Objectives: To improve the prognostic stratification for different therapeutic options of prostatic carcinomas (PCa) with low and intermediate grade by combining Gleason grading with cytological findings and prognostic grade grouping. Methods: We analyzed PCa after radical prostatectomy using the combined grading of Gleason and Helpap, which allows an exact differentiation particularly of low and intermediate grade tumors. Additionally, we attached time-interval and percentage value of recurrences of prostate-specific antigen (PSA) as well as death on disease (DoD) to the prognostic grade grouping. Results: Carcinomas of group I/V are very low-grade tumors with very good prognosis without biochemical recurrence and DoD predestining for active surveillance (AS). The group II/V with low progress of PSA without DoD allows the options of an active treatment or AS and shows a prognostic separation of the intermediate group III/V. Within the high-grade groups, a differentiation is necessary between GS 7b (4 + 3), 8, and 9-10 regarding TNM staging and rate of DoD. Prognosis of GS 7b (4 + 3) group III/V is more favourable without DoD in contrast to group IV and V/V with cases of DoD. Conclusion: Morphologically prognostic classification by using combined grading may improve the prognostic stratification of patients with PCa.

Keywords:
Prostate, Carcinoma, Gleason and combigrading, Prognosis, PSA progress, Survival
1.
Lau WK, Blute ML, Bostwick DG, Weaver AL, Sebo TJ, Zincke H: Prognostic factors for survival of patients with pathological Gleason score 7 prostate cancer: differences in outcome between primary Gleason grades 3 and 4. J Urol 2001;166:1692-1697.
2.
Chan TY, Partin AW, Walsh PC, Epstein JI: Prognostic significance of Gleason score 3+4 versus Gleason score 4+3 tumor at radical prostatectomy. Urology 2000;56:823-827.
3.
Stark JR, Perner S, Stampfer MJ, Sinnott JA, Finn S, Eisenstein AS, Ma J, Fiorentino M, Kurth T, Loda M, Giovannucci EL, Rubin MA, Mucci LA: Gleason score and lethal prostate cancer: does 3 + 4 = 4 + 3? J Clin Oncol 2009;27:3459-3464.
4.
Ward JF, Slezak JM, Blute ML, Bergstralh EJ, Zincke H: Radical prostatectomy for clinically advanced (cT3) prostate cancer since the advent of prostate-specific antigen testing: 15-year outcome. BJU Int 2005;95:751-756.
5.
Andreoiu M, Cheng L: Multifocal prostate cancer: biologic, prognostic, and therapeutic implications. Hum Pathol 2010;41:781-793.
6.
Isbarn H, Huland H, Graefen M: Results of radical prostatectomy in newly diagnosed prostate cancer: long-term survival rates in locally advanced and high-risk cancers. Dtsch Arztebl Int 2013;110:497-503.
7.
Gleason DF: Classification of prostatic carcinomas. Cancer Chemother Rep 1966;50:125-128.
8.
Epstein JI, Allsbrook WC Jr, Amin MB, Egevad LL; ISUP Grading Committee: The 2005 international society of urological pathology (ISUP) consensus conference on Gleason grading of prostatic carcinoma. Am J Surg Pathol 2005;29:1228-1242.
9.
Epstein JI: An update of the Gleason grading system. J Urol 2010;183:433-440.
10.
Helpap B, Ringli D, Shaikhibrahim Z, Wernert N, Kristiansen G: The heterogeneous Gleason 7 carcinoma of the prostate: analyses of low and high grade (risk) carcinomas with criteria of the international society of urological pathology (ISUP). Pathol Res Pract 2013;209:190-194.
11.
Helpap B, Köllermann J: Combined histoarchitectural and cytological biopsy grading improves grading accuracy in low-grade prostate cancer. Int J Urol 2012;19:126-133.
12.
Chun FK, Steuber T, Erbersdobler A, Currlin E, Walz J, Schlomm T, Haese A, Heinzer H, McCormack M, Huland H, Graefen M, Karakiewicz PI: Development and internal validation of a nomogram predicting the probability of prostate cancer Gleason sum upgrading between biopsy and radical prostatectomy pathology. Eur Urol 2006;49:820-826.
13.
Pierorazio PM, Walsh PC, Partin AW, Epstein JI: Prognostic Gleason grade grouping: data based on the modified Gleason scoring system. BJU Int 2013;111:753-760.
14.
Carter HB, Partin AW, Walsh PC, Trock BJ, Veltri RW, Nelson WG, Coffey DS, Singer EA, Epstein JI: Gleason score 6 adenocarcinoma: should it be labeled as cancer? J Clin Oncol 2012;30:4294-4296.
15.
Epstein JI: The Gleason Grading System. Wolters Kluver, Lippincott Williams & Wilkins, 2013.
16.
Helpap B, Ringli D, Tonhauser J, Poser I, Breul J, Gevensleben H, Seifert HH: The significance of accurate determination of Gleason score for therapeutic options and prognosis of prostate cancer. PORE submitted, 2015.
17.
Oon SF, Watson RW, O'Leary JJ, Fitzpatrick JM: Epstein criteria for insignificant prostate cancer. BJU Int 2011;108:518-525.
18.
Helpap B: Review of the morphology of prostatic carcinoma with special emphasis on subgrading and prognosis. J Urol Pathol 1993;1:3-19.
19.
Helpap B, Kristiansen G, Beer M, Köllermann J, Oehler U, Pogrebniak A, Fellbaum Ch: Improving the reproducibility of the Gleason scores in small foci of prostate cancer - suggestion of diagnostic criteria for glandular fusion. Pathol Oncol Res 2012;18:615-621.
20.
Freeman A: Prognostic Gleason grade grouping: data based on the modified Gleason scoring system. BJU Int 2013;111:691-692.
21.
Helpap B, Kristiansen G, Köllermann J, Shaikhibrahim Z, Wernert N, Oehler U, Fellbaum C: Significance of Gleason grading of low-grade carcinoma of the prostate with therapeutic option of active surveillance. Urol Int 2013;90:17-23.
22.
Tosoian JJ, JohnBull E, Trock BJ, Landis P, Epstein JI, Partin AW, Walsh PC, Carter HB: Pathological outcomes in men with low risk and very low risk prostate cancer: implications on the practice of active surveillance. J Urol 2013;190:1218-1222.
23.
Amin M, Lin DW, Gore JL, Srigley JR, Samaratunga H, Egevad L, Rubin M, Nacey J, Carter HB, Klotz L, Sandler H, Zietman AL, Holden S, Montironi R, Humphrey PA, Evans AJ, Epstein JI, Delahunt B, McKenney JK, Berney D, Wheeler TM, Chinnaiyan AM, True L, Knudsen B, Hammond ME: The critical role of the pathologist in determining eligibility for active surveillance as a management option in patients with prostate cancer: consensus statement with recommendations supported by the college of American pathologists, international society of urological pathology, association of directors of anatomic and surgical pathology, the New Zealand society of pathologists, and the prostate cancer foundation. Arch Pathol Lab Med 2014;138:1387-1405.
24.
Isbarn H, Karakiewicz PI, Ahyai SA, Chun FK, Jeldres C, Haese A, Heinzer H, Zacharias M, Heuer R, Eichelberg C, Steuber T, Budäus L, Köllermann J, Salomon G, Schlomm T, Perrotte P, Fisch M, Huland H, Graefen M: Differences in histopathological and biochemical outcomes in patients with low Gleason score prostate cancer. BJU Int 2010;105:818-823.
25.
Kristiansen G, Stöckle M, Albers P, Schmidberger H, Martus P, Wellek S, Härter M, Bussar-Maatz R, Wiegel T: [The importance of pathology in the German prostate cancer study prefere]. Pathologe 2013;34:449-462.
26.
Gandaglia G, Sun M, Trinh QD, Becker A, Schiffmann J, Hu JC, Briganti A, Montorsi F, Perrotte P, Karakiewicz PI, Abdollah F: Survival benefit of definitive therapy in patients with clinically advanced prostate cancer: estimations of the number needed to treat based on competing-risks analysis. BJU Int 2014;114:E62-E69.
27.
Isbarn H, Wanner M, Salomon G, Steuber T, Schlomm T, Köllermann J, Sauter G, Haese A, Heinzer H, Huland H, Graefen M: Long-term data on the survival of patients with prostate cancer treated with radical prostatectomy in the prostate-specific antigen era. BJU Int 2010;106:37-43.
© 2015 S. Karger AG, Basel
2015
Copyright / Drug Dosage / Disclaimer
Copyright: All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be translated into other languages, reproduced or utilized in any form or by any means, electronic or mechanical, including photocopying, recording, microcopying, or by any information storage and retrieval system, without permission in writing from the publisher.
Drug Dosage: The authors and the publisher have exerted every effort to ensure that drug selection and dosage set forth in this text are in accord with current recommendations and practice at the time of publication. However, in view of ongoing research, changes in government regulations, and the constant flow of information relating to drug therapy and drug reactions, the reader is urged to check the package insert for each drug for any changes in indications and dosage and for added warnings and precautions. This is particularly important when the recommended agent is a new and/or infrequently employed drug.
Disclaimer: The statements, opinions and data contained in this publication are solely those of the individual authors and contributors and not of the publishers and the editor(s). The appearance of advertisements or/and product references in the publication is not a warranty, endorsement, or approval of the products or services advertised or of their effectiveness, quality or safety. The publisher and the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to persons or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content or advertisements.
You do not currently have access to this content.