Oncological outcomes in an Australian cohort according to the new prostate cancer grading groupings

BMC Cancer

Table 5 Comparison of biopsy grade and prostatectomy grade in predicting risk of progression among men who underwent radical prostatectomy

Grade groups (n = 1334)	Biopsy grade grouping			Prostatectomy grade grouping
Grade groups (n = 1334)	No. events/total	Adjusted sHR^a (95% CI)	p-value	No. events/total	Adjusted sHR^a (95% CI)	p-value
	292/1334			292/1334
Grade group I (3 + 3)	57/532	1.0	−	19/286	1.0	−
Grade group II (3 + 4)	94/462	2.0 (1.5–2.9)	<0.001	87/595	2.4 (1.5–3.9)	0.001
Grade group III (4 + 3)	73/199	4.3 (3.0–6.2)	<0.001	119/321	7.6 (4.6–12.4)	<0.001
Grade group IV (8)	47/108	5.8 (3.9–8.7)	<0.001	25/62	9.0 (4.8–17.0)	<0.001
Grade group V (9–10)	1/34	10.4 (5.9–18.2)	<0.001	42/70	16.8 (9.6–29.7)	<0.001
P for trend			<0.001			<0.001
AIC^b			3934			3882
Change in AIC			+52			0

Models only include cases with detail on both biopsy and prostatectomy grade sufficient to determine ISUP-2014 groups and ≥2 post-treatment PSA measures
^asHR: subdistribution Hazard ration from multivariable competing risk regression models adjusted for age, pre-treatment PSA, clinical evidence of extra prostatic disease, symptomatic presentation, public or privately managed
^bLower (AIC: Akaike’s Information Criterion) indicates better discriminatory power for prostatectomy grade compared with biopsy grade groups

ISSN: 1471-2407