Zaffuto, Emanuele

BACKGROUNDA new prostate cancer (PCa) grading system (namely, Gleason score‐GS‐ ≤6 vs. 3 + 4 vs. 4 + 3 vs. 8 vs. ≥9) was recently proposed and assessed on biochemical recurrence (BCR) showing improved predictive abilities compared to the commonly used three‐tier system (GS ≤6 vs. 7 vs. ≥8). We assessed the predictive ability of the five‐tier grade group (GG) system on harder clinical endpoint, namely clinical recurrence (CR).METHODSBetween 2005 and 2014, 9,728 clinically localized PCa patients were treated with radical prostatectomy (RP) at two tertiary referral centers. Kaplan–Meier curves, multivariable Cox regression analyses, and concordance index (C‐index) were used to assess CR after treatment according to four Gleason grade classifications at biopsy and RP: Group 1: ≤6 versus 7 versus ≥8; Group 2: ≤6 versus 3 + 4 vs. 4 + 3 versus ≥8; Group 3: ≤6 versus 7 versus 8 versus ≥9; Group 4: ≤6 versus 3 + 4 versus 4 + 3 versus 8 versus ≥9. Same analyses were repeated in patients who had BCR (n = 1,624). Decision curve analyses were performed to evaluate and compare the net benefit associated with the use of the four Gleason grade classifications.RESULTSOverall, 443 (4.6%) patients had CR. The hazard ratio of the GS 3 + 4, 4 + 3, 8, and ≥9 relative to GS ≤6 were 3.63, 5.93, 11.44, 18.08 and 4.93, 9.99, 15.31 and 25.12 in the pre‐ and post‐treatment models, respectively. The C‐index of the five‐tier GG system was slightly higher relative to the other 3 Gleason grade classifications both in the pre‐ (range: 0.001–0.006) and post‐treatment models (range: 0–0.008). Similar findings were observed when we focused our analyses in patients with BCR after RP. The use of the five‐tier GG system did not result into higher net‐benefit relative to the other three Gleason grade classifications.CONCLUSIONSThe difference in accuracy between the five‐tier GG system and the other Gleason grade classifications, using CR as an endpoint, is clinically negligible. Current evidence suggests that the five‐tier GG system represents a simplified user‐friendly scheme available for patient counseling rather than a new histopathological diagnostic system that improves the prediction of CR. Prostate 77:263–273, 2017. © 2016 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.

Objective To investigate the long‐term utility of adjuvant therapy after radical prostatectomy ( RP ) for prostate cancer with seminal vesicle invasion ( SVI ; pT 3b), as the published data are conflicting. Patients and Methods Patients with SVI during RP and pelvic lymph node dissection at two major referral centres from 1986 to 2014 were included. Kaplan–Meier analyses and multivariable Cox regressions were used to determine if adjuvant radiotherapy ( aRT ) and adjuvant hormonal therapy ( aHT ) were predictors of biochemical recurrence ( BCR ), cancer‐specific mortality ( CSM ) and overall mortality ( OM ). Subset analyses were performed for pN 0 patients and pN + patients. Results Overall, 3 279 patients with prostate cancer and SVI were included with a median follow‐up of 148 months. Considering the whole SVI population, 1 387 (42%) received no adjuvant therapy, 1 179 (36%) received aHT , 461 (14.1%) received aRT , while 252 (7.7%) received both aHT and aRT . The 10‐year BCR , CSM , and OM rates were 64%, 14%, and 27%, respectively. In the overall population, aRT and aHT were predictors of BCR , CSM and OM (all P < 0.04). When only pT 3bN0 patients were considered, aHT was a significant multivariate predictor of BCR [hazard ratio ( HR ) 0.50, P < 0.001), CSM ( HR 0.62, P = 0.01) and OM ( HR 0.75, P = 0.004). Conversely, aRT was not associated with survival outcomes (all P > 0.05). When only the subgroup pT 3bN+ was considered, the use of aRT was related to an improvement in CSM ( HR 0.65, P = 0.03) and OM (HR 0.78, P = 0.03). Conclusions aHT + aRT seems to be effective in pT 3b patients. However, when stratified according to the presence of nodal metastases, aHT remains effective only in the node‐negative subgroup, while aRT remains effective only in the node‐positive subgroup. Further data including prospective trials are warranted to study the utility of adjuvant therapies in this setting.