Back to Journals » Cancer Management and Research » Volume 11

The validation of the 2014 International Society of Urological Pathology (ISUP) grading system for patients with high-risk prostate cancer: a single-center retrospective study

Authors Liu J, Zhao J, Zhang M, Chen N, Sun G, Yang Y, Zhang X, Chen J, Shen P, Shi M, Zeng H

Received 28 November 2018

Accepted for publication 25 May 2019

Published 12 July 2019 Volume 2019:11 Pages 6521—6529

DOI https://doi.org/10.2147/CMAR.S196286

Checked for plagiarism Yes

Review by Single-blind

Peer reviewers approved by Ms Justinn Cochran

Peer reviewer comments 2

Editor who approved publication: Dr Ahmet Emre Eskazan


Jiandong Liu,1,* Jinge Zhao,1,*, Mengni Zhang,2 Ni Chen,2 Guangxi Sun,1 Yaojing Yang,1 Xingming Zhang,1 Junru Chen,1 Pengfei Shen,1 Ming Shi,1 Hao Zeng1

1Department of Urology, Institute of Urology, West China Hospital, Sichuan University, Chengdu 610041, People’s Republic of China; 2Department of Pathology, West China Hospital, Sichuan University, Chengdu 610041, People’s Republic of China

*These authors contributed equally to this work

Introduction: Since the new 2014 grading system was recommended by the International Society of Urological Pathology (ISUP), it has been validated in patients with localized prostate cancer (PCa) and it has shown excellent prognostic value. However, its predictive power in high-risk PCa remains unclear.
Methods: A total of 420 patients with high-risk PCa who underwent radical prostatectomy (RP) were included in this study. Biochemical recurrence-free survival (BRFS) was set as the endpoint.
Results: Biochemical recurrence occurred in 84/420 (20.0%) patients at the end of follow-up. Compared to the three-tier grouping system, the five-tier grouping system could more effectively distinguish the BRFS of patients with higher predictive accuracy (C-index: 0.599 vs 0.646). The BRFS of patients with grade group (GG) 1 and GG 2 was similar (P=0.593). Also, the prognosis between those with GG 2 and GG 3 could be clearly distinguished (P=0.001). However, the discrimination capacity between patients with GG 3 and GG 4 was limited (P=0.681). When tertiary Gleason pattern (TGP5) and intraductal carcinoma of the prostate (IDC-P) were excluded, the HR value of the GG 4 group vs the GG 3 group increased from 1.15 (95% CI: 0.59–2.22) to 1.49 (95% CI: 0.72–3.10) and 1.36 (95% CI:0.65–2.83), respectively.
Conclusions: This study is the first to validate the new 2014 ISUP grading system in patients with high-risk PCa who underwent RP. The 2014 system could effectively classify patients into five groups with high predictive accuracy. Notably, the existence of TGP5 and IDC-P needs to be routinely reported in clinical practice, which could help to support the predictive value of the new grading system.

Keywords: biochemical recurrence-free survival, ISUP grading system, high-risk, prostate cancer, radical prostatectomy

Creative Commons License This work is published and licensed by Dove Medical Press Limited. The full terms of this license are available at https://www.dovepress.com/terms.php and incorporate the Creative Commons Attribution - Non Commercial (unported, v3.0) License. By accessing the work you hereby accept the Terms. Non-commercial uses of the work are permitted without any further permission from Dove Medical Press Limited, provided the work is properly attributed. For permission for commercial use of this work, please see paragraphs 4.2 and 5 of our Terms.

Download Article [PDF]  View Full Text [HTML][Machine readable]