Over half of contemporary clinical Gleason 8 on prostate biopsy are downgraded at radical prostatectomy

被引:0
|
作者
Qi, Robert [1 ,2 ]
Foo, Wen-chi [3 ]
Ferrandino, Michael N. [1 ,2 ]
Davis, Leah G. [1 ,2 ]
Sekar, Sitharthan [4 ]
Longo, Thomas A. [1 ,2 ]
Jibara, Ghalib [1 ,2 ]
Han, Tracy [4 ]
Gokhan, Ilhan. [5 ]
Moul, Judd W. [1 ,2 ]
机构
[1] Duke Univ, Med Ctr, Dept Surg, Div Urol, Durham, NC 27710 USA
[2] Duke Univ, Med Ctr, Duke Canc Inst, Durham, NC 27710 USA
[3] Duke Univ, Med Ctr, Dept Pathol, Durham, NC 27710 USA
[4] Duke Univ, Med Ctr, Sch Med, Durham, NC 27710 USA
[5] Duke Univ, Pratt Sch Engn, Durham, NC 27710 USA
关键词
prostate cancer; prostate biopsy; Gleason score; prostatectomy; ANDROGEN DEPRIVATION THERAPY; LYMPH-NODE DISSECTION; ACTIVE SURVEILLANCE; CANCER; OUTCOMES;
D O I
暂无
中图分类号
R5 [内科学]; R69 [泌尿科学(泌尿生殖系疾病)];
学科分类号
1002 ; 100201 ;
摘要
Introduction: Contemporary clinical guidelines utilize the highest Gleason sum (HGS) in any one core on prostate biopsy to determine prostate cancer treatment. Here, we present a large discrepancy between prostate cancer risk stratified as high risk on biopsy and their pathology after radical prostatectomy. Materials and methods: We retrospectively reviewed 1424 men who underwent either open or robotic-assisted prostatectomy between 2004 and 2015. We analyzed 148 men who were diagnosed with HGS 8 on prostate biopsy. Biopsy and prostatectomy pathology were compared in aggregate and over 1 year time intervals. Chi-squared test, Fisher's exact test, Student's t-test, and Wilcoxon Rank-Sum test were used for statistical analysis. Results: A total of 61.5% (91/148) of clinical HGS 8 diagnoses were downgraded on prostatectomy, with 58.8% (87/148) downgraded to Gleason 7 (Gleason 4 + 3 n = 59; Gleason 3 + 4 n = 28). Factors associated with downgrading include lower prostate-specific antigen (PSA) at biopsy (median 6.8 ng/mL versus 9.1 ng/mL, p < 0.001), number of Gleason 8 biopsy cores (median 1 versus 2, p < 0.02), presence of Gleason pattern 3 on biopsy cores (67.9% versus 44.8%, p < 0.03), pT2 staging (72.4% versus 55.1%, p < 0.04), positive margins (53.9% versus 69.1%, p < 0.04), extracapsular extension (53.4% versus 74.1%, p < 0.02), and smaller percent tumor (median 10% versus 15%, p < 0.004). Conclusion: The large percentage of pathology downgrading of biopsy-diagnosed HGS 8 suggests suboptimal risk-stratification that may lead to suboptimal treatment strategies and much patient distress. Our study adds great urgency to the efforts refining prostate cancer clinical assessment.
引用
收藏
页码:8982 / 8989
页数:8
相关论文
共 50 条
  • [21] Is an Extended Prostate Biopsy Scheme Associated with an Improvement in the Accuracy Between the Biopsy Gleason Score and Radical Prostatectomy Pathology? A Multivariate Analysis
    Zugor, Vahudin
    Poth, Sandor
    Kuehn, Reinhard
    Bernat, Marija Maja
    Porres, Daniel
    Labanaris, Apostolos P.
    ANTICANCER RESEARCH, 2016, 36 (08) : 4285 - 4288
  • [22] Clinical role of pathological downgrading after radical prostatectomy in patients with biopsy confirmed Gleason score 3+4 prostate cancer
    Gondo, Tatsuo
    Poon, Bing Ying
    Matsumoto, Kazuhiro
    Bernstein, Melanie
    Sjoberg, Daniel D.
    Eastham, James A.
    BJU INTERNATIONAL, 2015, 115 (01) : 81 - 86
  • [23] Discrepancies between Gleason scores of needle biopsy and radical prostatectomy specimens
    Fukagai, T
    Namiki, T
    Namiki, H
    Carlile, RG
    Shimada, M
    Yoshida, H
    PATHOLOGY INTERNATIONAL, 2001, 51 (05) : 364 - 370
  • [24] The Changes in Gleason Score Between the Diagnostic Biopsy and Radical Prostatectomy Pathology
    Hu, Jieping
    Hong, Yanyan
    Wang, Mengzhen
    Zeng, Jin
    Liu, Weipeng
    INDIAN JOURNAL OF SURGERY, 2024, 86 (02) : 361 - 367
  • [25] Usefulness of the 2005 International Society of Urologic Pathology Gleason grading system in prostate biopsy and radical prostatectomy specimens
    Uemura, Hiroji
    Hoshino, Koji
    Sasaki, Takeshi
    Miyoshi, Yasuhide
    Ishiguro, Hitoshi
    Inayama, Yoshiaki
    Kubota, Yoshinobu
    BJU INTERNATIONAL, 2009, 103 (09) : 1190 - 1194
  • [26] Clinical Utility of Quantitative Gleason Grading in Prostate Biopsies and Prostatectomy Specimens
    Sauter, Guido
    Steurer, Stefan
    Clauditz, Till Sebastian
    Krech, Till
    Wittmer, Corinna
    Lutz, Florian
    Lennartz, Maximilian
    Janssen, Tim
    Hakimi, Nayira
    Simon, Ronald
    von Petersdorff-Campen, Mareike
    Jacobsen, Frank
    von Loga, Katharina
    Wilczak, Waldemar
    Minner, Sarah
    Tsourlakis, Maria Christina
    Chirico, Viktoria
    Haese, Alexander
    Heinzer, Hans
    Beyer, Burkhard
    Graefen, Markus
    Michl, Uwe
    Salomon, Georg
    Steuber, Thomas
    Budaeus, Lars Henrik
    Hekeler, Elena
    Malsy-Mink, Julia
    Kutzera, Sven
    Fraune, Christoph
    Goebel, Cosima
    Huland, Hartwig
    Schlomm, Thorsten
    EUROPEAN UROLOGY, 2016, 69 (04) : 592 - 598
  • [27] Gleason grading of prostate carcinoma in needle biopsies vs. radical prostatectomy specimens
    Mazzucchelli, R
    Barbisan, F
    Tarquini, LM
    Filosa, A
    Campanini, N
    Galosi, AB
    ANALYTICAL AND QUANTITATIVE CYTOLOGY AND HISTOLOGY, 2005, 27 (03): : 125 - 133
  • [28] Influence of Biopsy Gleason Score on the Risk of Lymph Node Invasion in Patients With Intermediate-Risk Prostate Cancer Undergoing Radical Prostatectomy
    Wenzel, Mike
    Preisser, Felix
    Hoeh, Benedikt
    Welte, Maria N.
    Humke, Clara
    Wittler, Clarissa
    Wuernschimmel, Christoph
    Becker, Andreas
    Karakiewicz, Pierre I.
    Chun, Felix K. H.
    Mandel, Philipp
    Kluth, Luis A.
    FRONTIERS IN SURGERY, 2021, 8
  • [29] Consistency of prostate biopsy and radical prostatectomy Gleason grade groups and nomograms for predicting upgrading and downgrading
    Yan, H.
    INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF UROLOGY, 2019, 26 : 42 - 42
  • [30] The impact of time from biopsy to radical prostatectomy on Gleason score undergrading and other related factors
    Virseda Rodriguez, A. J.
    Marcos Asensio, S.
    Herrero Polo, M.
    Hernandez Sanchez, T.
    Sanz Ruiz, A.
    Garcia, F.
    Vesga, F.
    Gutierrez, E.
    Serrano, J. M.
    Calleja, J.
    Cortinas, J. R.
    Zamora, A.
    Rodriguez, V
    Sesmero, J. H. Amon
    Szczesniewski, R. J.
    Valverde Martinez, S.
    Polo Lopez, C.
    Gala, L.
    Campanario, F.
    Barcina, A.
    Aramburu, M. A. Lopez
    Moya, I
    Bermudez, R.
    Veiga, F. Gomez
    ACTAS UROLOGICAS ESPANOLAS, 2020, 44 (03): : 187 - 195