatory second opinion pathology review of prostate needle biopsy interpretation before radical prostatectomy. J Urol 2010; 184: 126-130.
17.
Maehara T, Sadahira T, Maruyama Y, et al. A second opinion pathology review improves the diagnostic concordance between prostate cancer biopsy and radical prostatectomy specimens. Urol Ann 2021; 13: 119-124.
18.
Netto GJ, Eisenberger M, Epstein JI. Interobserver variability in histologic evaluation of radical prostatectomy between central and local pathologists: findings of TAX 3501 multinational clinical trial. Urology 2011; 77: 1155-1160.
19.
Ozkan TA, Eruyagar AT, Cebeci OO, et al. Interobserver variability in Gleason histological grading of prostate cancer. Scand J Urol 2016; 50: 420-424.
20.
Oyama T, Allsbrook jr WC, Kurokawa K, et al. A comparison of interobserver reproducibility of Gleason grading of prostatic carcinoma in Japan and the United States. Arch Pathol Lab Med 2005; 129: 1004-1010.
21.
Coard KC, Freeman VL. Gleason grading of prostate cancer: level of concordance between pathologists at the University Hospital of the West Indies. Am J Clin Pthol 2004; 122: 373-376.
22.
Boehm K, Borgmann H, Ebert T, et al. Stage and grade migration in prostate cancer treated with radical prostatectomy in a large German multicenter cohort. Clin Genitourin Cancer 2021; 19: 162-166.
23.
Kweldam CF, Kummerlin IP, Nieboer D, et al. Presence of invasive cribriform or intraductal growth at biopsy outperforms percentage grade 4 in predicting outcome of Gleason score 3+4=7 prostate cancer Mod Pathol 2017; 30: 1126-1132.
24.
van der Slot MA, Hollemans E, den Bakjer MA, et al. Inter-observer variability of cribriform architecture and percent Gleason pattern 4 in prostate cancer: relation to clinical outcome. Virchows Arch 2021; 478: 249-256.
25.
Wu S, Xueming L, Lin SX, et al. Impact of biopsy perineural invasion on the outcomes of patients who underwent radical prostatectomy: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Scand J Urol 2019; 53: 287-294.
26.
Kweldam CF, van Leenders GJ, van der Kwast T. Grading of prostate cancer: a work in progress. Histopathology 2019; 74: 146-160.
27.
Nguyen PL, Schultz D, Renshaw AA, et al. The impact of pathology review on treatment recommendations for patients with adenocarcinoma of the prostate. Urol Oncol 2004; 22: 295-299.
Share
RELATED ARTICLE
| eISSN: | 2084-9869 |
| ISSN: | 1233-9687 |
We process personal data collected when visiting the website. The function of obtaining information about users and their behavior is carried out by voluntarily entered information in forms and saving cookies in end devices. Data, including cookies, are used to provide services, improve the user experience and to analyze the traffic in accordance with the Privacy policy. Data are also collected and processed by Google Analytics tool (more).
You can change cookies settings in your browser. Restricted use of cookies in the browser configuration may affect some functionalities of the website.
You can change cookies settings in your browser. Restricted use of cookies in the browser configuration may affect some functionalities of the website.
