The significance of modified Gleason grading of prostatic carcinoma in biopsy and radical prostatectomy specimens

Association of prostate-specific antigen density with prostate cancer mortality after a benign systematic prostate biopsy result

OBJECTIVE

To assess the association between prostate-specific antigen (PSA) density (PSAD) and prostate cancer mortality after a benign result on systematic transrectal ultrasonography (TRUS)-guided prostate biopsy.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

This retrospective study used data from the Finnish Randomised Study of Screening for Prostate Cancer (FinRSPC) collected between 1996 and 2020. We identified men aged 55-71 years randomised to the screening arm with PSA ≥4.0 ng/mL and a benign systematic TRUS-guided biopsy result. The cumulative prostate cancer mortality of men stratified by a PSAD cutoff of 0.15 ng/mL/cm3 was modelled with competing risk functions. The ability of PSAD, PSA, and base variables (age at biopsy, DRE result, socioeconomic status, 5α-reductase inhibitor usage, family history, and Charlson Comorbidity Index (CCI)) to predict prostate cancer death was compared using c-statistics and a likelihood ratio test.

RESULTS

After excluding 10 men without PSA data within 2 years of the biopsy and 65 without prostate volume data, 2276 men were eligible for inclusion in the study. A total of 50 men died from prostate cancer and 1028 from other causes during a median (interquartile range) follow-up of 17.4 (13.2-20.9) years. The cumulative prostate cancer mortality of men with PSAD <0.15 ng/mL/cm3 was significantly lower than that of men with PSAD ≥0.15 ng/mL/cm3: 0.5% (95% confidence interval [CI] 0.2%-1.1%) vs 2.0% (95% CI 1.2%-3.1%) at 15 years (Grey's test, P = 0.001). The model consisting of PSAD, PSA and the base variables predicted prostate cancer mortality (c-statistic 0.781) significantly better than either the base variables alone (c-statistic 0.737; likelihood-ratio test, P = 0.003) or the base variables and PSA (c-statistic 0.765; likelihood-ratio test, P = 0.039).

CONCLUSION

Prostate cancer mortality after a benign systematic TRUS-guided biopsy is low. In these patients, PSAD predicts prostate cancer mortality and provides additional value to other clinical variables. PSAD-based stratification can be used to guide follow-up strategy.

Gleason scores provide more accurate prognostic information than grade groups

Prostate cancer grade is currently often reported both by Gleason scores and by grouping of the scores into five so-called International Society of Urological Pathology (ISUP) grades (also known as grade groups). Using population-based registry data from 172,112 men diagnosed with prostate cancer on needle biopsy, we recently investigated the outcome of Gleason score 8-10 prostate cancer with death due to prostate cancer and death from any cause as endpoints. There was a prognostic heterogeneity between Gleason scores 3+5, 4+4 and 5+3 (ISUP grade 4) and between Gleason scores 4+5, 5+4 and 5+5 (ISUP grade 5). This heterogeneity was lost when the grades collapsed into ISUP grades 4 and 5, respectively. On the other hand, there was also a prognostic overlap between these ISUP grades. The outcome of Gleason score 5+3 and 4+5 cancers was very similar. The prostate-specific mortality of Gleason scores 5+3 and 4+5 was 0.32 (95% confidence interval 0.27-0.36) and 0.30 (0.29-0.31), respectively, after 5 years and 0.44 (0.39-0.49) and 0.45 (0.44-0.46), respectively, after 10 years. The findings emphasise the importance of reporting the Gleason grades and scores for more accurate prognostic information of highly heterogeneous high-grade prostate cancers. It also questions the clinical value of the current recommendations of grouping of Gleason scores into ISUP grades or grade groups.

Contemporary Diagnostic Reporting for Prostatic Adenocarcinoma: Morphologic Aspects, Molecular Correlates, and Management Perspectives

The diagnosis and reporting of prostatic adenocarcinoma have evolved from the classic framework promulgated by Dr Donald Gleason in the 1960s into a complex and nuanced system of grading and reporting that nonetheless retains the essence of his remarkable observations. The criteria for the "Gleason patterns" originally proposed have been continually refined by consensuses in the field, and Gleason scores have been stratified into a patient-friendly set of prognostically validated and widely adopted Grade Groups. One product of this successful grading approach has been the opportunity for pathologists to report diagnoses that signal carefully personalized management, placing the surgical pathologist's interpretation at the center of patient care. At one end of the continuum of disease aggressiveness, personalized diagnostic care means to sub-stratify patients with more indolent disease for active surveillance, while at the other end of the continuum, reporting histologic markers signaling aggression allows sub-stratification of clinically significant disease. Whether contemporary reporting parameters represent deeper nuances of more established ones (eg, new criteria and/or quantitation of Gleason patterns 4 and 5) or represent additional features reported alongside grade (intraductal carcinoma, cribriform patterns of carcinoma), assessment and grading have become more complex and demanding. Herein, we explore these newer reporting parameters, highlighting the state of knowledge regarding morphologic, molecular, and management aspects. Emphasis is made on the increasing value and stakes of histopathologists' interpretations and reporting into current clinical risk stratification and treatment guidelines.

Transperineal Prostate Biopsy Targeted by Magnetic Resonance Imaging Cognitive Fusion

Prostate cancer is among the most frequently diagnosed cancers and a leading cause of cancer-related death in men. Currently, the most reliable and widely used imaging test for prostate cancer diagnosis is multiparametric pelvic magnetic resonance imaging (mpMRI). Modern biopsy techniques are based on the computerised merging of ultrasound and MRI images to provide better vision during the biopsy procedure (Fusion Biopsy). However, the method is expensive due to high equipment cost. Cognitive fusion of ultrasound and MRI images has recently emerged as a cheaper and easier alternative to computerised fusion. The aim of this prospective study is to perform an in-patient comparison of the systematic prostate biopsy procedure (SB) vs. cognitive fusion (CF) guided prostate biopsy method in terms of safety, ease of use, cancer detection rate and clinically significant cancer detection. We enrolled 103 patients with suspected prostate cancer that were biopsy naive, with PSA > 4 ng/dL and PIRADS score of 3, 4 or 5. All patients received a transperineal standard 12-18 cores systematic biopsy (SB) and a four-cores targeted cognitive fusion (CF) biopsy. Following the prostate biopsy, 68% of the patients were diagnosed with prostate cancer (70/103 patients). SB diagnosis rate was 62% while CF biopsy was slightly better with a 66% rate. There was a significant 20% increase in clinically significant prostate cancer detection rate for the CF compared to SB (p < 0.05) and a significant prostate cancer risk upgrade from the low to the intermediate risk category (13%, p = 0.041). Transperineal cognitive fusion targeted prostate biopsy is a straightforward biopsy method that is easy to perform and is a safe alternative to standard systematic biopsy with improved significant cancer detection accuracy. A combined targeted and systematic approach should be used for the best diagnostic results.

Hidden clues in prostate cancer - Lessons learned from clinical and pre-clinical approaches on diagnosis and risk stratification

The heterogeneity of prostate cancer is evident at clinical, morphological and molecular levels. To aid clinical decision making, a three-tiered system for risk stratification is used to designate low-, intermediate-, and high-risk of disease progression. Intermediate-risk prostate cancers are the most frequently diagnosed, and even with common diagnostic features, can exhibit vastly different clinical progression. Thus, improved risk stratification methods are needed to better predict patient outcomes. Here, we provide an overview of the improvements in diagnosis/prognosis arising from advances in pathology reporting of prostate cancer, which can improve risk stratification, especially for patients with intermediate-risk disease. This review discusses updates to pathology reporting of morphological growth patterns, and proposes the utility of integrating prognostic biomarkers or innovative imaging techniques to enhance clinical decision-making. To complement clinical studies, experimental approaches using patient-derived tumors have highlighted important cellular and morphological features associated with aggressive disease that may impact treatment response. The intersection of urology, pathology and scientific disciplines is required to work towards a common goal of understanding disease pathogenesis, improving the stratification of patients with intermediate-risk disease and subsequently defining optimal treatment strategies using precision-based approaches.

Knowing what's growing: Why ductal and intraductal prostate cancer matter

Prostate cancer is a common malignancy, but only some tumors are lethal. Accurately identifying these tumors will improve clinical practice and instruct research. Aggressive cancers often have distinctive pathologies, including intraductal carcinoma of the prostate (IDC-P) and ductal adenocarcinoma. Here, we review the importance of these pathologies because they are often overlooked, especially in genomics and preclinical testing. Pathology, genomics, and patient-derived models show that IDC-P and ductal adenocarcinoma accompany multiple markers of poor prognosis. Consequently, "knowing what is growing" will help translate preclinical research to pinpoint and treat high-risk prostate cancer in the clinic.

Temporal changes in cause-specific death in men with localised prostate cancer treated with radical prostatectomy: a population-based, nationwide study

Background and Objective

Changes in diagnostic work‐up, histopathological assessment, and treatment of men with prostate cancer during the last 20 years have affected the prognosis. The objective was to investigate the risk of prostate cancer death in men with clinically localised prostate cancer treated with radical prostatectomy in Sweden in 2000–2010.

Methods

Population‐based, nationwide, study on men with clinically localised prostate cancer treated with radical prostatectomy in the period 2000–2010. Cox regression analyses were used to assess differences in risk of prostate cancer death according to calendar period for diagnosis and stratified on risk category.

Results

The study included 19 330 men with a median follow‐up of 12.4 years. Men diagnosed in 2007–2008 and 2009–2010 had a significantly lower risk of prostate cancer death compared to men diagnosed in 2000–2002. The reduced risk of prostate cancer death was restricted to men with intermediate‐risk prostate cancer with no differences observed in men with low‐ or high‐risk prostate cancer.

Conclusion

During the study period, the risk of prostate cancer death decreased in the total population of men with localised prostate cancer treated with radical prostatectomy. The decrease was restricted to men with intermediate‐risk prostate cancer.

Gleason Score Evolution and the Effect on Prostate Cancer Outcomes

OBJECTIVES

We evaluated how the changes in Gleason grading affected the long-term outcomes of a large prostatectomy cohort.

METHODS

We obtained long-term follow-up (16.7 years) in 581 patients having undergone radical retropubic prostatectomy between 1985 and 1995. We excluded those with seminal vesicle and/or lymphatic involvement. We regraded the specimens according to contemporary guidelines and compared how this affected outcomes compared with their original (pre-1995) Gleason scoring. In total, 499 patients were evaluable.

RESULTS

A Gleason score of 6 or less declined from 73% to 29%, and the number increased from 25% to 63% for a Gleason score of 7 and from 5% to 8% for a Gleason score of 8 to 9. As a result, for a Gleason score less than 7, biochemical failure decreased from 28% to 23%, metastatic disease 5% to 2%, and prostate cancer death from 5% to 3%. The same results were 50% to 37%, 11% to 7%, and 10% to 6% for a Gleason score of 7 and 86% to 71%, 43% to 32%, and 29% to 26% for a Gleason score more than 7, respectively. With the most recent grade grouping, for groups 1 to 5, biochemical failure occurred in 23%, 32%, 45%, 69%, and 78%, respectively. Metastatic disease occurred in 2%, 4%, 12%, 24%, and 56%, respectively. Prostate cancer-related death occurred in 2%, 4%, 9%, 21%, and 44%, respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

The revised Gleason scores improved the outcomes in all risk groups. Based on Gleason score, patients with prostate cancer will appear to have better outcomes than they did before 2005, making any comparison tenable. The current grading system shows a consistent increased risk in biochemical failure, metastatic disease, and prostate cancer-related death with each successive grade.

Updates in Histologic Grading of Urologic Neoplasms

CONTEXT.—

Tumor histology offers a composite view of the genetic, epigenetic, proteomic, and microenvironmental determinants of tumor biology. As a marker of tumor histology, histologic grading has persisted as a highly relevant factor in risk stratification and management of urologic neoplasms (ie, renal cell carcinoma, prostatic adenocarcinoma, and urothelial carcinoma). Ongoing research and consensus meetings have attempted to improve the accuracy, consistency, and biologic relevance of histologic grading, as well as provide guidance for many challenging scenarios.

OBJECTIVE.—

To review the most recent updates to the grading system of urologic neoplasms, including those in the 2016 4th edition of the World Health Organization (WHO) Bluebook, with emphasis on issues encountered in routine practice.

DATA SOURCES.—

Peer-reviewed publications and the 4th edition of the WHO Bluebook on the pathology and genetics of the urinary system and male genital organs.

CONCLUSIONS.—

This article summarizes the recently updated grading schemes for renal cell carcinoma, prostate adenocarcinomas, and bladder neoplasms of the genitourinary tract.

External validation of the Gleason grade group system in Argentinian patients that underwent surgery for prostate cancer

Introduction

The aim of this article was to evaluate the effectiveness of the Gleason grade groups (GGG) system on a group of Argentinian patients with prostate cancer (PC) who underwent radical prostatectomy (RP).

Material and methods

We retrospectively studied 262 patients who underwent RP between 1996 and 2014. To determine the performance and validity of the GGG system, a Kaplan-Meier analysis and multivariate analysis with Cox proportional method were performed to evaluate biochemical recurrence, distance metastases and specific cancer mortality. The area under the curve (AUC) was calculated to compare new groups of degrees of the GGG system with the classical scheme of stratification into 3 groups.

Results

The median follow-up was 84 months. As the groups ascend, there is less confined organ disease (p <0.001) and greater extraprostatic extension (p <0.001), greater invasion of seminal vesicles (p <0.001) and greater lymph node involvement (p <0.001). The biochemical recurrence-free survival at 5 years was 68%, 55%, 22%, 9%, 0% of the 1–5 groups, respectively. Ten-years cancer-specific survival was 96%, 95%, 78%, 64%, 25% for group 1–5, respectively. In the multivariate analysis, the GGG system is presented as the only independent predictor of biochemical recurrence and specific cancer mortality. The AUC indicates that the GGG system has a higher prognostic discrimination compared to the classic 3-group system (6, 7, ≥8).

Conclusions

The International Society of Urological Pathology (ISUP) GGG system is an independent predictor of biochemical recurrence and mortality from prostate cancer in patients treated with RP. The classification into 5 groups shows greater discrimination in the prognosis than the traditional Gleason classification.

Concordance of "Case Level" Global, Highest, and Largest Volume Cancer Grade Group on Needle Biopsy Versus Grade Group on Radical Prostatectomy

The practice of assigning "case level" biopsy Grade Group (GG) or Gleason Score is variable. To our knowledge, a comparison of the concordance of different biopsy "case level" GG with the prostatectomy GG has not been done in a post-2005 prostate cancer cohort. We evaluated the GG in 2527 patients who had biopsy and radical prostatectomy performed at our institution between 2005 and 2014. We compared the agreements, the upgrades, and the downgrades of 3 different "case level" biopsy GG, with the final GG: (1) Global GG (sum of most prevalent and highest Gleason grade in any biopsy part/site-specific specimen); (2) Highest GG (found in any biopsy part/site-specific specimen); and (3) Largest Volume Cancer GG (found in any biopsy part/site-specific specimen). The concordance between the biopsy and the final GG were evaluated using weighted kappa (κ) coefficient. The biopsy Global GG, Highest GG, and Largest Volume Cancer GG were the same as the final GG in 60.4%, 57.1%, and 54.3% cases, respectively (weighted κ values: 0.49, 0.48, and 0.44, respectively). When final GG contained tertiary 5, the overall GG agreement decreased: Global GG 41.5%, Highest GG 40.3%, and Largest Volume Cancer GG 37.1% (weighted κ: 0.22, 0.21, and 0.18, respectively). A subset analysis for cases in which the biopsy Global GG and Highest GG were different (n=180) showed an agreement of 62.4% (weighted κ: 0.37) and 18.8% (weighted κ: 0.16), respectively. In patients without a tertiary Gleason pattern on radical prostatectomy, the Global GG and the Highest GG were identical in 92.4% of biopsies. Assigning a biopsy "case level" Global GG versus using the Highest GG and the Largest Volume Cancer GG resulted in comparable and slightly improved agreement with the final GG in this cohort.

Prostate Cancer Patients' Understanding of the Gleason Scoring System: Implications for Shared Decision-Making

The Gleason scoring system is a key component of a prostate cancer diagnosis, since it indicates disease aggressiveness. It also serves as a risk communication tool that facilitates shared treatment decision-making. However, the system is highly complex and therefore difficult to communicate: factors which have been shown to undermine well-informed and high-quality shared treatment decision-making. To systematically explore prostate cancer patients' understanding of the Gleason scoring system (GSS), we assessed knowledge and perceived importance among men who had completed treatment (N = 50). Patients were administered a survey that assessed patient knowledge and patients' perceived importance of the GSS, as well as demographics, medical factors (e.g., Gleason score at diagnosis), and health literacy. Bivariate analyses were conducted to identify associations with patient knowledge and perceived importance of the GSS. The sample was generally well-educated (48% with a bachelor's degree or higher) and health literate (M = 12.9, SD = 2.2, range = 3-15). Despite this, patient knowledge of the GSS was low (M = 1.8, SD = 1.4, range = 1-4). Patients' understanding of the importance of the GSS was moderate (M = 2.8, SD = 1.0, range = 0-4) and was positively associated with GSS knowledge (p < .01). Additionally, GSS knowledge was negatively associated with years since biopsy (p < .05). Age and health literacy were positively associated with patients' perceived importance of the GSS (p < .05), but not with GSS knowledge. Patient knowledge is thus less than optimal and would benefit from enhanced communication to maximize shared treatment decision-making. Future studies are needed to explore the potential utility of a simplified Gleason grading system and improved patient-provider communication.

Prostatic Adenocarcinoma: A Grading from Gleason to the New Grade-Group System: A Historical and Critical Review

The introduction of the Gleason grading system revolutionised prognostic parameters and determination of patient treatment regiments for prostatic adenocarcinomas, and has become synonymous with prostate cancer, almost universally applied in clinical settings to predict radical prostatectomy specimen findings, potential biochemical failure, local recurrences, lymph nodes or distant metastases in patients not receiving any treatment as well as those receiving treatment including radiation therapy, surgical treatment such as radical prostatectomy and other therapies etc,. However, characterisation and classification of prostate cancer is very different compared to 40-50 years ago when Gleason scores were first introduced. Despite this radical shift in classification, the Gleason system has remained one of the most important prognostic factors in prostate cancer, only possible as a result of timely and appropriate modifications to this characterisation system made in 2005 and 2014. However, even after these modifications, certain limitations of the Gleason system remain, due to which a new prostate cancer prognostic grade group system was introduced in 2014, which was widely accepted in the 2014 ISUP consensus conference, and incorporated into the WHO classification of thetumor of the Urinary System and Male Genital Tract in 2016. Herein, this article will discuss how this new prognostic grade group system, which is regarded as simpler and more accurate than the Gleason system risk stratification groups, will be used in conjunction with the Gleason system to improve patient prognosis and treatment.

Prostate imaging features that indicate benign or malignant pathology on biopsy

Accurate diagnosis of clinically significant prostate cancer is essential in identifying patients who should be offered treatment with curative intent. Modifications to the Gleason grading system in recent years show that accurate grading and reporting at needle biopsy can improve identification of clinically significant prostate cancers. Extracapsular extension of prostate cancer has been demonstrated to be an adverse prognostic factor with greater risk of metastatic spread than organ-confined disease. Tumor volume may be an independent prognostic factor and should be considered in conjunction with other factors. Multi-parametric magnetic resonance imaging (MP-MRI) has become an increasingly important tool in the diagnosis and characterization of prostate cancer. MP-MRI allows T2-weighted (T2W) anatomical imaging to be combined with functional and physiological assessment. Diffusion-weighted imaging (DWI) has shown greater sensitivity, specificity and negative predictive value compared to prostate specific antigen (PSA) testing and T2W imaging alone and has a more positive correlation with Gleason score and tumour volume. Dynamic gadolinium contrast-enhanced (DCE) imaging can exhibit difficulties in distinguishing prostatitis from malignancy in the peripheral zone, and between benign prostatic hyperplasia (BPH) and malignancies in the transition zone (TZ). Computer aided diagnosis utilizes software to aid radiologists in detecting and diagnosing abnormalities from diagnostic imaging. New techniques of quantitative MRI, such as VERDICT MRI use tissue-specific factors to delineate different cellular and microstructural phenotypes, characterizing tissue properties with greater detail. Proton MR spectroscopic imaging (MRSI) is a more technically challenging imaging modality than DCE and DWI MRI. Over the last decade, choline and prostate-specific membrane antigen (PSMA) positron emission tomography (PET) have developed as better tools for staging than conventional imaging. While hyperpolarized MRI shows promise in improving the imaging and differentiation of benign and malignant lesions there is further work required. Accurate reading and interpretation of diagnostic investigations is key to accurate identification of abnormal areas requiring biopsy, sparing those in whom benign or indolent disease can be managed by non-invasive means. Embracing and advancing existing technologies is essential in furthering this process.

Spectrum of Cribriform Proliferations of the Prostate: From Benign to Malignant

Context.—

The presence of cribriform glands/ducts in the prostate can pose a diagnostic challenge. Cribriform glands/ducts include a spectrum of lesions, from benign to malignant, with vastly different clinical, prognostic, and treatment implications.

Objective.—

To highlight the diagnostic features of several entities with a common theme of cribriform architecture. We emphasize the importance of distinguishing among benign entities such as cribriform changes and premalignant to malignant entities such as high-grade prostatic intraepithelial neoplasia, atypical intraductal cribriform proliferation, intraductal carcinoma of the prostate, and invasive adenocarcinoma (acinar and ductal types). The diagnostic criteria, differential diagnosis, and clinical implications of these cribriform lesions are discussed.

Data Sources.—

Literature review of pertinent publications in PubMed up to calendar year 2017. Photomicrographs obtained from cases at the University of California at Irvine and authors' collections.

Conclusions.—

Although relatively uncommon compared with small acinar lesions (microacinar carcinoma and small gland carcinoma mimickers), large cribriform lesions are increasingly recognized and have become clinically and pathologically important. The spectrum of cribriform lesions includes benign, premalignant, and malignant lesions, and differentiating them can often be subtle and difficult. Intraductal carcinoma of the prostate in particular is independently associated with worse prognosis, and its presence in isolation should prompt definitive treatment. Patients with atypical intraductal cribriform proliferation, intraductal carcinoma of the prostate, or even focal cribriform pattern of invasive adenocarcinoma in biopsies would not be ideal candidates for active surveillance because of the high risk of adverse pathologic findings associated with these entities.

[Studies on localized low-risk prostate cancer : Do we know enough?]

BACKGROUND

Treatment of localized low-risk prostate cancer (PCa) is undergoing a paradigm shift: Invasive treatments such as surgery and radiation therapy are being replaced by defensive strategies such as active surveillance (AS) and watchful waiting (WW).

OBJECTIVE

The aim of this work is to evaluate the significance of current studies regarding defensive strategies (AS and WW).

METHODS

The best-known AS studies are critically evaluated for their significance in terms of input criteria, follow-up criteria, and statistical significance.

RESULTS

The difficulties faced by randomized studies in answering the question of the best treatment for low-risk cancer in two or even more study groups with known low tumor-specific mortality are clearly shown. Some studies fail because of the objective, others-like PIVOT-are underpowered. ProtecT, a renowned randomized, controlled trial (RCT), lists systematic and statistical shortcomings in detail.

CONCLUSION

The time and effort required for RCTs to answer the question of which therapy is best for locally limited low-risk cancer is very large because the low specific mortality rate requires a large number of participants and a long study duration. In any case, RCTs create hand-picked cohorts for statistical evaluation that have little to do with care in daily clinical practice. The necessary randomization is also offset by the decision-making of the informed patient. If further studies of low-risk PCa are needed, they will need real-world conditions that an RCT can not provide. To obtain clinically relevant results, we need to rethink things: When planning the study, biometricians and clinicians must understand that the statistical methods used in RCTs are of limited use and they must select a method (e.g. propensity scores) appropriate for health care research.

The impact of the 2005 International Society of Urological Pathology Gleason grading consensus on active surveillance for prostate cancer

Introduction

Current treatment plans for localized prostate carcinoma (PC) are based on core needle biopsies (CNB) classified using the Gleason score (GS). Recently, many institutions have started using the latest version of International Society of Urological Pathology (ISUP) guideline revision from 2014 for PC grading. Interestingly, this adoption is occurring without first understanding whether the 2005 ISUP revisions had a positive clinical impact. CNB-based GS may underestimate tumor aggressiveness and, therefore, critically impact patient eligibility for active surveillance (AS). The 2005 ISUP recommendations bore a significant impact on the grading of Gleason 6 and 7 PCs - a range that is meaningful for AS. The objective of this study was to compare the concordance between GS in CNB and radical prostatectomy (RP) before and after the 2005 ISUP guideline revisions, with an emphasis on its clinical impact on AS.

Material and methods

This was a single-center, prospective observational study. CNB were performed in a standardized manner. GS of CNB and RP specimens were compared across three time periods: 1999-2005 (pre-revision), 2006-2007 (transitional period), and 2008-2015 (post-revision). AS is usually employed in patients with GS 6 or GS 7 PC. Thus, we therefore focused on the analysis of patients with CNBs of GS ≤7.

Results

Between 1999 and 2015, 380 men with GS ≤7 PC underwent RP at our institution (median age: 62y; median PSA: 5.8 ng/ml). Of these, 231 CNB specimens were classified as GS ≤6, while 149 were GS 7.46% (pre-revision), 43% (transitional), and 54% (post-revision) of CNB with original scores ≤6 were later upgraded in corresponding RP specimens (p <0.001).

Conclusions

The 2005 ISUP GS revisions did not lower the rates of GS upgrades in RP specimens when compared to corresponding initial CNBs. Thus, these revisions did not improve AS selection. Future advances in molecular diagnostics may provide additional valuable information that facilitates patient enrollment in AS programs.

On cribriform prostate cancer

The management of newly diagnosed prostate cancer is challenging because of its heterogeneity in histology, genetics and clinical outcome. The clinical outcome of patients with Gleason score 7 prostate cancer varies greatly. Improving risk assessment in this group is of particular interest, as Gleason score 7 prostate cancer on biopsy is an important clinical threshold for active treatment. Architecturally, four Gleason grade 4 growth patterns are recognized: ill-formed, fused, glomeruloid and cribriform. The aim of this review is to describe the role of cribriform growth in prostate cancer with respect to diagnosis, prognosis and molecular pathology. Secondly, we will discuss clinical applications for cribriform prostate cancer and give recommendations for future research.

Gene-expression analysis of gleason grade 3 tumor glands embedded in low- and high-risk prostate cancer

The Gleason score (GS) of prostate cancer on diagnostic biopsies is an important parameter for therapeutic decision-making. Biopsy GS under-estimates the actual GS at radical prostatectomy in a significant number of patients due to sampling artifact. The aim of this study was to identify markers that are differentially expressed in Gleason grade 3 (GG3) tumor glands embedded in GS 4 + 3 = 7 and GS 3 + 3 = 6 prostate cancer using laser capture microdissection and RNA sequencing.

GG3 tumor glands embedded in nine GS 3 + 3 = 6 and nine GS 4 + 3 = 7 prostate cancers were isolated by laser capture microdissection of frozen radical prostatectomy specimens. After RNA amplification and RNA sequencing, differentially expressed genes in both GG3 components were identified by a 2log fold change > 1.0 and p-value < 0.05. We applied immunohistochemistry on a tissue micro-array representing 481 radical prostatectomy samples for further validation on protein level.

A total of 501 genes were up-regulated and 421 down-regulated in GG3 glands embedded in GS 4 + 3 = 7 as compared to GS 3 + 3 = 6 prostate cancer. We selected HELLS, ZIC2 and ZIC5 genes for further validation. ZIC5 mRNA was up-regulated 17 fold (p = 8.4E–07), ZIC2 8 fold (p = 1.3E–05) and HELLS 2 fold (p = 0.006) in GG3 glands derived from GS 4 + 3 = 7. HELLS expression of ≥ 1% occurred in 10% GS < 7, 17% GS 7 and 43% GS >7 prostate cancer (p < 0.001). Using a cut-off of ≥ 1%, protein expression of ZIC5 was present in 28% GS < 7, 43% GS 7 and 57% GS > 7 cancer (p < 0.001). ZIC2 was neither associated with GS nor outcome in our validation set. HELLS was independently predictive for biochemical-recurrence after radical prostatectomy (HR 2.3; CI 1.5–3.6; p < 0.01).

In conclusion, HELLS and ZIC5 might be promising candidate markers for selection of biopsy GS 6 prostate cancer being at risk for up-grading at prostatectomy.

Validation of the WHO 2016 new Gleason score of prostatic carcinoma

Context

New Gleason Score of Prostate.

Aims

The aim of this study is to assign the patients with carcinoma prostate into new prognostic grade groups (PGGs) based on revised Gleason score (GS) and follow-up according to the WHO 2016.

Subjects and Methods

All the biopsies/resected specimens of carcinoma prostate from January 2014 to June 2016 were reviewed, and GS was done according to the WHO 2016. Accordingly, cribriform, fused, and glomeruloid glands were assigned GS 4. Thus, two groups were identified with GS 7 (3 + 4 and 4 + 3). The patients were grouped into PGGs 1-5. The number of patients with change in the prognostic group along with follow-up was calculated.

Results

There were 143 patients with carcinoma prostate, with a median age of 65 years. The initial GS was revised, and there was a decrease in GS 3 + 4 from 13.9% to 9% and increase in 4 + 3 from 19.6% to 23.8%. There was upgradation of PGG in 11 (7.69%) biopsies; with PGG from 1 to 2 in one; 2to 3 in eight; and 3to 4 in two. Follow-up at 2 years in 22 showed the poor prognoses in the patients who were upgraded to the higher prognostic group.

Conclusions

A change in PGG according to the WHO 2016 criteria was assigned in 7.69% biopsies of carcinoma prostate, and it correlated with prognosis.

Trends in Diagnosis of Gleason Score 2 Through 4 Prostate Cancer in the National Cancer Database, 1990–2013

Context.—

The incidence of prostate cancer with Gleason scores 2 through 4 has been decreasing for decades, largely because of evolving criteria for Gleason scores, including the 2005 International Society of Urological Pathology recommendation that scores of 2 through 4 should rarely, if ever, be diagnosed based on needle biopsy. Whether trends in assigning Gleason scores 2 through 4 vary by facility type and patient characteristics is unknown.

Objective.—

To assess trends in prostate cancer grading among various categories of treatment facilities.

Design.—

Analyses of National Cancer Database records from 1990 through 2013 for 434 612 prostate cancers diagnosed by core needle biopsy, including multivariable regression for 106 331 patients with clinical T1c disease diagnosed from 2004 through 2013.

Results.—

The proportion of prostate core needle biopsies with Gleason scores 2 through 4 declined from 11 476 of 53 850 (21.3%) (1990–1994) to 96 of 43 566 (0.2%) (2010–2013). The proportions of American Joint Committee on Cancer category T1c needle biopsies assigned Gleason scores 2 through 4 were 416 of 12 796 (3.3%) and 9 of 7194 (0.1%) during 2004 and 2013, respectively. Declines occurred earliest at National Cancer Institute–designated programs and latest at community programs. A multivariable logistic model adjusting for patient demographic and clinical variables and restricted to T1c cancers diagnosed in needle biopsies from 2004 through 2013 showed that facility type is independently associated with the likelihood of cancers in such specimens being assigned Gleason scores of 2 through 4, with community centers having a statistically significant odds ratio of 5.99 relative to National Cancer Institute–designated centers.

Conclusions.—

These results strongly suggest differences in Gleason grading by pathologists practicing in different facility categories and variations in their promptness of adopting International Society of Urological Pathology recommendations.

Characterization of Prostate Cancer in a Functional Eunuch

BACKGROUND

Eunuchs rarely, if ever, develop prostate cancer (CaP). This article reports on a 62-year-old functional eunuch from prepubertal mumps orchitis who developed clinically localized CaP.

METHODS

Serum and CaP and benign prostate tissue androgen levels were measured using a validated liquid chromatography-tandem mass spectrometry assay. The assay measures testosterone; dihydrotestosterone (DHT); the adrenal androgens, androstenedione and dehydroepiandrosterone; and the androgen metabolites, androsterone and androstanedione. Gene and protein expression levels of androgen metabolism enzymes, and androgen receptor and androgen-regulated genes were measured using quantitative reverse-transcription polymerase chain reaction and immunohistochemistry, respectively.

RESULTS

Intracrine androgen metabolism produced tissue DHT when serum and tissue testosterone levels were castrate and undetectable, respectively. Androgen receptor, androgen-regulated, and androgen metabolism enzyme genes were expressed but at lower levels in CaP than benign tissues.

CONCLUSIONS

DHT was synthesized using the primary backdoor androgen metabolism pathway and not using androstenedione or dehydroepiandrosterone via the frontdoor or secondary backdoor pathways.

African American Men With Low-Risk Prostate Cancer Are Candidates for Active Surveillance: The Will-Rogers Effect?

It is controversial whether African American men(AAM) with low-risk prostate cancer (PC) should be placed on active surveillance (AS). Recent literature indicates AAM diagnosed with low-risk disease have increased pathologic upgrading and disease progression. We evaluated the surgical pathology of AAM and Caucasians who underwent prostatectomy to assess the suitability of AAM for AS. We retrospectively reviewed 1,034 consecutive men who underwent open prostatectomy between 2004 and 2015; 345 Caucasians and 58 AAM met the American Urological Association criteria for low-risk PC. We excluded from analysis two men whose prostatectomies were aborted. Chi-square test, Fisher’s exact test, and Wilcoxon rank sum test were used for statistical analysis. AAM with low-risk PC have a lower rate of surgical upgrading and similar rates of adverse pathology compared with Caucasians. 29.8% of AAM (17/57) diagnosed with low-risk disease but 44.5% of Caucasians (153/344) had disease upgrading at prostatectomy (p < .04), although AAM overall were less likely to be clinically diagnosed with low-risk cancer (33.1 vs. 41.7%, p < .05). AAM with low-risk pathology were younger (median 55 vs. 59 years, p < .001) and had smaller prostates (32 vs. 35 g, p < .04). AAM with preoperative low-risk disease have lower rates of surgical upgrading and similar adverse pathology compared with Caucasians. There may be a Will-Rogers effect as AAM with aggressive disease appear more likely to be stratified into intermediate- and high-risk groups, leaving those AAM diagnosed with low-risk disease fully eligible for AS. Our results support that AS for AAM should remain a viable option.

Follow-up of Prostatectomy versus Observation for Early Prostate Cancer

BACKGROUND

We previously found no significant differences in mortality between men who underwent surgery for localized prostate cancer and those who were treated with observation only. Uncertainty persists regarding nonfatal health outcomes and long-term mortality.

METHODS

From November 1994 through January 2002, we randomly assigned 731 men with localized prostate cancer to radical prostatectomy or observation. We extended follow-up through August 2014 for our primary outcome, all-cause mortality, and the main secondary outcome, prostate-cancer mortality. We describe disease progression, treatments received, and patient-reported outcomes through January 2010 (original follow-up).

RESULTS

During 19.5 years of follow-up (median, 12.7 years), death occurred in 223 of 364 men (61.3%) assigned to surgery and in 245 of 367 (66.8%) assigned to observation (absolute difference in risk, 5.5 percentage points; 95% confidence interval [CI], -1.5 to 12.4; hazard ratio, 0.84; 95% CI, 0.70 to 1.01; P=0.06). Death attributed to prostate cancer or treatment occurred in 27 men (7.4%) assigned to surgery and in 42 men (11.4%) assigned to observation (absolute difference in risk, 4.0 percentage points; 95% CI, -0.2 to 8.3; hazard ratio, 0.63; 95% CI, 0.39 to 1.02; P=0.06). Surgery may have been associated with lower all-cause mortality than observation among men with intermediate-risk disease (absolute difference, 14.5 percentage points; 95% CI, 2.8 to 25.6) but not among those with low-risk disease (absolute difference, 0.7 percentage points; 95% CI, -10.5 to 11.8) or high-risk disease (absolute difference, 2.3 percentage points; 95% CI, -11.5 to 16.1) (P=0.08 for interaction). Treatment for disease progression was less frequent with surgery than with observation (absolute difference, 26.2 percentage points; 95% CI, 19.0 to 32.9); treatment was primarily for asymptomatic, local, or biochemical (prostate-specific antigen) progression. Urinary incontinence and erectile and sexual dysfunction were each greater with surgery than with observation through 10 years. Disease-related or treatment-related limitations in activities of daily living were greater with surgery than with observation through 2 years.

CONCLUSIONS

After nearly 20 years of follow-up among men with localized prostate cancer, surgery was not associated with significantly lower all-cause or prostate-cancer mortality than observation. Surgery was associated with a higher frequency of adverse events than observation but a lower frequency of treatment for disease progression, mostly for asymptomatic, local, or biochemical progression. (Funded by the Department of Veterans Affairs and others; PIVOT ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT00007644 .).

SOCS3 Immunohistochemical Expression Seems to Support the 2005 and 2014 International Society of Urological Pathology (ISUP) Modified Gleason Grading System

BACKGROUND

In the 2014, The International Society of Urological Pathology (ISUP) consensus conference update the grading of prostate, last revised in 2005. In this study we evaluate the SOCS3 immunohistochemical protein expression in different Gleason prostatic adenocarcinoma: classical Gleason grade 3, classical Gleason grade 3 upgraded to Gleason grade 4 according to the ISUP modifications and classical and modified Gleason grade 4. The major conclusions were: (i) Cribriform glands should be assigned a Gleason pattern 4, regardless of morphology; (ii) Glomeruloid glands should be assigned a Gleason pattern 4, regardless of morphology; (iii) Grading of mucinous carcinoma of the prostate should be based on its underlying growth pattern rather than all as pattern 4; and (iv) Intraductal carcinoma of the prostate without invasive carcinoma should not assigned Gleason grade and a comment about aggressive carcinoma probably associated should be made. In a recent report we analyzed the methylathion status of cytokine signaling (SOCS) proteins 3 (SOCS3) gene and the consequences of promoter hypermethylation on mRNA and protein expression in a collection of prostate cancer and benign prostate hyperplasia (BPH) and for the first time we demonstrated that a hypermethylation of SOCS3 with a significant reduction of its mRNA and protein expression identifies a subgroup of prostate cancer with a more aggressive behavior. Moreover we demonstrated that the immunohystochemical analysis of SOCS3 protein expression in prostatic cancer biopsies may provide a useful and easier method than SOCS3 methylation analysis to individuate in cancer with intermediate-high grade Gleason score a subgroup of prostate cancer with a more aggressive behavior.

METHODS

A total of 148 radical prostatectomy with diagnosis of prostatic acinar adenocarcinoma were stratified into three different categories on the basis of Gleason grade: (i) Twenty-six prostatic adenocarcinoma with classical and modified Gleason grade 3; (ii) Fifty seven prostatic adenocarcinoma with classical Gleason grade 3 upgraded to Gleason grade 4 by 2005 and 2014 ISUP Consensus Conference; and (iii) Sixty five prostatic adenocarcinoma with classical and modified Gleason grade 4. Immunohistochemical analysis for SOCS3 was performed and SOCS3 staining intensity were evaluated by two pathologists in three different ways on the basis of the intensity of cytoplasmatic staining: positive (intense cytoplasmatic staining in more than 50% of neoplastic cells) (+), negative (absence of cytoplasmatic staining in more than 50% of neoplastic cells) (-), weakly positive (weak cytoplasmatic staining in more than 50% of neoplastic cells (+/-).

RESULTS

In the group of prostatic adenocarcinoma Gleason grade 3 we found that SOCS3 positivity (+) were observed in 19 out of 26 cases (73.1%); in 5 out of 26 prostatic adenocarcinoma the neoplastic glands showed weak intensity SOCS3 staining (+/-) (19.2%), while in only two cases we found SOCS-3 negativity (-) (7.7%); in the group of cases with prostatic adenocarcinoma with Gleason grade 4, 16 out 65 cases (24.6%) showed SOCS3 positivity (+); 18 out 65 cases (27.7%) SOCS3 weakly positive (+/-), and in 31 cases (47.7%) SOCS3 negative staining (-) were observed. Interestingly, the group of prostatic adenocarcinoma with histological Gleason 3 pattern upgraded to Gleason 4 pattern according to the 2005 and 2014 ISUP modified grading system, showed SOCS3 positivity (+) in 16 out of 57 cases (28%), in 16 out 57 cases (28%) a weakly positive for SOCS3 (+/-) were observed, while 25 cases (44%) showed negative SOCS3 staining (-).

CONCLUSIONS

In this study we demonstrated a significant association of SOCS3 positivity (+) with prostatic carcinoma classical Gleason pattern 3 (P < 0.0001), while SOCS3 negative pattern (-) or SOCS3 weakly positive pattern (+/-) were associated to prostatic carcinomas with Gleason pattern 3 upgraded to Gleason pattern 4 (P = 0.0002) and with classical Gleason pattern 4. The significant difference of SOCS3 immunohistochemical expression between classical Gleason grade 3 and Gleason grade 4 upgraded to grade 4 seems to support the definitions and the modifications of Gleason grade 4 of the 2005 and the 2014 International Society of Urological Pathology (ISUP). The hypoexpression of SOCS3 protein in glomeruloid glands could support the hypothesis that from molecular point of view this growth pattern could be different from classical Gleason pattern 3 and biologically more closely to Gleason pattern 4, confirming the conclusions of the 2014 ISUP Conference assigning a Gleason pattern 4 to glomeruloid glands regardless of morphology. Prostate 77: 597-603, 2017. © 2017 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.

Gleason grade grouping of prostate cancer is of prognostic value in Asian men

AIM

The International Society of Urological Pathology made recommendations for the use of Grade Groups (GG) originally described by Epstein and colleagues over Gleason score (GS) alone in 2014, which was subsequently adopted by the WHO classification in 2016. The majority of studies validating this revision have been in Caucasian populations. We therefore asked whether the new GG system was retrospectively associated with biochemical disease-free survival in a mixed-ethnicity cohort of Asian men.

METHODS

A total of 680 radical prostatectomies (RPs) from 2005 to 2014 were included. GS from initial biopsy and RP were compared and used to allocate cases to GG, defined as: 1 (GS≤6); 2 (GS 3+4=7); 3 (GS 4+3=7); 4 (GS 4+4=8/5+3=8/3+5=8) and 5 (GS 9-10). Biochemical recurrence was defined as two consecutive post-RP prostate-specific antigen (PSA) levels of >0.2 ng/mL after post-RP PSA reaching the nadir of <0.1 ng/mL.

RESULTS

Our data showed that Kaplan-Meier analysis revealed significant differences in biochemical recurrence within Gleason GG based on either biopsy or prostatectomy scoring. Multivariate analysis further confirmed that a higher GG was significantly associated with risk of biochemical recurrence. This GG system had a higher prognostic discrimination for both initial biopsy and RP than GS.

CONCLUSIONS

Our study validates the use of the revised and updated GG system in a mixed-ethnicity population of Asian men. Higher GG was significantly associated with increased risk of biochemical recurrence. We therefore recommend its use to inform clinical management for patients with prostate cancer.

[The 2014 consensus conference of the ISUP on Gleason grading of prostatic carcinoma]

In 2005 the International Society of Urological Pathology (ISUP) held a concensus conference on Gleason grading in order to bring this grading system up to the current state of contemporary practice; however, it became clear that further modifications on the grading of prostatic carcinoma were necessary. The International Society of Urological Pathology therefore held a further consensus conference in 2014 to clarify these points. This article presents the essential results of the Chicago grading meeting.

Prostate cancer: from Gleason scoring to prognostic grade grouping

The Gleason grading system was developed in the late 1960s by Dr. Donald F. Gleason. Due to changes in prostatic adenocarcinoma (PAC) detection and treatment, newer technologies to better characterize prostatic pathology, subsequently described variants of PAC and further data relating various morphologic patterns to prognosis, the application of the Gleason grading system changed substantially in surgical pathology. First in 2005 and more recently in 2014, consensus conferences were held to update PAC grading. Here, we review of the successive changes in the grading of PAC from the original system, with emphasis on the newest prognostic grade grouping.

One is the new six: The International Society of Urological Pathology (ISUP) patient-focused approach to Gleason grading

N/A

Prostate Specific Antigen and Prostate Cancer in Chinese Men Undergoing Initial Prostate Biopsies Compared with Western Cohorts

PURPOSE

We determined the characteristics of Chinese men undergoing initial prostate biopsy and evaluated the relationship between prostate specific antigen levels and prostate cancer/high grade prostate cancer detection in a large Chinese multicenter cohort.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

This retrospective study included 13,904 urology outpatients who had undergone biopsy for the indications of prostate specific antigen greater than 4.0 ng/ml or prostate specific antigen less than 4.0 ng/ml but with abnormal digital rectal examination results. The prostate specific antigen measurements were performed in accordance with the standard procedures at the respective institutions. The type of assay used was documented and recalibrated to the WHO standard.

RESULTS

The incidence of prostate cancer and high grade prostate cancer was lower in the Chinese cohort than the Western cohorts at any given prostate specific antigen level. Around 25% of patients with a prostate specific antigen of 4.0 to 10.0 ng/ml were found to have prostate cancer compared to approximately 40% in U.S. clinical practice. Moreover, the risk curves were generally flatter than those of the Western cohorts, that is risk did not increase as rapidly with higher prostate specific antigen.

CONCLUSIONS

The relationship between prostate specific antigen and prostate cancer risk differs importantly between Chinese and Western populations, with an overall lower risk in the Chinese cohort. Further research should explore whether environmental or genetic differences explain these findings or whether they result from unmeasured differences in screening or benign prostate disease. Caution is required for the implementation of prostate cancer clinical decision rules or prediction models for men in China or other Asian countries with similar genetic and environmental backgrounds.

The prognostic significance of the 2014 International Society of Urological Pathology (ISUP) grading system for prostate cancer

The 2005 International Society of Urological Pathology (ISUP) modified Gleason grading system was further amended in 2014 with the establishment of grade groupings (ISUP grading). This study examined the predictive value of ISUP grading, comparing results with recognised prognostic parameters.Of 3700 men undergoing radical prostatectomy (RP) reported at Aquesta Pathology between 2008 and 2013, 2079 also had a positive needle biopsy available for review. We examined the association between needle biopsy 2014 ISUP grade and 2005 modified Gleason score, tumour volume, pathological stage of the subsequent RP tumour, as well as biochemical recurrence-free survival (BRFS). The median age was 62 (range 32-79 years). Median serum prostate specific antigen was 5.9 (range 0.4-69 ng/mL). For needle biopsies, 280 (13.5%), 1031 (49.6%), 366 (17.6%), 77 (3.7%) and 325 (15.6%) were 2014 ISUP grades 1-5, respectively. Needle biopsy 2014 ISUP grade showed a significant association with RP tumour volume (p < 0.001), TNM pT and N stage (p < 0.001) and BRFS (p < 0.001). Multivariate analysis using Cox proportional hazards regression model showed serum prostate specific antigen (PSA) at the time of diagnosis and ISUP grade >2 to be significantly associated with BRFS.This study provides evidence of the prognostic significance of ISUP grading for thin core needle biopsy of prostate.

Validation of International Society of Urological Pathology (ISUP) grading for prostatic adenocarcinoma in thin core biopsies using TROG 03.04 'RADAR' trial clinical data

In 2014 a consensus conference convened by the International Society of Urological Pathology (ISUP) adopted amendments to the criteria for Gleason grading and scoring (GS) for prostatic adenocarcinoma. The meeting defined a modified grading system based on 5 grading categories (grade 1, GS 3+3; grade 2, GS 3+4; grade 3, GS 4+3; grade 4, GS 8; grade 5, GS 9-10). In this study we have evaluated the prognostic significance of ISUP grading in 496 patients enrolled in the TROG 03.04 RADAR Trial. There were 19 grade 1, 118 grade 2, 193 grade 3, 88 grade 4 and 79 grade 5 tumours in the series, with follow-up for a minimum of 6.5 years. On follow-up 76 patients experienced distant progression of disease, 171 prostate specific antigen (PSA) progression and 39 prostate cancer deaths. In contrast to the 2005 modified Gleason system (MGS), the hazards of the distant and PSA progression endpoints, relative to grade 2, were significantly greater for grades 3, 4 and 5 of the 2014 ISUP grading scheme. Comparison of predictive ability utilising Harrell's concordance index, showed 2014 ISUP grading to significantly out-perform 2005 MGS grading for each of the three clinical endpoints.

From Gleason to International Society of Urological Pathology (ISUP) grading of prostate cancer

Gleason grading of prostate cancer has gained worldwide acceptance since its introduction 50 years ago. This system has fulfilled the role of a powerful prognostic indicator for many years and this has influenced treatment. There have been numerous changes to the management and diagnosis of prostate cancer since 1966, including prostate-specific antigen screening, resulting in the early detection of prostate cancer, This has resulted in the evolution of Gleason grading with the informal adoption of a number of alterations. Significant changes to Gleason grading were made in 2005 through a consensus conference convened by the International Society of Urological Pathology (ISUP). In more recent times, the necessity for further changes to prostate cancer grading has been apparent and a follow-up ISUP consensus conference was held in 2014. Changes resulting from this conference included the classifying of all cribriform cancer and glomeruloid patterns as Gleason grade 4, the grading of mucinous adenocarcinoma based on underlying architecture rather than uniformly considering these tumors as pattern 4, and the introduction of a Gleason score (GS)-based 5 grade system, which incorporated the 2014 modifications to the Gleason grading system. Designated ISUP grade, this system consists of five grades: grade 1 (GS ≤3 + 3), grade 2 (GS 3 + 4), grade 3 (GS 4 + 3), grade 4 (GS 4 + 4, 3 + 5, 5 + 3) and grade 5 (GS 9-10). With further advances recently reported in the literature, it is apparent that amendments to the current system are likely to be necessary in the future.

Prognostic Factors for Biochemical Recurrence More than 10 Years after Radical Prostatectomy

PURPOSE

Some patients with long postoperative intervals of undetectable prostate specific antigen are still at risk for biochemical recurrence. Our aims were to identify prognostic factors for late biochemical recurrence, including cancer family history, and evaluate cancer specific mortality.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

We identified 10,310 patients after radical prostatectomy without neoadjuvant or adjuvant therapy between 1979 and 2015 in the prospective German Familial Prostate Cancer database. A subgroup of 2,480 patients with more than 10 years of followup (median 12.8) had undetectable prostate specific antigen. Biochemical recurrence, defined as prostate specific antigen 0.2 ng/ml or greater, developing at more than 10 years was defined as late biochemical recurrence. Multiple proportional hazards regression with forward selection was applied to determine prognostic factors for late biochemical recurrence.

RESULTS

The Kaplan-Meier estimated biochemical recurrence rate at 10, 15 and 20 years was 34.3%, 44.0% and 52.7%, respectively. Of 2,480 patients with undetectable prostate specific antigen 10 years postoperatively 249 subsequently had biochemical recurrence, of whom 12 died of prostate cancer. The factors associated with late biochemical recurrence were age at surgery (HR 1.04 per year, p = 0.027), prostate specific antigen at diagnosis (HR 1.02 per ng/ml, p = 0.020), pathological Gleason score (categorical 2-6 vs 7 [3 + 4], 7, 7 [4 + 3] and 8-10, p = 0.002) and pathological tumor stage pT3a or greater (HR 1.50, p = 0.065).

CONCLUSIONS

From years 10 to 15 and 10 to 20 postoperatively the biochemical recurrence rate increased by 9.7% and 18.4%, respectively. In contrast to a family history of prostate cancer, age at surgery, prostate specific antigen at diagnosis, pathological tumor stage and pathological Gleason score were prognostic factors for late biochemical recurrence. Patients with late biochemical recurrence are still at risk for death from prostate cancer.

Independent surgical validation of the new prostate cancer grade-grouping system

OBJECTIVE

To report the independent prognostic impact of the new prostate cancer grade-grouping system in a large external validation cohort of patients treated with radical prostatectomy (RP).

PATIENTS AND METHODS

Between 1994 and 2013, 3 694 consecutive men were treated with RP at a single institution. To investigate the performance of and validate the grade-grouping system, biochemical recurrence-free survival (bRFS) rates were assessed using Kaplan-Meier tests, Cox-regression modelling, and discriminatory comparison analyses. Separate analyses were performed based on biopsy and RP grade.

RESULTS

The median follow-up was 52.7 months. The 5-year actuarial bRFS for biopsy grade groups 1-5 were 94.2%, 89.2%, 73.1%, 63.1%, and 54.7%, respectively (P < 0.001). Similarly, the 5-year actuarial bRFS based on RP grade groups was 96.1%, 93.0%, 74.0%, 64.4%, and 49.9% for grade groups 1-5, respectively (P < 0.001). The adjusted hazard ratios for bRFS relative to biopsy grade group 1 were 1.98, 4.20, 5.57, and 9.32 for groups 2, 3, 4, and 5, respectively (P < 0.001), and for RP grade groups were 2.09, 5.27, 5.86, and 10.42 (P < 0.001). The five-grade-group system had a higher prognostic discrimination compared with the commonly used three-tier system (Gleason score 6 vs 7 vs 8-10).

CONCLUSIONS

In an independent surgical cohort, we have validated the prognostic benefit of the new prostate cancer grade-grouping system for bRFS, and shown that the benefit is maintained after adjusting for important clinicopathological variables. The greater predictive accuracy of the new system will improve risk stratification in the clinical setting and aid in patient counselling.

Grading of prostatic adenocarcinoma: current state and prognostic implications

Background

Despite significant changes in the clinical and histologic diagnosis of prostate cancer, the Gleason grading system remains one of the most powerful prognostic predictors in prostate cancer. The correct diagnosis and grading of prostate cancer is crucial for a patient’s prognosis and therapeutic options. However, this system has undergone significant revisions and continues to have deficiencies that can potentially impact patient care.

Main Body

We describe the current state of grading prostate cancer, focusing on the current guidelines for the Gleason grading system and recent changes from the 2014 International Society of Urological Pathology Consensus Conference on Gleason Grading of Prostatic Carcinoma. We also explore the limitations of the current Gleason grading system and present a validated alternative to the Gleason score. The new grading system initially described in 2013 in a study from Johns Hopkins Hospital and then validated in a multi-institutional study, includes five distinct Grade Groups based on the modified Gleason score groups. Grade Group 1 = Gleason score ≤6, Grade Group 2 = Gleason score 3 + 4 = 7, Grade Group 3 = Gleason score 4 + 3 = 7, Grade Group 4 = Gleason score 8, Grade Group 5 = Gleason scores 9 and 10.

Conclusion

As this new grading system is simpler and more accurately reflects prostate cancer biology, it is recommended by the World Health Organization (WHO) to be used in conjunction with Gleason grading.

Gleason and Fuhrman no longer make the grade

Grading is an important prognostic parameter for prostate adenocarcinoma and renal cell carcinoma (RCC); however, the most frequently used classifications fail to account for advances in our understanding of the diagnostic features, classification and/or behaviour of these tumours. In 2005 and 2014, the International Society of Urological Pathology (ISUP) proposed changes to Gleason scoring with the adoption of the ISUP grading for prostate cancer in 2014 (grade 1, score 3 + 3; grade 2, score 3 + 4; grade 3, score 4 + 3; grade 4, score 8; grade 5, score 9-10). Internationally the Fuhrman grading system is widely employed despite criticisms related to its application, validity, and reproducibility. In 2012, the ISUP established a grading system for RCC (grade 1, the nucleolus is not seen or is inconspicuous and basophilic at ×400 magnification; grade 2, nucleoli are eosinophilic and clearly visible at ×400 magnification; grade 3, nucleoli are clearly visible at ×100 magnification; grade 4, tumours show extreme pleomorphism or rhabdoid and/or sarcomatoid morphology). This grading has been validated for clear cell RCC and papillary RCC. It was further recommended that chromophobe RCC not be graded. For other morphotypes of RCC, ISUP grading has not been validated as a prognostic parameter, but can be used for descriptive purposes.

The Long-term Disease-specific Mortality of Low-risk Localized Prostate Cancer: A Prospective Population-based Register Study Over Two Decades

OBJECTIVE

To identify prognostic factors, and to estimate the long-term disease-specific and annual disease-specific mortality rates of low-risk prostate cancer patients from the early prostate-specific antigen (PSA) era.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

We studied data extracted from the Southeast Region Prostate Cancer Register in Sweden, on1300 patients with clinically localized low-risk tumors, T1-2, PSA level ≤10 µg/L and Gleason scores 2-6 or World Health Organization Grade 1, diagnosed 1992-2003. The Cox multivariate regression model was used to evaluate factors predicting survival. Prostate cancer death rates per 1000 person-years were estimated for 4 consecutive follow-up time periods: 0-5, 5-10, 10-15, and 15+ years after diagnosis.

RESULTS

During the follow-up of overall survivors (mean 10.6 years; maximum 21.8 years), 93 patients (7%) died of prostate cancer. Cancer-specific survival was 0.98 (95% confidence interval [CI] 0.97-0.99), 0.95 (95% CI 0.93-0.96), 0.89 (95% CI 0.86-0.91), and 0.84 (95% CI 0.80-0.88), 5, 10, 15, and 20 years after diagnosis. The 5-year increases in cancer-specific mortality were statistically significant (P  <  .001). Patients with PSA ≥ 4 µg/L managed initially with watchful waiting and those aged 70 years or older had a significantly higher risk of dying from their prostate cancer.

CONCLUSION

The long-term disease-specific mortality of low-risk localized prostate cancer is low, but the annual mortality rate from prostate cancer gradually increases. This indicates that some tumors slowly develop into lethal cancer, particularly in patients 70 years or older with a PSA level ≥ 4 µg/L.

The evolving Gleason grading system

The Gleason grading system for prostate adenocarcinoma has evolved from its original scheme established in the 1960s-1970s, to a significantly modified system after two major consensus meetings conducted by the International Society of Urologic Pathology (ISUP) in 2005 and 2014, respectively. The Gleason grading system has been incorporated into the WHO classification of prostate cancer, the AJCC/UICC staging system, and the NCCN guidelines as one of the key factors in treatment decision. Both pathologists and clinicians need to fully understand the principles and practice of this grading system. We here briefly review the historical aspects of the original scheme and the recent developments of Gleason grading system, focusing on major changes over the years that resulted in the modern Gleason grading system, which has led to a new "Grade Group" system proposed by the 2014 ISUP consensus, and adopted by the 2016 WHO classification of tumours of the prostate.

[Prostate cancer. Part 2: Review of the various tumor grading systems over the years 1966-2015 and future perspectives of the new grading of the International Society of Urological Pathology (ISUP)]

The continued development of methods in needle biopsies and radical prostatectomy for treatment of prostate cancer has given special emphasis to the question of the prognostic relevance of the various systems of grading. The classical purely histological grading system of Gleason has been modified several times in the past decades and cleared the way for a new grading system by the prognostic grading of Epstein. Assessment of the old and also modified combined histological and cytological grading of Mostofi, the World health Organization (WHO) and the urologic-pathological working group of prostate cancer in connection with the Gleason grading (combined Gleason-Helpap grading), has led to considerably improved rates of concordance between biopsy and radical prostatectomy and to improved estimations of prognosis beside its contribution to the development of a more practicable grading system for clinical use.