Independent validation of the prognostic capacity of the ISUP prostate cancer grade grouping system for radiation treated patients with long-term follow-up

• Published in: Prostate cancer and prostatic diseases Vol. 19; no. 3; pp. 292 - 297
• Main Authors: Spratt, D E, Jackson, W C, Abugharib, A, Tomlins, S A, Dess, R T, Soni, P D, Lee, J Y, Zhao, S G, Cole, A I, Zumsteg, Z S, Sandler, H, Hamstra, D, Hearn, J W, Palapattu, G, Mehra, R, Morgan, T M, Feng, F Y
• Format: Journal Article
• Language: English
• Published: London Nature Publishing Group UK 01.09.2016; Nature Publishing Group
• Subjects: 631/67/1059; 692/53/2422; Adult; Aged; Aged, 80 and over; Biomedical and Life Sciences; Biomedicine; Cancer patients; Cancer Research; Care and treatment; Follow-Up Studies; Health aspects; Humans; Kaplan-Meier Estimate; Male; Metastases; Middle Aged; Neoplasm Grading - methods; Neoplasm Grading - standards; original-article; Prognosis; Prostate cancer; Prostatic Neoplasms - mortality; Prostatic Neoplasms - pathology; Prostatic Neoplasms - radiotherapy; Radiation; Radiation therapy; Radiotherapy; Radiotherapy Dosage; Radiotherapy, Adjuvant; Regression analysis; Survival; Treatment Outcome
• ISSN: 1365-7852; 1476-5608
• DOI: 10.1038/pcan.2016.18

Background: There has been a recent proposal to change the grading system of prostate cancer into a five-tier grade grouping system. The prognostic impact of this has been demonstrated in regards only to biochemical recurrence-free survival (bRFS) with short follow-up (3 years). Methods: Between 1990 and 2013, 847 consecutive men were treated with definitive external beam radiation therapy at a single academic center. To validate the new grade grouping system, bRFS, distant metastases-free survival (DMFS) and prostate cancer-specific survival (PCSS) were calculated. Adjusted Kaplan–Meier and multivariable Cox regression analyses were performed to assess the independent impact of the new grade grouping system. Discriminatory analyses were performed to compare the commonly used three-tier Gleason score system (6, 7 and 8–10) to the new system. Results: The median follow-up of our cohort was 88 months. The 5-grade groups independently validated differing risks of bRFS (group 1 as reference; adjusted hazard ratio (aHR) 1.35, 2.16, 1.79 and 3.84 for groups 2–5, respectively). Furthermore, a clear stratification was demonstrated for DMFS (aHR 2.03, 3.18, 3.62 and 13.77 for groups 2–5, respectively) and PCSS (aHR 3.00, 5.32, 6.02 and 39.02 for groups 2–5, respectively). The 5-grade group system had improved prognostic discrimination for all end points compared with the commonly used three-tiered system (that is, Gleason score 6, 7 and 8–10). Conclusions: In a large independent radiotherapy cohort with long-term follow-up, we have validated the bRFS benefit of the proposed five-tier grade grouping system. Furthermore, we have demonstrated that the system is highly prognostic for DMFS and PCSS. Grade group 5 had markedly worse outcomes for all end points, and future work is necessary to improve outcomes in these patients.