Gleason score and lethal prostate cancer: does 3 + 4 = 4 + 3?
- PMID: 19433685
- PMCID: PMC2717753
- DOI: 10.1200/JCO.2008.20.4669
Gleason score and lethal prostate cancer: does 3 + 4 = 4 + 3?
Abstract
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.
Conflict of interest statement
Authors' disclosures of potential conflicts of interest and author contributions are found at the end of this article.
Figures
References
-
- Gleason DF. Histologic grading of prostate cancer: A perspective. Hum Pathol. 1992;23:273–279. - PubMed
-
- Andren O, Fall K, Franzen L, et al. How well does the Gleason score predict prostate cancer death? A 20-year followup of a population based cohort in Sweden. J Urol. 2006;175:1337–1340. - PubMed
-
- Gleason DF, Mellinger GT. Prediction of prognosis for prostatic adenocarcinoma by combined histological grading and clinical staging. J Urol. 1974;111:58–64. - PubMed
-
- D'Amico AV, Whittington R, Malkowicz SB, et al. Biochemical outcome after radical prostatectomy, external beam radiation therapy, or interstitial radiation therapy for clinically localized prostate cancer. JAMA. 1998;280:969–974. - PubMed
-
- Albertsen PC, Hanley JA, Barrows GH, et al. Prostate cancer and the Will Rogers phenomenon. J Natl Cancer Inst. 2005;97:1248–1253. - PubMed
Publication types
MeSH terms
Grants and funding
- HL-34595/HL/NHLBI NIH HHS/United States
- HL-26490/HL/NHLBI NIH HHS/United States
- R01 HL034595/HL/NHLBI NIH HHS/United States
- CA097193/CA/NCI NIH HHS/United States
- T32CA009001-32/CA/NCI NIH HHS/United States
- R01 CA058684/CA/NCI NIH HHS/United States
- 5R01CA042182-20/CA/NCI NIH HHS/United States
- T32 CA009001/CA/NCI NIH HHS/United States
- 5R01CA058684-13/CA/NCI NIH HHS/United States
- R01 CA040360/CA/NCI NIH HHS/United States
- R01 CA034944/CA/NCI NIH HHS/United States
- R01 CA042182/CA/NCI NIH HHS/United States
- R01 HL026490/HL/NHLBI NIH HHS/United States
- R01 CA097193/CA/NCI NIH HHS/United States
- CA40360/CA/NCI NIH HHS/United States
LinkOut - more resources
Full Text Sources
Other Literature Sources
Medical
