Aim The International Society of Urological Pathology made recommendations for the use of Grade Groups (GG) originally described by Epstein and colleagues over Gleason score (GS) alone in 2014, which was subsequently adopted by the WHO classification in 2016. The majority of studies validating this revision have been in Caucasian populations. We therefore asked whether the new GG system was retrospectively associated with biochemical disease-free survival in a mixed-ethnicity cohort of Asian men.
Methods A total of 680 radical prostatectomies (RPs) from 2005 to 2014 were included. GS from initial biopsy and RP were compared and used to allocate cases to GG, defined as: 1 (GS≤6); 2 (GS 3+4=7); 3 (GS 4+3=7); 4 (GS 4+4=8/5+3=8/3+5=8) and 5 (GS 9–10). Biochemical recurrence was defined as two consecutive post-RP prostate-specific antigen (PSA) levels of >0.2 ng/mL after post-RP PSA reaching the nadir of <0.1 ng/mL.
Results Our data showed that Kaplan–Meier analysis revealed significant differences in biochemical recurrence within Gleason GG based on either biopsy or prostatectomy scoring. Multivariate analysis further confirmed that a higher GG was significantly associated with risk of biochemical recurrence. This GG system had a higher prognostic discrimination for both initial biopsy and RP than GS.
Conclusions Our study validates the use of the revised and updated GG system in a mixed-ethnicity population of Asian men. Higher GG was significantly associated with increased risk of biochemical recurrence. We therefore recommend its use to inform clinical management for patients with prostate cancer.
Statistics from Altmetric.com
If you wish to reuse any or all of this article please use the link below which will take you to the Copyright Clearance Center’s RightsLink service. You will be able to get a quick price and instant permission to reuse the content in many different ways.
Handling editor Cheok Soon Lee
Contributors The study was designed and directed by PHT and LYK and coordinated by JY. JY, JT and HHH acquired the data. The analysis was done by RS, HHH and JT; JT and JY provided advice and guidance from a clinical urology perspective. JY and LYK drafted the manuscript, which was commented on and revised by all authors.
Competing interests None declared.
Ethics approval SingHealth Centralised Institutional Review Board, Singapore.
Provenance and peer review Not commissioned; externally peer reviewed.