'Sestre Milosrdnice University Hospital Center (KBC Sestre milosrdnice)'
Doi
Abstract
One of the main reasons for the introduction of a new grading system was Gleason sum 7, which differed significantly in the prognosis of the disease depending on the primary Gleason. The aim of this study was to compare grade group 2 and grade group 3, and the impact of cancer percentages in final pathology reports after radical prostatectomy on the occurrence of T3 stage of the disease after radical prostatectomy of clinically localized prostate cancer. The study covered 365 patients with clinically localized prostate cancer who underwent radical retropubic prostatectomy (RRP) over the period of two years. The average percentage of carcinomas found in pathology reports after RRP was 20.1%. With the increase in the grade group, the average percentage of carcinomas in pathology reports increased significantly, p<0.001. With regard to grade groups 2 and 3, irrespective of cancer percentages in pathology reports, more cases of T3 stage were found in grade group 3 when compared to grade group 2, which was statistically significant (p<0.001). However, grade group 2 and grade group 3 patients with ≤10% cancer occurrences in final pathology reports after RRP did not show any statistical significance in the occurrence of T3 stage, p=0.96. Prognostic differences in grade group 2 and grade group 3 patients after RRP are significant, but not in all cases, because of their dependence on the percentage of cancer in the final pathology report after RRP of clinically localized prostate cancer.Kao jedan od glavnih uzroka uvođenja novih gradus skupina bio je Gleasonov zbroj 7, koji se bitno razlikovao u prognozi bolesti ovisno o primarnom Gleasonu. U ovom istraživanju usporedili smo gradus skupinu 2 (GZ 3+4) i gradus skupinu 3 (GZ 4+3) u pojavnosti T3 stadija kod pacijenata s ≤10% karcinoma u patohistološkom nalazu nakon retropubične radikalne prostatektomije, klinički lokaliziranog karcinoma prostate. Studijom je obuhvaćeno 365 pacijenata s klinički lokaliziranim karcinomom prostate koji su podvrgnuti radikanoj retropubičnoj prostatektomiji između 1. siječnja 2015. i 31. prosinca 2016. godine. Najzastupljenije gradus skupine bile su gradus skupina 2 s 50,41% i gradus skupina 3, s udjelom od 36,16%. Postotak karcinoma u PHD nalazu nakon RRP bio je u rasponu od 5 do 80%, prosjek 20,1%. Kod gradus skupina 2 i 3, neovisno o postotku karcinoma prostate u konačnom PHD nalazu, bilo je statistički značajno više T3 stadija u gradus skupini 3 u odnosu na gradus skupinu 2, p=0,001. Međutim, pacijenti gradus skupina 2 i 3 s postotkom karcinoma ≤10% u konačnom PHD nalazu nakon RRP nisu pokazali razliku u pojavnosti T3 stadija, p=0,96. Razlike u prognozi za pacijente gradus skupine 2 i gradus skupine 3 nakon RRP su značajne, ali ne uvijek. Svakako pri procjeni rizika moramo uzeti u obzir i značajnost postotka karcinoma prostate nakon RRP, u ovom istraživanju niži postotak karcinoma (≤10%)
