Retrospective Study about Prognostic Significance of Gleason Score and PSA Change of Pre- and Post-treatment Period in Hormonally Treated Prostatic Adenocarcinoma

Yoon, Cheol Yong; Cho, Jae Heung

Abstract

PURPOSE: Gleason score is well known prognostic factor of prostatic cancer, Especially Gleason score above 8 measns poor prognosis. But in intermediate range(Gleason scorn 5-7), it does not provide useful information about the prognosis. Therefore, in the range of intermediate Gleason score, additional information such as PSA changes in pre and post treatment period may be helpful for predicting prognosis. In this study, we retrospectively evaluated relationship between prognosis and PSA change of pre and post hormonal treatment period in different Gleason score group(intermediate Gleason score group: 5-7/high Gleason score group: 8-10).
MATERIALS AND METHODS
Total 42 patients who were diagnosed as stage D1, D2 prostatic cancer with Gleason score 5-10 were studied. All patients were treated by hormonal treatment(Orchiectomy or gonadotropin releasing hormone agonist) between May 1992 and May 1996 in Korea university. Mean follow-up duration was 18.9 months. And mean age of patients was 67.0+/-7.5 years. Patients were classified into two groups. One group was consisted of 28 patients whose Gleason score was 5-7 And in the other group, 14 patients with Gleason score above 8 were included. In each group, pre- treatment PSA, post-treatment nadir PSA, time for post-treatment PSA fall to nadir and time for PSA reelevation were analysed. Also In each group, expired and survived patients were analysed. All data was statistically processed by Exact Fisher's test and Mann-Whitney Rank Sum score.
RESULTS
Mean Gleason score of total 42 patients was 7.1 +/-7.5. Mean pre-treatment PSA value of 42 patients was 146.9+/-222.6ng/ml and mean nadir PSA value after treatment was 8.2+/- 15.9ng/ml. The mean time for nadir PSA fall after treatment was 6.2+/-4.4 months and mean time for PSA reelevation was 13.3+/-9.9 months. 14 patients had Gleason score 8 or more and the other 28 patients had Gleason score 5-7. There was significant difference in mortality between patients with intermediate Gleason score(4/28 patients) and high Gleason score(7/14 patients, p=0.024). In patients with high Gleason score(8-10), there were no significant difference of pre-treatment PSA, post-treatment nadir PSA , duration for post-treatment PSA fall to nadir and time for PSA reelevation between survived and expired patients(p> 0.05). But in case with intermediate Gleason score range(5-7), expired patients had significantly higher post-treatment nadir PSA value than survived patients(19.8+/- 0.4ng/ml vs 7.3+/-4.2ng/ml respectively, p=9.036). But in both Gleason scone group, there was no mortality difference between patients with nadir PSA above 4ng/ml and below 4ng/ml.
CONCLUSIONS
With these result, we concluded that patients with high Gleason score (especially 8 or more) had poor prognosis. And in patients with high Gleason score PSA change in pre and post-treatment period have no additional prognostic importance on Gleason score. But in patients with intermediate Gleason score(5-7), higher post treatment nadir PSA means poor prognosis. But conventionally used criteria of post-treatment PSA level below normal range(<4ng/ml) cannot discriminate between good and poor prognostic group in both high and intermediate Gleason score patients. So we think that in cases of patients with intermediate Gleason score(5-7), a physician must try to check up post-treatment PSA change(especially post-treatment nadir PSA) thronghly for early detection of tumor recurrence or progression.