Skip to main content

Thank you for visiting nature.com. You are using a browser version with limited support for CSS. To obtain the best experience, we recommend you use a more up to date browser (or turn off compatibility mode in Internet Explorer). In the meantime, to ensure continued support, we are displaying the site without styles and JavaScript.

  • Letter to the Editor
  • Published:

Comment on ‘Validation of a contemporary prostate cancer grading system using prostate cancer death as outcome’

British Journal of Cancer volume 116, page e3 (2017)Cite this article

Subjects

Sir,

We read with great interest the article by Berney and colleagues (Berney et al, 2016) who validated the new prostate cancer (PCa) grading system (Pierorazio et al, 2013) in a biopsy series of 988 conservatively treated PCa patients identified between 1990 and 2003. The authors (Berney et al, 2016) provided evidence that there is a strong correlation between the new PCa grading system and PCa death, relying on pre-treament models (Gleason score-GS at biopsy). Furthermore, they observed that the ‘worst’ GS has similar prognostic ability to the ‘overall’ GS in predicting PCa death. Berney and colleagues should be commended for their effort in validating the new PCa grading system using a stronger outcome, namely PCa mortality, compared with previous available studies (Epstein et al, 2015; Loeb et al, 2015; Spratt et al, 2016). Moreover, they tried to clarify a debated topic whether an ‘overall’ or ‘worst’ GS should be used in routine clinical practice. However, some points of the manuscript warrant discussion.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution

Access options

Buy this article

  • Purchase on Springer Link
  • Instant access to full article PDF
Buy now

Prices may be subject to local taxes which are calculated during checkout

References

  • Berney DM, Beltran L, Fisher G, North BV, Greenberg D, Møller H, Soosay G, Scardino P, Cuzick J (2016) Validation of a contemporary prostate cancer grading system using prostate cancer death as outcome. Br J Cancer 114 (10): 1078–1083.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  • Bolton DM, Papa N, Ta AD, Millar J, Davidson AJ, Pedersen J, Syme R, Patel MI, Giles GG (2015) Predictors of prostate cancer specific mortality after radical prostatectomy: 10 year oncologic outcomes from the Victorian Radical Prostatectomy Registry. BJU Int 116 (Suppl 3): 66–72.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Dell’Oglio P, Suardi N, Boorjian SA, Fossati N, Gandaglia G, Tian Z, Moschini M, Capitanio U, Karakiewicz PI, Montorsi F, Karnes RJ, Briganti A (2016) Predicting survival of men with recurrent prostate cancer after radical prostatectomy. Eur J Cancer 54: 27–34.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Epstein JI (2010) An update of the Gleason grading system. J Urol 183 (2): 433–440.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Epstein JI, Zelefsky MJ, Sjoberg DD, Nelson JB, Egevad L, Magi-Galluzzi C, Vickers AJ, Parwani AV, Reuter VE, Fine SW, Eastham JA, Wiklund P, Han M, Reddy CA, Ciezki JP, Nyberg T, Klein EA (2015) A contemporary prostate cancer grading system: a validated alternative to the gleason Score. Eur Urol 69 (3): 428–435.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  • Loeb S, Folkvaljon Y, Robinson D, Lissbrant IF, Egevad L, Stattin P (2015) Evaluation of the 2015 gleason grade groups in a nationwide population-based cohort. Eur Urol 69 (6): 1–7.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pierorazio PM, Walsh PC, Partin AW, Epstein JI (2013) Prognostic Gleason grade grouping: data based on the modified Gleason scoring system. BJU Int 48 (Suppl 2): 1–6.

    Google Scholar 

  • Shao Y, Demissie K, Shih W, Mehta AR, Stein N, Roberts CB, Dipaola RS, Lu-yao GL (2009) Contemporary risk profile of prostate cancer in the United States. J Natl Cancer Inst 101 (18): 1280–1283.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  • Spratt DE, Cole AI, Palapattu GS, Weizer AZ, Jackson WC, Montgomery JS, Dess RT, Zhao SG, Lee JY, Wu A, Kunju LP, Talmich E, Miller DC, Hollenbeck BK, Tomlins SA, Feng FY, Mehra R, Morgan TM (2016) Independent surgical validation of the new prostate cancer grade-grouping system. BJU Int e-pub ahead of print 24 March 2016 doi:10.1111/bju.13488.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Tuljapurkar S, Li N, Boe C (2000) A universal pattern of mortality decline in the G7 countries. Nature 405 (6788): 789–792.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • United Nations, Department of Economic and Social Affairs, Population Division (2015) World Population Ageing. United Nations, New York, NY, USA Available at: www.unpopulation.org.

  • Vickers AJ, Elkin EB (2006) Decision curve analysis: a novel method for evaluating prediction models. Med Decis Making 26 (6): 565–574.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Urology and Division of Experimental Oncology, URI, Urological Research Institute, IRCCS San Raffaele Scientific Institute, Milan, Italy

    Paolo Dell'Oglio, Armando Stabile, Giorgio Gandaglia & Alberto Briganti

  2. Vita-Salute San Raffaele University, Milan, Italy

    Paolo Dell'Oglio, Armando Stabile, Giorgio Gandaglia & Alberto Briganti

Authors
  1. Paolo Dell'Oglio
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Armando Stabile
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Giorgio Gandaglia
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Alberto Briganti
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Paolo Dell'Oglio.

Ethics declarations

Competing interests

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

Additional information

This work is published under the BJC's standard license to publish agreement. After 12 months the license terms will change to a Creative Commons AttributionNonCommercial-Share Alike 4.0 Unported License.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Dell'Oglio, P., Stabile, A., Gandaglia, G. et al. Comment on ‘Validation of a contemporary prostate cancer grading system using prostate cancer death as outcome’. Br J Cancer 116, e3 (2017). https://doi.org/10.1038/bjc.2016.346

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/bjc.2016.346

Search

Advanced search

Quick links