1
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      Prognosis of Gleason score 8 prostatic adenocarcinoma in needle biopsies: a nationwide population-based study

      research-article

      Read this article at

      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          A 5-tier grouping of Gleason scores has recently been proposed. Studies have indicated prognostic heterogeneity within these groups. We assessed prostate cancer-specific mortality (PCSM) and all-cause mortality (ACM) for men diagnosed with Gleason score 3 + 5 = 8, 4 + 4 = 8 and 5 + 3 = 8 acinar adenocarcinoma on needle biopsy in a population-based national cohort. The Prostate Cancer data Base Sweden 5.0 was used for survival analysis with PCSM and ACM at 5 and 10 years as endpoints. Multivariable Cox regression models controlling for socioeconomic factors, stage and primary treatment type were used for PCSM and ACM. Among 199,620 men reported with prostate cancer in 2000–2020, 172,112 were diagnosed on needle biopsy. In 18,281 (11%), there was a Gleason score of 8 in needle biopsies, including a Gleason score of 3 + 5, 4 + 4 and 5 + 3 in 11%, 86% and 2.3%, respectively. The primary treatment was androgen deprivation therapy (55%), deferred treatment (8%), radical prostatectomy (16%) or radical radiotherapy (21%). PCSM in men with Gleason scores of 3 + 5, 4 + 4 and 5 + 3 at 5 years of follow-up was 0.10 (95% CI 0.09–0.12), 0.22 (0.22–0.23) and 0.32 (0.27–0.36), respectively, and at 10 years 0.19 (0.17–0.22), 0.34 (0.33–0.35) and 0.44 (0.39–0.49), respectively. There was a significantly higher PCSM after 5 and 10 years in men with Gleason score 5 + 3 cancers than in those with 4 + 4 and in Gleason score 4 + 4 cancers than in those with 3 + 5. Grouping of Gleason scores will eliminate the prognostic granularity of Gleason scoring, thus diminishing the prognostic significance of this proposed grading system.

          Supplementary Information

          The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1007/s00428-024-03810-y.

          Related collections

          Most cited references17

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: found
          • Article: not found

          Coding algorithms for defining comorbidities in ICD-9-CM and ICD-10 administrative data.

          Implementation of the International Statistical Classification of Disease and Related Health Problems, 10th Revision (ICD-10) coding system presents challenges for using administrative data. Recognizing this, we conducted a multistep process to develop ICD-10 coding algorithms to define Charlson and Elixhauser comorbidities in administrative data and assess the performance of the resulting algorithms. ICD-10 coding algorithms were developed by "translation" of the ICD-9-CM codes constituting Deyo's (for Charlson comorbidities) and Elixhauser's coding algorithms and by physicians' assessment of the face-validity of selected ICD-10 codes. The process of carefully developing ICD-10 algorithms also produced modified and enhanced ICD-9-CM coding algorithms for the Charlson and Elixhauser comorbidities. We then used data on in-patients aged 18 years and older in ICD-9-CM and ICD-10 administrative hospital discharge data from a Canadian health region to assess the comorbidity frequencies and mortality prediction achieved by the original ICD-9-CM algorithms, the enhanced ICD-9-CM algorithms, and the new ICD-10 coding algorithms. Among 56,585 patients in the ICD-9-CM data and 58,805 patients in the ICD-10 data, frequencies of the 17 Charlson comorbidities and the 30 Elixhauser comorbidities remained generally similar across algorithms. The new ICD-10 and enhanced ICD-9-CM coding algorithms either matched or outperformed the original Deyo and Elixhauser ICD-9-CM coding algorithms in predicting in-hospital mortality. The C-statistic was 0.842 for Deyo's ICD-9-CM coding algorithm, 0.860 for the ICD-10 coding algorithm, and 0.859 for the enhanced ICD-9-CM coding algorithm, 0.868 for the original Elixhauser ICD-9-CM coding algorithm, 0.870 for the ICD-10 coding algorithm and 0.878 for the enhanced ICD-9-CM coding algorithm. These newly developed ICD-10 and ICD-9-CM comorbidity coding algorithms produce similar estimates of comorbidity prevalence in administrative data, and may outperform existing ICD-9-CM coding algorithms.
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: not found

            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.

            In November, 2014, 65 prostate cancer pathology experts, along with 17 clinicians including urologists, radiation oncologists, and medical oncologists from 19 different countries gathered in a consensus conference to update the grading of prostate cancer, last revised in 2005. The major conclusions were: (1) Cribriform glands should be assigned a Gleason pattern 4, regardless of morphology; (2) Glomeruloid glands should be assigned a Gleason pattern 4, regardless of morphology; (3) Grading of mucinous carcinoma of the prostate should be based on its underlying growth pattern rather than grading them all as pattern 4; and (4) Intraductal carcinoma of the prostate without invasive carcinoma should not be assigned a Gleason grade and a comment as to its invariable association with aggressive prostate cancer should be made. Regarding morphologies of Gleason patterns, there was clear consensus on: (1) Gleason pattern 4 includes cribriform, fused, and poorly formed glands; (2) The term hypernephromatoid cancer should not be used; (3) For a diagnosis of Gleason pattern 4, it needs to be seen at 10x lens magnification; (4) Occasional/seemingly poorly formed or fused glands between well-formed glands is insufficient for a diagnosis of pattern 4; (5) In cases with borderline morphology between Gleason pattern 3 and pattern 4 and crush artifacts, the lower grade should be favored; (6) Branched glands are allowed in Gleason pattern 3; (7) Small solid cylinders represent Gleason pattern 5; (8) Solid medium to large nests with rosette-like spaces should be considered to represent Gleason pattern 5; and (9) Presence of unequivocal comedonecrosis, even if focal is indicative of Gleason pattern 5. It was recognized by both pathologists and clinicians that despite the above changes, there were deficiencies with the Gleason system. The Gleason grading system ranges from 2 to 10, yet 6 is the lowest score currently assigned. When patients are told that they have a Gleason score 6 out of 10, it implies that their prognosis is intermediate and contributes to their fear of having a more aggressive cancer. Also, in the literature and for therapeutic purposes, various scores have been incorrectly grouped together with the assumption that they have a similar prognosis. For example, many classification systems consider Gleason score 7 as a single score without distinguishing 3+4 versus 4+3, despite studies showing significantly worse prognosis for the latter. The basis for a new grading system was proposed in 2013 by one of the authors (J.I.E.) based on data from Johns Hopkins Hospital resulting in 5 prognostically distinct Grade Groups. This new system was validated in a multi-institutional study of over 20,000 radical prostatectomy specimens, over 16,000 needle biopsy specimens, and over 5,000 biopsies followed by radiation therapy. There was broad (90%) consensus for the adoption of this new prostate cancer Grading system in the 2014 consensus conference based on: (1) the new classification provided more accurate stratification of tumors than the current system; (2) the classification simplified the number of grading categories from Gleason scores 2 to 10, with even more permutations based on different pattern combinations, to Grade Groups 1 to 5; (3) the lowest grade is 1 not 6 as in Gleason, with the potential to reduce overtreatment of indolent cancer; and (4) the current modified Gleason grading, which forms the basis for the new grade groups, bears little resemblance to the original Gleason system. The new grades would, for the foreseeable future, be used in conjunction with the Gleason system [ie. Gleason score 3+3=6 (Grade Group 1)]. The new grading system and the terminology Grade Groups 1-5 have also been accepted by the World Health Organization for the 2016 edition of Pathology and Genetics: Tumours of the Urinary System and Male Genital Organs.
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: found
              Is Open Access

              The longitudinal integrated database for health insurance and labour market studies (LISA) and its use in medical research

              Education, income, and occupation are factors known to affect health and disease. In this review we describe the Swedish Longitudinal Integrated Database for Health Insurance and Labour Market Studies (LISA, Longitudinell Integrationsdatabas för Sjukförsäkrings- och Arbetsmarknadsstudier). LISA covers the adult Swedish population aged ≥ 16 years registered on December 31 each year since 1990 (since 2010 individuals aged ≥ 15 years). The database was launched in response to rising levels of sick leave in the country. Participation in Swedish government-administered registers such as LISA is compulsory, and hence selection bias is minimized. The LISA database allows researchers to identify individuals who do not work because of injury, disease, or rehabilitation. It contains data on sick leave and disability pension based on calendar year. LISA also includes information on unemployment benefits, disposable income, social welfare payments, civil status, and migration. During 2000–2017, an average of 97,000 individuals immigrated to Sweden each year. This corresponds to about 1% of the Swedish population (10 million people in 2017). Data on occupation have a completeness of 95%. Income data consist primarily of income from employment, capital, and allowances, including parental allowance. In Sweden, work force participation is around 80% (2017: overall: 79.1%; men 80.3% and women 77.9%). Education data are available in > 98% of all individuals aged 25–64 years, with an estimated accuracy for highest attained level of education of 85%. Some information on civil status, income, education, and employment before 1990 can be obtained through the Population and Housing Census data (FoB, Folk- och bostadsräkningen).
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Contributors
                lars.egevad@ki.se
                Journal
                Virchows Arch
                Virchows Arch
                Virchows Archiv
                Springer Berlin Heidelberg (Berlin/Heidelberg )
                0945-6317
                1432-2307
                29 April 2024
                29 April 2024
                2024
                : 484
                : 6
                : 995-1003
                Affiliations
                [1 ]GRID grid.24381.3c, ISNI 0000 0000 9241 5705, Department of Oncology-Pathology, , Karolinska Institutet, Karolinska University Hospital, ; 171 76 Stockholm, Sweden
                [2 ]Department of Medical Epidemiology and Biostatistics, Karolinska Institutet, ( https://ror.org/056d84691) Stockholm, Sweden
                [3 ]Malaghan Institute of Medical Research, ( https://ror.org/02487ts63) Wellington, New Zealand
                [4 ]Aquesta Uropathology and University of Queensland, ( https://ror.org/00rqy9422) Brisbane, QLD Australia
                [5 ]Department of Surgical Sciences, Uppsala University, ( https://ror.org/048a87296) Uppsala, Sweden
                [6 ]Regional Cancer Centre Mid-Sweden, Uppsala University Hospital, ( https://ror.org/01apvbh93) Uppsala, Sweden
                Author information
                http://orcid.org/0000-0001-8531-222X
                Article
                3810
                10.1007/s00428-024-03810-y
                11186860
                38683251
                68d1b83c-5884-46ae-a5a3-1d6d6c3eff36
                © The Author(s) 2024

                Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/.

                History
                : 11 March 2024
                : 9 April 2024
                : 19 April 2024
                Funding
                Funded by: FundRef http://dx.doi.org/10.13039/501100002794, Cancerfonden;
                Award ID: CAN 20 1358 PjFs
                Award ID: 22 22051Pj
                Award Recipient :
                Funded by: FundRef http://dx.doi.org/10.13039/501100004359, Vetenskapsrådet;
                Award ID: 2022-00544
                Award Recipient :
                Funded by: FundRef http://dx.doi.org/10.13039/501100007231, Cancerföreningen i Stockholm;
                Award ID: 204043
                Award Recipient :
                Funded by: Karolinska Institute
                Categories
                Original Article
                Custom metadata
                © Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany, part of Springer Nature 2024

                Pathology
                gleason grade,mortality,needle biopsy,prostate cancer
                Pathology
                gleason grade, mortality, needle biopsy, prostate cancer

                Comments

                Comment on this article