BACKGROUND: We hypothesized that Gleason Grade Group (GGG) IV patients treated with radical prostatectomy (RP) or external beam radiotherapy (EBRT) exhibit different cancer-specific mortality (CSM) rates according to underlying Gleason patterns (GP): 4 + 4 versus 3 + 5 versus 5 + 3. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We identified all GGG IV patients treated with either RP or EBRT within the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results 2004-2016 database. The effect of biopsy GP on CSM (3 + 5 vs. 4 + 4 vs. 5 + 3) was tested in Kaplan-Meier and multivariable competing risks regression models (adjusted for PSA, age at diagnosis, cT-, and cN-stage). RESULTS: Of 26,458 GGG IV patients, 14,203 (53.7%) were treated with EBRT and 12,255 (46.3%) with RP. Of RP patients, 15.3 versus 81.2 versus 3.4% exhibited biopsy GP 3 + 5 versus 4 + 4 versus 5 + 3 and respective 10-year CSM rates were 6.5 versus 6.2 versus 12.6% (p < .001). In multivariable analyses addressing RP patients, GP 5 + 3 was associated with two-fold higher CSM rate than GP 4 + 4 (p < .001), but not GP 3 + 5 (p = .1). Of EBRT patients, 7.6 versus 89.8 versus 2.6% exhibited biopsy GP 3 + 5 versus 4 + 4 versus 5 + 3 and respective 10-year CSM rates were 12.2 versus 13.8 versus 17.8% (p < .001). In multivariable analyses addressing EBRT patients, no CSM differences according to GP were observed (all p ≥ .4). CONCLUSION: In GGG IV RP candidates, the presence of biopsy GP 5 + 3 purports a significantly higher CSM than in GP 4 + 4 or 3 + 5. In GGG IV EBRT candidates, no significant CSM differences according to GP were recorded.

Department of Maternal Child and Urological Sciences Policlinico Umberto 1 Hospital Sapienza Rome University Rome Italy

Department of Urology 2nd Faculty of Medicine Charles University Prag Czech Republic

Department of Urology Comprehensive Cancer Center Medical University of Vienna Vienna Austria

Department of Urology Policlinico San Martino Hospital University of Genova Genova Italy

Department of Urology The Jikei University School of Medicine Tokyo Japan

Department of Urology University Hospital Frankfurt Frankfurt am Main Germany

Department of Urology University Hospital Hamburg Eppendorf Hamburg Germany

Department of Urology University of Texas Southwestern Dallas Texas USA

Departments of Urology Weill Cornell Medical College New York City New York USA

Division of Experimental Oncology Department of Urology Urological Research Institute IRCCS San Raffaele Scientific Institute Milan Italy

Division of Urology Cancer Prognostics and Health Outcomes Unit University of Montréal Health Center Montréal Québec Canada

Division of Urology Department of Special Surgery Jordan University Hospital The University of Jordan Amman Jordan

Institute for Urology and Reproductive Health 1 M Sechenov 1st Moscow State Medical University Moscow Russia

Martini Klinik Prostate Cancer Center University Hospital Hamburg Eppendorf Hamburg Germany

000      

00000naa a2200000 a 4500

001      

bmc22012337

003      

CZ-PrNML

005      

20220506130548.0

007      

ta

008      

220425s2021 xxu f 000 0|eng||

009      

AR

024    7_

$a 10.1002/pros.24175 $2 doi

035    __

$a (PubMed)34057220

040    __

$a ABA008 $b cze $d ABA008 $e AACR2

041    0_

$a eng

044    __

$a xxu

100    1_

$a Würnschimmel, Christoph $u Martini-Klinik Prostate Cancer Center, University Hospital Hamburg-Eppendorf, Hamburg, Germany $u Division of Urology, Cancer Prognostics and Health Outcomes Unit, University of Montréal Health Center, Montréal, Québec, Canada $1 https://orcid.org/0000000178914791

245    10

$a Presence of biopsy Gleason pattern 5 + 3 is associated with higher mortality after radical prostatectomy but not after external beam radiotherapy compared to other Gleason Grade Group IV patterns / $c C. Würnschimmel, M. Wenzel, F. Chierigo, RS. Flammia, K. Mori, Z. Tian, SF. Shariat, F. Saad, A. Briganti, N. Suardi, C. Terrone, M. Gallucci, FKH. Chun, D. Tilki, M. Graefen, PI. Karakiewicz

520    9_

$a BACKGROUND: We hypothesized that Gleason Grade Group (GGG) IV patients treated with radical prostatectomy (RP) or external beam radiotherapy (EBRT) exhibit different cancer-specific mortality (CSM) rates according to underlying Gleason patterns (GP): 4 + 4 versus 3 + 5 versus 5 + 3. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We identified all GGG IV patients treated with either RP or EBRT within the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results 2004-2016 database. The effect of biopsy GP on CSM (3 + 5 vs. 4 + 4 vs. 5 + 3) was tested in Kaplan-Meier and multivariable competing risks regression models (adjusted for PSA, age at diagnosis, cT-, and cN-stage). RESULTS: Of 26,458 GGG IV patients, 14,203 (53.7%) were treated with EBRT and 12,255 (46.3%) with RP. Of RP patients, 15.3 versus 81.2 versus 3.4% exhibited biopsy GP 3 + 5 versus 4 + 4 versus 5 + 3 and respective 10-year CSM rates were 6.5 versus 6.2 versus 12.6% (p < .001). In multivariable analyses addressing RP patients, GP 5 + 3 was associated with two-fold higher CSM rate than GP 4 + 4 (p < .001), but not GP 3 + 5 (p = .1). Of EBRT patients, 7.6 versus 89.8 versus 2.6% exhibited biopsy GP 3 + 5 versus 4 + 4 versus 5 + 3 and respective 10-year CSM rates were 12.2 versus 13.8 versus 17.8% (p < .001). In multivariable analyses addressing EBRT patients, no CSM differences according to GP were observed (all p ≥ .4). CONCLUSION: In GGG IV RP candidates, the presence of biopsy GP 5 + 3 purports a significantly higher CSM than in GP 4 + 4 or 3 + 5. In GGG IV EBRT candidates, no significant CSM differences according to GP were recorded.

650    _2

$a senioři $7 D000368

650    _2

$a biopsie $7 D001706

650    _2

$a lidé $7 D006801

650    _2

$a mužské pohlaví $7 D008297

650    _2

$a lidé středního věku $7 D008875

650    12

$a stupeň nádoru $7 D060787

650    _2

$a prostatický specifický antigen $x krev $7 D017430

650    _2

$a prostatektomie $x statistika a číselné údaje $7 D011468

650    _2

$a nádory prostaty $x mortalita $x patologie $x terapie $7 D011471

650    _2

$a radioterapie $x metody $x statistika a číselné údaje $7 D011878

650    _2

$a program SEER $7 D018426

650    _2

$a výsledek terapie $7 D016896

655    _2

$a srovnávací studie $7 D003160

655    _2

$a časopisecké články $7 D016428

700    1_

$a Wenzel, Mike $u Division of Urology, Cancer Prognostics and Health Outcomes Unit, University of Montréal Health Center, Montréal, Québec, Canada $u Department of Urology, University Hospital Frankfurt, Frankfurt am Main, Germany $1 https://orcid.org/0000000243380889

700    1_

$a Chierigo, Francesco $u Division of Urology, Cancer Prognostics and Health Outcomes Unit, University of Montréal Health Center, Montréal, Québec, Canada $u Department of Urology, Policlinico San Martino Hospital, University of Genova, Genova, Italy

700    1_

$a Flammia, Rocco S $u Division of Urology, Cancer Prognostics and Health Outcomes Unit, University of Montréal Health Center, Montréal, Québec, Canada $u Department of Maternal-Child and Urological Sciences, Policlinico Umberto I Hospital, Sapienza Rome University, Rome, Italy

700    1_

$a Mori, Keiichiro $u Department of Urology, Comprehensive Cancer Center, Medical University of Vienna, Vienna, Austria $u Department of Urology, The Jikei University School of Medicine, Tokyo, Japan

700    1_

$a Tian, Zhe $u Division of Urology, Cancer Prognostics and Health Outcomes Unit, University of Montréal Health Center, Montréal, Québec, Canada

700    1_

$a Shariat, Shahrokh F $u Department of Urology, Comprehensive Cancer Center, Medical University of Vienna, Vienna, Austria $u Departments of Urology, Weill Cornell Medical College, New York City, New York, USA $u Department of Urology, University of Texas Southwestern, Dallas, Texas, USA $u Department of Urology, Second Faculty of Medicine, Charles University, Prag, Czech Republic $u Institute for Urology and Reproductive Health, I. M. Sechenov First Moscow State Medical University, Moscow, Russia $u Division of Urology, Department of Special Surgery, Jordan University Hospital, The University of Jordan, Amman, Jordan

700    1_

$a Saad, Fred $u Division of Urology, Cancer Prognostics and Health Outcomes Unit, University of Montréal Health Center, Montréal, Québec, Canada

700    1_

$a Briganti, Alberto $u Division of Experimental Oncology, Department of Urology, Urological Research Institute, IRCCS San Raffaele Scientific Institute, Milan, Italy

700    1_

$a Suardi, Nazareno $u Department of Urology, Policlinico San Martino Hospital, University of Genova, Genova, Italy

700    1_

$a Terrone, Carlo $u Department of Urology, Policlinico San Martino Hospital, University of Genova, Genova, Italy

700    1_

$a Gallucci, Michele $u Department of Maternal-Child and Urological Sciences, Policlinico Umberto I Hospital, Sapienza Rome University, Rome, Italy

700    1_

$a Chun, Felix K H $u Department of Urology, University Hospital Frankfurt, Frankfurt am Main, Germany

700    1_

$a Tilki, Derya $u Martini-Klinik Prostate Cancer Center, University Hospital Hamburg-Eppendorf, Hamburg, Germany $u Department of Urology, University Hospital Hamburg-Eppendorf, Hamburg, Germany $1 https://orcid.org/0000000170331380

700    1_

$a Graefen, Markus $u Martini-Klinik Prostate Cancer Center, University Hospital Hamburg-Eppendorf, Hamburg, Germany

700    1_

$a Karakiewicz, Pierre I $u Division of Urology, Cancer Prognostics and Health Outcomes Unit, University of Montréal Health Center, Montréal, Québec, Canada

773    0_

$w MED00010484 $t The Prostate $x 1097-0045 $g Roč. 81, č. 11 (2021), s. 778-784

856    41

$u https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34057220 $y Pubmed

910    __

$a ABA008 $b sig $c sign $y p $z 0

990    __

$a 20220425 $b ABA008

991    __

$a 20220506130540 $b ABA008

999    __

$a ok $b bmc $g 1789783 $s 1163538

BAS    __

$a 3

BAS    __

$a PreBMC

BMC    __

$a 2021 $b 81 $c 11 $d 778-784 $e 20210531 $i 1097-0045 $m The Prostate $n Prostate $x MED00010484

LZP    __

$a Pubmed-20220425