Prognostic value of the new Grade Groups in Prostate Cancer: a multi-institutional European validation study

Abstract

We validated the independent prognostic value of the new Grade Groups on biopsy and RP specimen from European PCa men. However, it does not improve the accuracies of prognostic models by a clinically significant margin. Nevertheless, this new classification may help physicians and patients estimate disease aggressiveness with a user-friendly, clinically relevant and reproducible method.

Optimization of the 2014 Gleason grade grouping in a Canadian cohort of patients with localized prostate cancer

“…In the present investigation, we validated the Gleason GG system as endorsed by ISUP in 2014 and other leading organizations, and propose modifications for its improvement based on data from the PROCURE Biobank cohort, which consists of ~2000 Canadian patients with clinically localized prostate cancer undergoing radical prostatectomy. In line with recently published studies, we found that the five‐tier Gleason grouping improved prognostic value compared to previous Gleason grading .…”

Validation of the 2015 prostate cancer grade groups for predicting long‐term oncologic outcomes in a shared equal‐access health system

“…For both RP and radiation therapy, biopsy GG was a significant, independent predictor of 4‐year biochemical recurrence‐free survival. Mathieu et al examined data from more than 27,000 men at 7 European centers and validated GG at both biopsy and RP for predicting 4‐year biochemical recurrence‐free survival …”

“…Mathieu et al examined data from more than 27,000 men at 7 European centers and validated GG at both biopsy and RP for predicting 4-year biochemical recurrence-free survival. 18 Recent reports have begun to examine long-term oncologic endpoints. Ham and coworkers examined mortality outcomes in men who had GG 4 and GG 5 disease diagnosed on either biopsy or RP specimens.…”

Prostate Cancer, Version 2.2019, NCCN Clinical Practice Guidelines in Oncology

“…81 Additional studies have supported the validity of this new system. [82][83][84][85][86] The NCCN Panel has accepted the new Grade Group system to inform better treatment discussions compared with those using Gleason score. Patients remain divided into very low-, low-, intermediate-, high-, and very high-risk groups.…”