nach oben

World Journal of Urology

Erschienen in:

02.04.2019 | Invited Review

The new ISUP 2014/WHO 2016 prostate cancer grade group system: first résumé 5 years after introduction and systemic review of the literature

verfasst von: A. Offermann, M. C. Hupe, V. Sailer, A. S. Merseburger, S. Perner

Erschienen in: World Journal of Urology | Ausgabe 3/2020

Einloggen, um Zugang zu erhalten

Abstract

Purpose

To systematically and comprehensively review and summarize the most recent literature assessing the value of the new grading system introduced by the International Society of Urological Pathology (ISUP) in 2014 and accepted by the World Health Organization (WHO) in 2016.

Methods

A systematic literature search in the PubMed database was performed up to November 2018. Overall, 15 studies in the period from 2016 to 2018 evaluating the new grading system have been selected for evidence synthesis.

Results

The main goals of the new ISUP 2014/WHO 2016 grading system were to establish (I) a more accurate and simplified grade stratification, (II) less overtreatment of indolent prostate cancer as well as (III) an improved patient communication. The majority of the studies chose biochemical recurrence as an endpoint for evaluation and statistically assigns the new ISUP 2014/WHO 2016 grading system a higher prognostic accuracy than the former Gleason grading. However, in only a subset of studies it was clearly evident that the historical samples were not only re-grouped according to the new grade groups but also re-graded according to the new histomorphological 2014 ISUP criteria.

Conclusions

The vast majority of the studies support an improved prognostic accuracy of the ISUP 2014/WHO 2016 grade groups and endorse its worldwide application.

Mottet N, Bellmunt J, Bolla M, Briers E, Cumberbatch MG, De Santis M, Fossati N, Gross T, Henry AM, Joniau S, Lam TB, Mason MD, Matveev VB, Moldovan PC, van den Bergh RCN, Van den Broeck T, van der Poel HG, van der Kwast TH, Rouviere O, Schoots IG, Wiegel T, Cornford P (2017) EAU-ESTRO-SIOG guidelines on prostate cancer. Part 1: screening, diagnosis, and local treatment with curative intent. Eur Urol 71(4):618–629. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eururo.2016.08.003 CrossRefPubMed

Cornford P, Bellmunt J, Bolla M, Briers E, De Santis M, Gross T, Henry AM, Joniau S, Lam TB, Mason MD, van der Poel HG, van der Kwast TH, Rouviere O, Wiegel T, Mottet N (2017) EAU-ESTRO-SIOG guidelines on prostate cancer. Part II: treatment of relapsing, metastatic, and castration-resistant prostate cancer. Eur Urol 71(4):630–642. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eururo.2016.08.002 CrossRefPubMed

Montironi R, Cheng L, Lopez-Beltran A, Scarpelli M, Mazzucchelli R, Mikuz G, Kirkali Z, Montorsi F (2010) Original Gleason system versus 2005 ISUP modified Gleason system: the importance of indicating which system is used in the patient’s pathology and clinical reports. Eur Urol 58(3):369–373. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eururo.2010.04.028 CrossRefPubMed

Brookman-May S, May M, Wieland WF, Lebentrau S, Gunia S, Koch S, Gilfrich C, Roigas J, Hoschke B, Burger M (2012) Should we abstain from Gleason score 2-4 in the diagnosis of prostate cancer? Results of a German multicentre study. World J Urol 30(1):97–103. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00345-010-0632-5 CrossRefPubMed

Epstein JI, Amin MB, Reuter VE, Humphrey PA (2017) Contemporary gleason grading of prostatic carcinoma: an update with discussion on practical issues to implement the 2014 International Society of Urological Pathology (ISUP) Consensus Conference on Gleason Grading of Prostatic Carcinoma. Am J Surg Pathol 41(4):e1–e7. https://doi.org/10.1097/pas.0000000000000820 CrossRefPubMed

Pierorazio PM, Walsh PC, Partin AW, Epstein JI (2013) Prognostic Gleason grade grouping: data based on the modified Gleason scoring system. BJU Int 111(5):753–760. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1464-410X.2012.11611.x CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

Humphrey PA, Moch H, Cubilla AL, Ulbright TM, Reuter VE (2016) The 2016 WHO classification of tumours of the urinary system and male genital organs—part B: prostate and bladder tumours. Eur Urol 70(1):106–119. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eururo.2016.02.028 CrossRefPubMed

Moher D, Liberati A, Tetzlaff J, Altman DG, The PRISMA Group (2009) Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: the PRISMA statement. PLoS Med 6(7):e1000097. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pmed1000097) CrossRef

Offermann A, Hohensteiner S, Kuempers C, Ribbat-Idel J, Schneider F, Becker F, Hupe MC, Duensing S, Merseburger AS, Kirfel J, Reischl M, Lubczyk V, Kuefer R, Perner S (2017) Prognostic value of the new prostate cancer international society of urological pathology grade groups. Front Med 4:157. https://doi.org/10.3389/fmed.2017.00157 CrossRef

10.

Grogan J, Gupta R, Mahon KL, Stricker PD, Haynes AM, Delprado W, Turner J, Horvath LG, Kench JG (2017) Predictive value of the 2014 International Society of Urological Pathology grading system for prostate cancer in patients undergoing radical prostatectomy with long-term follow-up. BJU Int 120(5):651–658. https://doi.org/10.1111/bju.13857 CrossRefPubMed

11.

Wissing M, Brimo F, Chevalier S, Scarlata E, McKercher G, O’Flaherty A, Aprikian S, Thibodeau V, Saad F, Carmel M, Lacombe L, Tetu B, Ekindi-Ndongo N, Latour M, Trudel D, Aprikian A (2018) Optimization of the 2014 Gleason grade grouping in a Canadian cohort of patients with localized prostate cancer. BJU Int. https://doi.org/10.1111/bju.14512 CrossRefPubMed

12.

Alenda O, Ploussard G, Mouracade P, Xylinas E, de la Taille A, Allory Y, Vordos D, Hoznek A, Abbou CC, Salomon L (2011) Impact of the primary Gleason pattern on biochemical recurrence-free survival after radical prostatectomy: a single-center cohort of 1,248 patients with Gleason 7 tumors. World J Urol 29(5):671–676. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00345-010-0620-9 CrossRefPubMed

13.

Kirmiz S, Qi J, Babitz SK, Linsell S, Denton B, Singh K, Auffenberg G, Montie JE, Lane BR (2018) Grade groups provides improved predictions of pathologic and early oncologic outcomes compared with Gleason score risk groups. J Urol. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.juro.2018.08.081 CrossRef

14.

He J, Albertsen PC, Moore D, Rotter D, Demissie K, Lu-Yao G (2017) Validation of a contemporary five-tiered gleason grade grouping using population-based data. Eur Urol 71(5):760–763. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eururo.2016.11.031 CrossRefPubMed

15.

Mathieu R, Moschini M, Beyer B, Gust KM, Seisen T, Briganti A, Karakiewicz P, Seitz C, Salomon L, de la Taille A, Roupret M, Graefen M, Shariat SF (2017) Prognostic value of the new grade groups in prostate cancer: a multi-institutional European validation study. Prostate Cancer Prostatic Dis 20(2):197–202. https://doi.org/10.1038/pcan.2016.66 CrossRefPubMed

16.

Spratt DE, Jackson WC, Abugharib A, Tomlins SA, Dess RT, Soni PD, Lee JY, Zhao SG, Cole AI, Zumsteg ZS, Sandler H, Hamstra D, Hearn JW, Palapattu G, Mehra R, Morgan TM, Feng FY (2016) 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 19(3):292–297. https://doi.org/10.1038/pcan.2016.18 CrossRefPubMed

17.

Epstein JI, Zelefsky MJ, Sjoberg DD, Nelson JB, Egevad L, Magi-Galluzzi C, Vickers AJ, Parwani AV, Reuter VE, Fine SW, Eastham JA, Wiklund P, Han M, Reddy CA, Ciezki JP, Nyberg T, Klein EA (2016) A contemporary prostate cancer grading system: a validated alternative to the Gleason score. Eur Urol 69(3):428–435. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eururo.2015.06.046 CrossRefPubMed

18.

Berney DM, Beltran L, Fisher G, North BV, Greenberg D, Moller H, Soosay G, Scardino P, Cuzick J (2016) Validation of a contemporary prostate cancer grading system using prostate cancer death as outcome. Br J Cancer 114(10):1078–1083. https://doi.org/10.1038/bjc.2016.86 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

19.

Spratt DE, Cole AI, Palapattu GS, Weizer AZ, Jackson WC, Montgomery JS, Dess RT, Zhao SG, Lee JY, Wu A, Kunju LP, Talmich E, Miller DC, Hollenbeck BK, Tomlins SA, Feng FY, Mehra R, Morgan TM (2016) Independent surgical validation of the new prostate cancer grade-grouping system. BJU Int 118(5):763–769. https://doi.org/10.1111/bju.13488 CrossRefPubMed

20.

Dell’Oglio P, Karnes RJ, Gandaglia G, Fossati N, Stabile A, Moschini M, Cucchiara V, Zaffuto E, Karakiewicz PI, Suardi N, Montorsi F, Briganti A (2017) The new prostate cancer grading system does not improve prediction of clinical recurrence after radical prostatectomy: results of a large, Two-Center Validation Study. Prostate 77(3):263–273. https://doi.org/10.1002/pros.23265 CrossRefPubMed

21.

Yeong J, Sultana R, Teo J, Huang HH, Yuen J, Tan PH, Khor LY (2017) Gleason grade grouping of prostate cancer is of prognostic value in Asian men. J Clin Pathol 70(9):745–753. https://doi.org/10.1136/jclinpath-2016-204276 CrossRefPubMed

22.

Schulman AA, Howard LE, Tay KJ, Tsivian E, Sze C, Amling CL, Aronson WJ, Cooperberg MR, Kane CJ, Terris MK, Freedland SJ, Polascik TJ (2017) Validation of the 2015 prostate cancer grade groups for predicting long-term oncologic outcomes in a shared equal-access health system. Cancer 123(21):4122–4129. https://doi.org/10.1002/cncr.30844 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

23.

Loeb S, Folkvaljon Y, Robinson D, Lissbrant IF, Egevad L, Stattin P (2016) Evaluation of the 2015 Gleason grade groups in a nationwide population-based cohort. Eur Urol 69(6):1135–1141. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eururo.2015.11.036 CrossRefPubMed

24.

Pompe RS, Davis-Bondarenko H, Zaffuto E, Tian Z, Shariat SF, Leyh-Bannurah SR, Schiffmann J, Saad F, Huland H, Graefen M, Tilki D, Karakiewicz PI (2017) Population-based validation of the 2014 ISUP Gleason grade groups in patients treated with radical prostatectomy, brachytherapy, external beam radiation, or no local treatment. Prostate 77(6):686–693. https://doi.org/10.1002/pros.23316 CrossRefPubMed

Titel: The new ISUP 2014/WHO 2016 prostate cancer grade group system: first résumé 5 years after introduction and systemic review of the literature
verfasst von: A. Offermann
M. C. Hupe
V. Sailer
A. S. Merseburger
S. Perner
Publikationsdatum: 02.04.2019
Verlag: Springer Berlin Heidelberg
Erschienen in: World Journal of Urology / Ausgabe 3/2020
Print ISSN: 0724-4983
Elektronische ISSN: 1433-8726
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00345-019-02744-4

Neu im Fachgebiet Urologie

Adjuvante Immuntherapie verlängert Leben bei RCC

25.04.2024 Nierenkarzinom Nachrichten

Nun gibt es auch Resultate zum Gesamtüberleben: Eine adjuvante Pembrolizumab-Therapie konnte in einer Phase-3-Studie das Leben von Menschen mit Nierenzellkarzinom deutlich verlängern. Die Sterberate war im Vergleich zu Placebo um 38% geringer.

Bei Senioren mit Prostatakarzinom auf Anämie achten!

24.04.2024 DGIM 2024 Nachrichten

Patienten, die zur Behandlung ihres Prostatakarzinoms eine Androgendeprivationstherapie erhalten, entwickeln nicht selten eine Anämie. Wer ältere Patienten internistisch mitbetreut, sollte auf diese Nebenwirkung achten.

Stufenschema weist Prostatakarzinom zuverlässig nach

22.04.2024 Prostatakarzinom Nachrichten

Erst PSA-Test, dann Kallikrein-Score, schließlich MRT und Biopsie – ein vierstufiges Screening-Schema kann die Zahl der unnötigen Prostatabiopsien erheblich reduzieren: Die Hälfte der Männer, die in einer finnischen Studie eine Biopsie benötigten, hatte einen hochgradigen Tumor.

Harnwegsinfektprophylaxe: Es geht auch ohne Antibiotika

20.04.2024 EAU 2024 Kongressbericht

Beim chronischen Harnwegsinfekt bei Frauen wird bisher meist eine Antibiotikaprophylaxe eingesetzt. Angesichts der zunehmenden Antibiotikaresistenz erweist sich das Antiseptikum Methenamin-Hippurat als vielversprechende Alternative, so die Auswertung einer randomisierten kontrollierten Studie.

Update Urologie

Bestellen Sie unseren Fach-Newsletter und bleiben Sie gut informiert.

Newsletter bestellen

Springer Medizin

Abstract

Purpose

Methods

Results

Conclusions

Bitte loggen Sie sich ein, um Zugang zu diesem Inhalt zu erhalten

Weitere Artikel der Ausgabe 3/2020

Multivariate risk prediction tools including MRI for individualized biopsy decision in prostate cancer diagnosis: current status and future directions

Correction to: Evidence-based approach to active surveillance of prostate cancer

A prospective double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled study to evaluate the efficacy of silodosin 8 mg as an on-demand, reversible, nonhormonal oral contraceptive for males: a pilot study

Photoselective vaporization of the prostate: study outcomes as a function of risk of bias, conflicts of interest, and industrial sponsorship

Prevalence of distal renal tubular acidosis in patients with calcium phosphate stones