Original Article | Published:

Clinical Research

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 and Prostatic Diseases volume 19, pages 292297 (2016) | Download Citation

Abstract

Background:

There has been a recent proposal to change the grading system of prostate cancer into a five-tier grade grouping system. The prognostic impact of this has been demonstrated in regards only to biochemical recurrence-free survival (bRFS) with short follow-up (3 years).

Methods:

Between 1990 and 2013, 847 consecutive men were treated with definitive external beam radiation therapy at a single academic center. To validate the new grade grouping system, bRFS, distant metastases-free survival (DMFS) and prostate cancer-specific survival (PCSS) were calculated. Adjusted Kaplan–Meier and multivariable Cox regression analyses were performed to assess the independent impact of the new grade grouping system. Discriminatory analyses were performed to compare the commonly used three-tier Gleason score system (6, 7 and 8–10) to the new system.

Results:

The median follow-up of our cohort was 88 months. The 5-grade groups independently validated differing risks of bRFS (group 1 as reference; adjusted hazard ratio (aHR) 1.35, 2.16, 1.79 and 3.84 for groups 2–5, respectively). Furthermore, a clear stratification was demonstrated for DMFS (aHR 2.03, 3.18, 3.62 and 13.77 for groups 2–5, respectively) and PCSS (aHR 3.00, 5.32, 6.02 and 39.02 for groups 2–5, respectively). The 5-grade group system had improved prognostic discrimination for all end points compared with the commonly used three-tiered system (that is, Gleason score 6, 7 and 8–10).

Conclusions:

In a large independent radiotherapy cohort with long-term follow-up, we have validated the bRFS benefit of the proposed five-tier grade grouping system. Furthermore, we have demonstrated that the system is highly prognostic for DMFS and PCSS. Grade group 5 had markedly worse outcomes for all end points, and future work is necessary to improve outcomes in these patients.

Access optionsAccess options

Rent or Buy article

Get time limited or full article access on ReadCube.

from$8.99

All prices are NET prices.

References

  1. 1.

    NCCN Clinical Practice Guidelines in Oncology: Prostate Cancer 2016. Available at (date last accessed 1 February 2016).

  2. 2.

    , , , . Prognostic significance of Gleason score 3+4 versus Gleason score 4+3 tumor at radical prostatectomy. Urology 2000; 56: 823–827.

  3. 3.

    , , , , , et al. Predictive value of primary Gleason pattern 4 in patients with Gleason score 7 tumours treated with radical prostatectomy. BJU Int 2004; 94: 42–46.

  4. 4.

    , , , , , et al. Gleason score and lethal prostate cancer: does 3+4=4+3? J Clin Oncol 2009; 27: 3459–3464.

  5. 5.

    , , , , , et al. A new risk classification system for therapeutic decision making with intermediate-risk prostate cancer patients undergoing dose-escalated external-beam radiation therapy. Eur Urol 2013; 64: 895–902.

  6. 6.

    , , , , . Long-term prognostic significance of primary Gleason pattern in patients with Gleason score 7 prostate cancer: impact on prostate cancer specific survival. J Urol 2006; 175: 547–551.

  7. 7.

    , , , , , et al. Prognostic importance of Gleason 7 disease among patients treated with external beam radiation therapy for prostate cancer: results of a detailed biopsy core analysis. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 2013; 85: 1254–1261.

  8. 8.

    , , , , , et al. The combined percentage of Gleason patterns 4 and 5 is the best predictor of cancer progression after radical prostatectomy. J Clin Oncol 2005; 23: 2911–2917.

  9. 9.

    , , , , , et al. Gleason pattern 5 is the strongest pathologic predictor of recurrence, metastasis, and prostate cancer-specific death in patients receiving salvage radiation therapy following radical prostatectomy. Cancer 2013; 119: 3287–3294.

  10. 10.

    , , , , , et al. Long-term survival after radical prostatectomy for men with high Gleason sum in pathologic specimen. Urology 2010; 76: 715–721.

  11. 11.

    , , , , , et al. Gleason pattern 5 is the greatest risk factor for clinical failure and death from prostate cancer after dose-escalated radiation therapy and hormonal ablation. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 2011; 81: e351–e360.

  12. 12.

    , , , , , et al. Patients with biopsy Gleason 9 and 10 prostate cancer have significantly worse outcomes compared to patients with Gleason 8 disease. J Urol 2015; 194: 91–97.

  13. 13.

    , , , . Prognostic Gleason grade grouping: data based on the modified Gleason scoring system. BJU Int 2013; 111: 753–760.

  14. 14.

    , , , , , et al. A Contemporary prostate cancer grading system: a validated alternative to the Gleason score. Eur Urol 2015; 69: 428–435.

  15. 15.

    , , , , , et al. Defining biochemical failure following radiotherapy with or without hormonal therapy in men with clinically localized prostate cancer: recommendations of the RTOG-ASTRO Phoenix Consensus Conference. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 2006; 65: 965–974.

  16. 16.

    , . Adjusting survival curves for confounders: a review and a new method. Am J Epidemiol 1996; 143: 1059–1068.

  17. 17.

    , , , , . The 2005 International Society of Urological Pathology (ISUP) Consensus Conference on Gleason Grading of Prostatic Carcinoma. Am J Surg Pathol 2005; 29: 1228–1242.

  18. 18.

    . Histologic grading of prostate cancer: a perspective. Hum Pathol 1992; 23: 273–279.

  19. 19.

    , , , , , et al. Predicting 15-year prostate cancer specific mortality after radical prostatectomy. J Urol 2011; 185: 869–875.

  20. 20.

    , , , , , et al. Prostate cancer-specific mortality after radical prostatectomy for patients treated in the prostate-specific antigen era. J Clin Oncol 2009; 27: 4300–4305.

  21. 21.

    , , , , . Risk of prostate cancer recurrence in men treated with radiation alone or in conjunction with combined or less than combined androgen suppression therapy. J Clin Oncol 2008; 26: 2979–2983.

  22. 22.

    , , , , , et al. Predicting the outcome of salvage radiation therapy for recurrent prostate cancer after radical prostatectomy. J Clin Oncol 2007; 25: 2035–2041.

  23. 23.

    , , , , , . Predictors of prostate cancer-specific mortality after radical prostatectomy or radiation therapy. J Clin Oncol 2005; 23: 6992–6998.

  24. 24.

    , , , , , . Natural history of progression after PSA elevation following radical prostatectomy. JAMA 1999; 281: 1591–1597.

  25. 25.

    , , , , , . Gleason score 3+5 or 5+3 versus 4+4 prostate cancer: the risk of death. Eur Urol 2015; 69: 976–979.

  26. 26.

    , , , , , et al. Gleason score 5+3=8 prostate cancer: much more like Gleason score 9? BJU Int, e-pub ahead of print 24 July 2015; doi: 10.1111/bju.13239.

  27. 27.

    , , , , , et alThe 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.

  28. 28.

    , , , , , et al. Phase III trial of long-term adjuvant androgen deprivation after neoadjuvant hormonal cytoreduction and radiotherapy in locally advanced carcinoma of the prostate: the Radiation Therapy Oncology Group Protocol 92-02. J Clin Oncol 2003; 21: 3972–3978.

  29. 29.

    , , , , , et al. Androgen receptor upregulation mediates radioresistance after ionizing radiation. Cancer Res 2015; 75: 4688–4696.

Download references

Author information

Author notes

    • D E Spratt
    •  & W C Jackson

    These two authors are co-first authors.

    • T M Morgan
    •  & F Y Feng

    These two authors are co-senior authors.

Affiliations

  1. Department of Radiation Oncology, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI, USA

    • D E Spratt
    • , W C Jackson
    • , A Abugharib
    • , R T Dess
    • , P D Soni
    • , J Y Lee
    • , S G Zhao
    • , J W Hearn
    •  & F Y Feng
  2. Department of Pathology, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI, USA

    • S A Tomlins
    •  & R Mehra
  3. Department of Urology, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI, USA

    • A I Cole
    • , G Palapattu
    •  & T M Morgan
  4. Cedars-Sinai Medical Center, Department of Radiation Oncology, Los Angeles, CA, USA

    • Z S Zumsteg
    •  & H Sandler
  5. Texas Oncology, Dallas, TX, USA

    • D Hamstra

Authors

  1. Search for D E Spratt in:

  2. Search for W C Jackson in:

  3. Search for A Abugharib in:

  4. Search for S A Tomlins in:

  5. Search for R T Dess in:

  6. Search for P D Soni in:

  7. Search for J Y Lee in:

  8. Search for S G Zhao in:

  9. Search for A I Cole in:

  10. Search for Z S Zumsteg in:

  11. Search for H Sandler in:

  12. Search for D Hamstra in:

  13. Search for J W Hearn in:

  14. Search for G Palapattu in:

  15. Search for R Mehra in:

  16. Search for T M Morgan in:

  17. Search for F Y Feng in:

Competing interests

DES was supported by the Prostate Cancer Foundation Young Investigator Award. RM was supported by the Prostate Cancer Foundation Young Investigator Award. SAT served on the advisory boards of: Medivation/Astellas and Janssen; and received grant funding from: A. Alfred Taubman Medical Research Institute. FYF served on the advisory boards of: Medivation/Astellas, GenomeDx, Nanostring and Celgene; and received grant funding from: Varian, Medivation/Astellas and Celgene. TMM served on the advisory boards of: MDxHealth and Myriad Genetics; received research funding from: MDxHealth and Myriad Genetics; and was supported by the Prostate Cancer Foundation Young Investigator Award and by the A. Alfred Taubman Medical Research Institute. HMS consulted for: Janssen, Medivation/Astellas, Sanofi, Ferring, Clovis Oncology and Varian. The remaining authors declare no conflict of interest.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to D E Spratt.

About this article

Publication history

Received

Revised

Accepted

Published

DOI

https://doi.org/10.1038/pcan.2016.18

Further reading