Validation of the prognostic grouping of the seventh edition of the tumor-nodes-metastasis classification using a large-scale prospective cohort study database of prostate cancer treated with primary androgen deprivation therapy

Tomokazu Kimura, Mizuki Onozawa, Jun Miyazaki, Koji Kawai, Hiroyuki Nishiyama, Shiro Hinotsu, Hideyuki Akaza

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

7 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

Objective: In the TNM seventh edition, a prognostic grouping for prostate cancer incorporating prostate-specific antigen and Gleason score was advocated. The present study was carried out to evaluate and validate prognostic grouping in prostate cancer patients. Methods: The 15259 study patients treated with primary androgen deprivation therapy were enrolled in the Japan Study Group of Prostate Cancer. Overall survival was stratified by tumor-nodes-metastasis, Gleason score and prostate-specific antigen, and extensively analyzed. The accuracy of grouping systems was evaluated by the concordance index. Results: The 5-year overall survival in prognostic grouping-I, IIA, IIB, III and IV was 90.0%, 88.3%, 84.8%, 80.6% and 57.1%, respectively. When considering subgroup stratification, the 5-year overall survival of subgroups prognostic grouping-IIA, IIB, III and IV was 80.9∼90.5%, 75.4∼91.8%, 75.7∼89.0% and 46.9∼86.2%, respectively. When prognostic grouping-IIB was subclassified into IIB1 (except IIB2) and IIB2 (T1-2b, prostate-specific antigen >20, Gleason score ≥8, and T2c, Gleason score ≥8), the 5-year overall survival of IIB2 was significantly lower than that of IIB1 (79.4% and 87.3%, P<0.0001). Also, when prognostic grouping-IV was subclassified into IV1 (except IV2) and IV2 (M1, prostate-specific antigen >100 or Gleason score ≥8), the 5-year overall survival of prognostic grouping-IV1 was superior to that of IV2 (72.9% and 49.5%, P<0.0001). Prognostic groupings were reclassified into modified prognostic groupings, divided into modified prognostic grouping-A (prognostic grouping-I, IIA, and IIB1), modified prognostic grouping-B (prognostic grouping-IIB2 and III), modified prognostic grouping-C (prognostic grouping-IV1) and modified prognostic grouping-D (prognostic grouping-IV2). The concordance index of prognostic grouping and modified prognostic grouping for overall survival was 0.670 and 0.685, respectively. Conclusion: Prognostic grouping could stratify the prognosis of prostate cancer patients. However, there is considerable variation among the prognostic grouping subgroups. Thus, the use of a modified prognostic grouping for patients treated with primary androgen deprivation therapy is advisable.

Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)880-888
Number of pages9
JournalInternational Journal of Urology
Volume20
Issue number9
DOIs
Publication statusPublished - Sep 1 2013

Keywords

  • Neoplasms staging
  • Primary androgen deprivation therapy
  • Prognostic grouping
  • Prostate
  • Validation studies

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Urology

Fingerprint Dive into the research topics of 'Validation of the prognostic grouping of the seventh edition of the tumor-nodes-metastasis classification using a large-scale prospective cohort study database of prostate cancer treated with primary androgen deprivation therapy'. Together they form a unique fingerprint.

  • Cite this