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

Zobrazit více v PubMed

Epstein JI , Egevad L , Amin MB , et al. 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. Am J Surg Pathol. 2016;40:244-252.

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.

Spratt DE , Jackson WC , Abugharib A , et al. Independent validation of the prognostic capacity of the ISUP prostate cancer grade grouping system for radiation treated patients with long-term follow-up. Prostate Cancer Prostatic Dis. 2016;19:292-297.

Leapman MS , Cowan JE , Simko J , et al. Application of a prognostic Gleason grade grouping system to assess distant prostate cancer outcomes. Eur Urol. 2017;71:750-759.

Mori K , Sharma V , Comperat EM , et al. Differential prognostic impact of different Gleason patterns in grade group 4 in radical prostatectomy specimens. Eur J Surg Oncol. 2021;47(5):1172-1178.

Huynh MA , Chen M-H , Wu J , Braccioforte MH , Moran BJ , D'Amico AV . Gleason Score 3 + 5 or 5 + 3 versus 4 + 4 prostate cancer: the risk of death. Eur Urol. 2016;69:976-979.

Mahal BA , Muralidhar V , Chen Y-W , et al. Gleason score 5 + 3 = 8 prostate cancer: much more like Gleason score 9? BJU Int. 2016;118:95-101.

Mottet N , van den Bergh RCN , Briers E , et al. EAU-EANM-ESTRO-ESUR-SIOG Guidelines on Prostate Cancer-2020 Update. Part 1: screening, diagnosis, and local treatment with curative intent. Eur Urol 2021;79:243-262.

National Comprehensive Cancer Network, Clinical Practice Guidelines on Prostate Cancer (Version 2.2020 - May 21, 2020), available from https://www.nccn.org. Accessed May 12, 2021.

Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER) Program, available from https://www.seer.cancer.gov. Accessed May 12, 2021.

R Core Team (2013). R: A language and environment for statistical computing. R Foundation for Statistical Computing, Vienna, Austria. n.d. http://www.r-project.org/. Accessed May 12, 2021.

Knipper S , Palumbo C , Pecoraro A , et al. Survival outcomes of radical prostatectomy vs. external beam radiation therapy in prostate cancer patients with Gleason Score 9-10 at biopsy: a population-based analysis. Urol Oncol Semin Orig Investig. 2020;38:79.e9-79.e14.

Kishan AU , Cook RR , Ciezki JP , et al. Radical prostatectomy, external beam radiotherapy, or external beam radiotherapy with brachytherapy boost and disease progression and mortality in patients with Gleason score 9-10 prostate cancer. JAMA. 2018;319:896-905.

Wenzel M , Würnschimmel C , Chierigo F , et al. Pattern of biopsy Gleason grade group 5 (4 + 5 vs 5 + 4 vs 5 + 5) predicts survival after radical prostatectomy or external beam radiation therapy [published online ahead of print April 28, 2021]. Eur Urol Focus. 2021. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.euf.2021.04.011