Validation of a Contemporary Five-tiered Gleason Grade Grouping Using Population-based Data

Population-Based Validation of the 2014 ISUP Gleason Grade Groups in Patients Treated With Radical Prostatectomy, Brachytherapy, External Beam Radiation, or no Local Treatment

“…Taken together, despite lack of unanimity, all available studies that addressed discriminant properties of GGG relative to TGG, agree that GGG is better than TGG, when either absolute or relative rates are compared . Moreover, the results are relatively generalizable, regardless of examined endpoints: BCR, CR, or PCSM.…”

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

“…Leapman et al examined oncologic outcomes in the Cancer of the Prostate Strategic Urologic Research Endeavor (CaPSURE) registry and noted that GG was associated with PCSM and metastatic bone progression across multiple primary treatment strategies, including conservative management and primary androgen deprivation . In the largest population study to date, He et al reviewed the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results database and observed that GG tiers predicted PCSM independent of primary treatment and clinical stage …”

“…The seminal article by Epstein et al in 2016 validated the GG system in 20,845 men after radical prostatectomy (RP) and 5501 men after radiotherapy using post‐treatment prostate‐specific antigen (PSA) recurrence as an endpoint . Recently, validation of the GG system in other cohorts of men has demonstrated encouraging results, and several recent publications have reported the efficacy of prostate GGs for predicting long‐term endpoints, including prostate cancer‐specific mortality (PCSM) …”

Influence of African American race on the association between preoperative biopsy grade group and adverse histopathologic features of radical prostatectomy

“…10 Having been incorporated into the 2016 World Health Organization classification of urinary tract tumors, 11 several studies demonstrated the prognostic value of the GrGp system when predicting long-term oncological outcomes with regard to biochemical disease progression, metastasis, and cancer-specific survival rates. [12][13][14][15] Furthermore, several studies have indicated that adverse pathologic features on prostatectomy specimens can predict oncological outcome. For example, Imnadze et al demonstrated that for patients with GrGp ≥3 or with extraprostatic extension on the prostatectomy specimen, the risk of 5-year biochemical disease recurrence (BCR) is significantly higher (>40% when compared with patients with a lower GrGp).…”