Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
. 2013 Aug 15;73(16):5163-8.
doi: 10.1158/0008-5472.CAN-13-0427.

Gleason grade progression is uncommon

Affiliations

Gleason grade progression is uncommon

Kathryn L Penney et al. Cancer Res. .

Abstract

Gleason grade is universally used for pathologic scoring of the differentiation of prostate cancer. However, it is unknown whether prostate tumors arise well differentiated and then progress to less differentiated forms or if Gleason grade is an early and largely unchanging feature. Prostate-specific antigen (PSA) screening has reduced the proportion of tumors diagnosed at advanced stage, which allows assessment of this question on a population level. If Gleason grade progresses as stage does, one would expect a similar reduction in high-grade tumors. We studied 1,207 Physicians' Health Study and Health Professionals Follow-up Study participants diagnosed with prostate cancer from 1982 to 2004 and treated with prostatectomy. We compared the distribution of grade and clinical stage across the pre-PSA and PSA screening eras. We re-reviewed grade using the ISUP 2005 revised criteria. The proportion of advanced stage tumors dropped more than six-fold, from the earliest period (12/1982-1/1993), 19.9% stage ≥ T3, to the latest (5/2000-12/2004), 3% stage T3, none T4. The proportion of Gleason score ≥ 8 decreased substantially less, from 25.3% to 17.6%. A significant interaction between stage and diagnosis date predicting grade (P = 0.04) suggests that the relationship between grade and stage varies by time period. As the dramatic shift in stage since the introduction of PSA screening was accompanied by a more modest shift in Gleason grade, these findings suggest that grade may be established early in tumor pathogenesis. This has implications for the understanding of tumor progression and prognosis, and may help patients diagnosed with lower grade disease feel more comfortable choosing active surveillance.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

Conflict of Interest: The authors disclose no potential conflicts of interest.

Figures

Figure 1
Figure 1
Proportion of prostate cancer cases with (a) clinical stage T1/T2, T3, and T4/N1/M1 across four different time periods and (b) re-reviewed radical prostatectomy Gleason score ≤6, 7, and ≥8.
Figure 2
Figure 2
Incidence rate (per 10,000 person-years) of re-reviewed Gleason ≤6, 3+4, 4+3 and ≥8 disease across four time periods.

Similar articles

Cited by

References

    1. Andren O, Fall K, Franzen L, Andersson SO, Johansson JE, Rubin MA. 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(4):1337–1340. - PubMed
    1. Stark JR, Perner S, Stampfer MJ, Sinnott JA, Finn S, Eisenstein AS, et al. Gleason score and lethal prostate cancer: does 3 + 4 = 4 + 3? J Clin Oncol. 2009;27(21):3459–3464. PMCID: 2717753. - PMC - PubMed
    1. Choo R, Danjoux C, Morton G, Szumacher E, Sugar L, Gardner S, et al. How much does Gleason grade of follow-up biopsy differ from that of initial biopsy in untreated, Gleason score 4–7, clinically localized prostate cancer? Prostate. 2007;67(15):1614–1620. - PubMed
    1. Sheridan TB, Carter HB, Wang W, Landis PB, Epstein JI. Change in prostate cancer grade over time in men followed expectantly for stage T1c disease. J Urol. 2008;179(3):901–904. discussion 4-5. - PMC - PubMed
    1. Porten SP, Whitson JM, Cowan JE, Cooperberg MR, Shinohara K, Perez N, et al. Changes in prostate cancer grade on serial biopsy in men undergoing active surveillance. J Clin Oncol. 2011;29(20):2795–2800. - PubMed

Publication types

Substances