0 614

Cited 44 times in

New Prostate Cancer Grading System Predicts Long-term Survival Following Surgery for Gleason Score 8-10 Prostate Cancer.

DC Field Value Language
dc.contributor.author함원식-
dc.date.accessioned2018-07-20T07:28:26Z-
dc.date.available2018-07-20T07:28:26Z-
dc.date.issued2017-
dc.identifier.issn0302-2838-
dc.identifier.urihttps://ir.ymlib.yonsei.ac.kr/handle/22282913/160196-
dc.description.abstractBACKGROUND: The newly proposed five-tiered prostate cancer grading system (PCGS) divides Gleason score (GS) 8-10 disease into GS 8 and GS 9-10 on the basis of biochemical recurrence (BCR) following radical prostatectomy (RP) as an outcome. However, BCR does not necessarily portend worse survival outcomes. OBJECTIVE: To assess the significance of distinguishing GS 8 versus 9-10 disease in terms of long-term survival outcomes for both the preoperative setting using biopsy (Bx) GS and the postoperative setting with RP GS. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: Of 23918 men who underwent RP between 1984 and 2014, there were 721 men with biopsy GS 8-10, and 1047 men with RP GS 8-10. OUTCOME MEASURES AND STATISTICAL ANALYSIS: Clinicopathologic characteristics were compared between men with GS 8 and those with GS 9-10. We compared all-cause mortality (ACM) and prostate cancer-specific mortality (PCSM) risk between the groups using Cox regression and competing-risks analyses, adjusting for other perioperative variables and death from other causes as the competing event. RESULTS AND LIMITATIONS: Compared to men with GS 8, men with GS 9-10 had later RP year and higher pathologic stage. Among men with Bx GS 8-10, 115 died (82 due to PC) with median follow-up of 3 yr (interquartile range [IQR] 1-7) for both overall and cancer-specific survival. Of men with RP GS 8-10, 221 died (151 due to PC) with median follow-up of 4 yr (IQR 2-8) and 4 yr (IQR 2-9) for overall and cancer-specific survival, respectively. PC-specific survival rates were significantly lower for men with GS 9-10 compared to men with GS 8 for both Bx (hazard ratio [HR] 2.13, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.37-3.30; p<0.01) and RP GS (HR 2.38, 95% CI 1.74-3.28; p<0.01). This association persisted in multivariable models after adjusting for perioperative variables. CONCLUSIONS: Men with GS 9-10 had higher ACM and PCSM rates compared to those with GS 8. GS 8 and GS 9-10 PC should be considered separately in both the preoperative and postoperative setting as suggested by the new PCGS. PATIENT SUMMARY: The prostate cancer grading system can predict mortality risk after radical prostatectomy (RP) for men with Gleason score 8-10 disease based on both biopsy and RP Gleason scores. There are significant differences in all-cause mortality and prostate cancer-specific mortality following surgery between men with Gleason score 8 and those with Gleason score 9-10 disease.-
dc.description.statementOfResponsibilityrestriction-
dc.languageEnglish-
dc.publisherElsevier Science-
dc.relation.isPartOfEUROPEAN UROLOGY-
dc.rightsCC BY-NC-ND 2.0 KR-
dc.rightshttps://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/2.0/kr/-
dc.subject.MESHAged-
dc.subject.MESHBiopsy-
dc.subject.MESHCancer Survivors-
dc.subject.MESHCause of Death-
dc.subject.MESHDecision Support Techniques*-
dc.subject.MESHHumans-
dc.subject.MESHMale-
dc.subject.MESHMiddle Aged-
dc.subject.MESHMultivariate Analysis-
dc.subject.MESHNeoplasm Grading/methods*-
dc.subject.MESHPredictive Value of Tests-
dc.subject.MESHProportional Hazards Models-
dc.subject.MESHProstatectomy*/adverse effects-
dc.subject.MESHProstatectomy*/mortality-
dc.subject.MESHProstatic Neoplasms/mortality-
dc.subject.MESHProstatic Neoplasms/pathology-
dc.subject.MESHProstatic Neoplasms/surgery*-
dc.subject.MESHRetrospective Studies-
dc.subject.MESHRisk Assessment-
dc.subject.MESHRisk Factors-
dc.subject.MESHTime Factors-
dc.subject.MESHTreatment Outcome-
dc.titleNew Prostate Cancer Grading System Predicts Long-term Survival Following Surgery for Gleason Score 8-10 Prostate Cancer.-
dc.typeArticle-
dc.contributor.collegeCollege of Medicine-
dc.contributor.departmentDept. of Urology-
dc.contributor.googleauthorWon Sik Ham-
dc.contributor.googleauthorHeather J. Chalfin-
dc.contributor.googleauthorZhaoyong Feng-
dc.contributor.googleauthorBruce J. Trock-
dc.contributor.googleauthorJonathan I. Epstein-
dc.contributor.googleauthorCarling Cheung-
dc.contributor.googleauthorElizabeth Humphreys-
dc.contributor.googleauthorAlan W. Partin-
dc.contributor.googleauthorMisop Han-
dc.identifier.doi10.1016/j.eururo.2016.11.006-
dc.contributor.localIdA04337-
dc.relation.journalcodeJ00854-
dc.identifier.eissn1873-7560-
dc.identifier.pmid27876305-
dc.identifier.urlhttps://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0302283816308065-
dc.subject.keywordGleason score-
dc.subject.keywordMortality-
dc.subject.keywordProstate cancer-
dc.contributor.alternativeNameHam, Won Sik-
dc.contributor.affiliatedAuthorHam, Won Sik-
dc.citation.volume71-
dc.citation.number6-
dc.citation.startPage907-
dc.citation.endPage912-
dc.identifier.bibliographicCitationEUROPEAN UROLOGY, Vol.71(6) : 907-912, 2017-
dc.identifier.rimsid39024-
dc.type.rimsART-
Appears in Collections:
1. College of Medicine (의과대학) > Dept. of Urology (비뇨의학교실) > 1. Journal Papers

qrcode

Items in DSpace are protected by copyright, with all rights reserved, unless otherwise indicated.