Prognostic Value of Gleason Score and Novel Biomarkers in Localized Prostate Cancer

Montero Vidal^*
*Correspondence: Montero Vidal, Department of Radiation Oncology, Washington University, Missouri, USA, Email:

Introduction

Prostate cancer is one of the most common malignancies diagnosed in men worldwide. It often presents as a localized disease, where the cancer is confined to the prostate gland and has not yet spread to distant organs. Although localized prostate cancer is generally considered to be less aggressive than metastatic disease, it is still associated with significant morbidity and mortality. Over the years, the Gleason score has been the gold standard in assessing the prognosis of prostate cancer, helping to guide treatment decisions and predict the likelihood of disease progression. The Gleason score is based on the histological grading of prostate cancer, focusing on the architectural patterns of tumor cells observed in biopsy samples. While the Gleason score remains a valuable prognostic tool, it has certain limitations. The heterogeneity of prostate cancer and the challenges in accurately grading tumors necessitate the exploration of novel biomarkers that may provide more precise prognostic information. This article aims to examine the prognostic value of the Gleason score in localized prostate cancer and explore the emerging role of novel biomarkers in enhancing the prediction of disease outcomes [1].

Description

The Gleason score is derived from a biopsy of the prostate and is based on the degree of differentiation of the tumor. It is calculated by adding the two most common Gleason patterns observed in the biopsy sample, with a range of scores from 6 to 10 [2]. A lower score (6) indicates well-differentiated tumor cells that are less likely to metastasize, while higher scores (7-10) correspond to poorly differentiated, more aggressive tumors with a greater likelihood of progression. The Gleason score has been a key factor in determining treatment strategies for localized prostate cancer. For instance, patients with low

Gleason scores (6 or below) may be candidates for active surveillance, while those with higher Gleason scores may require more aggressive treatments, such as surgery, radiation, or systemic therapies. However, despite the significant role that the Gleason score plays in treatment decisions, it does not fully account for the biological diversity of prostate cancer. Some patients with high Gleason scores may have indolent disease that remains stable over time, while others with lower scores may experience rapid progression. This discrepancy highlights the need for additional prognostic factors to improve the accuracy of predictions regarding disease behaviour [3].

The limitations of the Gleason score in predicting prostate cancer outcomes have led to an increasing interest in identifying novel biomarkers that can complement or even surpass the Gleason score in assessing prognosis. These biomarkers could provide additional insights into the molecular and genetic landscape of prostate cancer, helping to identify patients who are at high risk for aggressive disease and those who are likely to have a favorable outcome with less intensive treatment. Several biomarkers have been studied in recent years, ranging from genetic mutations to molecular signatures that reflect tumor biology. One such biomarker is the prostate-specific antigen, or PSA, which has been widely used for screening and monitoring prostate cancer. However, while PSA levels can indicate the presence of cancer, they are not specific enough to provide prognostic information, as elevated PSA levels can occur in both benign and malignant conditions. This limitation has spurred research into more specific biomarkers that can better distinguish between indolent and aggressive disease [4,5].

Conclusion

In conclusion, the Gleason score has long been the cornerstone of prognosis in localized prostate cancer, but its limitations in accurately predicting disease behavior have prompted the search for additional prognostic factors. Novel biomarkers, ranging from genetic mutations to molecular signatures, offer exciting possibilities for enhancing the prediction of disease outcomes. These biomarkers could provide more precise insights into tumor biology, helping to identify patients who are at high risk for aggressive disease and those who may benefit from less intensive treatment. While these biomarkers hold promise, further research is needed to validate their clinical utility and overcome the challenges associated with their implementation. Ultimately, the integration of novel biomarkers into routine clinical practice has the potential to revolutionize the management of prostate cancer, enabling more personalized treatment strategies and improving patient outcomes.

Acknowledgment

None.

Conflict of Interest

None.

References

1. Siegel, Rebecca L., Kimberly D. Miller, Nikita Sandeep Wagle and Ahmedin Jemal. "Cancer statistics, 2023." CA Cancer J Clin 73 (2023): 17-48.

Google Scholar Cross Ref Indexed at

2. Rawla, Prashanth. "Epidemiology of prostate cancer." World J Oncol 10 (2019): 63.

Google Scholar Cross Ref Indexed at

3. Huggins, Charles and Clarence V. Hodges. "Studies on prostatic cancer: I. The effect of castration, of estrogen and of androgen injection on serum phosphatases in metastatic carcinoma of the prostate." CA Cancer J Clin 22 (1972): 232-240.

Google Scholar Cross Ref Indexed at

4. Francini, Edoardo and Mary�Ellen Taplin. "Prostate cancer: Developing novel approaches to castration�sensitive disease." Cancer 123 (2017): 29-42.

Google Scholar Cross Ref Indexed at

5. Joniau, Steven, Alberto Briganti, Paolo Gontero and Giorgio Gandaglia, et al. "Stratification of high-risk prostate cancer into prognostic categories: A European multi-institutional study." Eur Urol 67 (2015): 157-164.

Google Scholar Cross Ref Indexed at