The Discrepancy between Needle Biopsy and Radical Prostatectomy Gleason Score in Patients with Prostate Cancer

被引:8
作者
Abedi, Amir Reza [1 ]
Basiri, Abbas [2 ]
Shakhssalim, Nasser [2 ]
Sadri, Ghazal [3 ]
Ahadi, Mahsa [4 ]
Hojjati, Seyyed Ali [1 ]
Sheykhzadeh, Samad [5 ]
Askarpour, Sajjad [2 ]
Ghiasy, Saleh [1 ]
机构
[1] Shahid Beheshti Univ Med Sci, Shohadae Tajrish Hosp, Dept Urol, Tehran, Iran
[2] Shahid Beheshti Univ Med Sci, Shahid Labbafinejad Med Ctr, Urol & Nephrol Res Ctr, Dept Urol, Tehran, Iran
[3] Iran Univ Med Sci, Dept Radiol, Tehran, Iran
[4] Shahid Beheshti Univ Med Sci, Shohadae Tajrish Hosp, Dept Pathol, Tehran, Iran
[5] Shahid Beheshti Univ Med Sci, Shahid Modares Hosp, Dept Urol, Tehran, Iran
关键词
Gleason score; needle biopsy; prostate cancer; PSA; radical prostatectomy; HIGH-GRADE; RISK; INTERMEDIATE; SPECIMENS; ACCURACY; NOMOGRAM; SIZE;
D O I
10.22037/uj.v16i7.5985
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
Purpose: Gleason score (GS), as well as other prognostic and diagnostic modalities, can predict the possibility of tumor growth and metastasis during the life of patients with prostate cancer. Based on the prostate biopsy GS, clinicians choose the most appropriate therapy for managing patients. The objective of this cross-sectional study was to determine the discrepancy between needle biopsy and radical prostatectomy GS and to identify its predictive factors in the Iranian population. Materials and Methods: A total of 1147 patients who underwent radical prostatectomy from 2009 to 2019 were initially enrolled in this study. After consideration of the inclusion and exclusion criteria, 439 patients were finally included. The demographic variables and clinical data including age, PSA level, prostate volume, PSA density, GS derived from ultrasonography-guided core needle biopsy specimen, and GS derived from radical prostatectomy specimen were collected from the medical records of patients with prostate adenocarcinoma and were reviewed by a urology resident. Results: The average age of patients was 64.5 years (range 48-84 years), and the average preoperative PSA level was 14.8 ng/mL. On histopathological examination, no changes in GS were observed in 237 (53.9%) patients, whereas GS was upgraded in 144 (32.8%) patients and downgraded in 58 (13.2%) patients at radical prostatectomy. The number of patients who had extracapsular extension, seminal vesicle invasion, and positive lymph nodes was significantly higher in the upgraded group compared with the non-upgraded group. Conclusion: In this study, there was a steady decrease in GS upgrading with the prostate size extending up to 49.7 g. There was also an association between downgrading and extending prostate size. Due to the greater risk of high-grade disease in men with small prostates, smaller prostate bulks are most probably upgraded after radical prostatectomy. A higher maximum percentage of involvement per core was an independent predictive factor of upgrading from biopsy grade 1 to grade >= 2. Our study showed that patients' age was not predictive of upgrading, which is consistent with other studies. Also, we demonstrated a non-significant relationship between PSA level and upgraded GS. Findings in this study did not demonstrate a significant relationship between PSA level and upgrading.
引用
收藏
页码:395 / 399
页数:5
相关论文
共 50 条
[31]   Outcome after radical prostatectomy with a pretreatment prostate biopsy Gleason score of ≥8 [J].
Manoharan, M ;
Bird, VG ;
Kim, SS ;
Civantos, F ;
Soloway, MS .
BJU INTERNATIONAL, 2003, 92 (06) :539-544
[32]   Upgrading and Downgrading of Prostate Cancer from Biopsy to Radical Prostatectomy: Incidence and Predictive Factors Using the Modified Gleason Grading System and Factoring in Tertiary Grades [J].
Epstein, Jonathan I. ;
Feng, Zhaoyong ;
Trock, Bruce J. ;
Pierorazio, Phillip M. .
EUROPEAN UROLOGY, 2012, 61 (05) :1019-1024
[33]   The effect of modified Gleason grading on the score concordance between the Gleason scores of needle biopsy and radical prostatectomy specimens in prostatic carcinoma [J].
Ozok, Hakki Ugur ;
Oktay, Murat ;
Sagnak, Levent ;
Karakoyunlu, Nihat ;
Ersoy, Hamit ;
Alper, Murat .
TURKISH JOURNAL OF UROLOGY, 2010, 36 (04) :333-338
[34]   Is the biopsy Gleason score important in predicting outcomes for patients after radical prostatectomy once the pathological Gleason score is known? [J].
Vira, Manish A. ;
Guzzo, Thomas ;
Heitjan, Daniel F. ;
Tomaszewski, John E. ;
D'Amico, Anthony ;
Wein, Alan J. ;
Malkowicz, S. Bruce .
BJU INTERNATIONAL, 2008, 101 (10) :1232-1236
[35]   Gleason score and tumor laterality in radical prostatectomy and transrectal ultrasound-guided biopsy of the prostate: a comparative study [J].
Pereira, Renan A. ;
Costa, Roberto S. ;
Muglia, Valdair F. ;
Silva, Fabio Franca ;
Lajes, Joyce S. ;
Dos Reis, Rodolfo B. ;
Silva, Gyl E. B. .
ASIAN JOURNAL OF ANDROLOGY, 2015, 17 (05) :815-820
[36]   The Proportion of Free PSA and Upgrading of Biopsy Gleason Score after Radical Prostatectomy [J].
Visapaa, Harri ;
Hotakainen, Kristina ;
Lundin, Johan ;
Ala-Opas, Martti ;
Stenman, Ulf-Hokan .
UROLOGIA INTERNATIONALIS, 2010, 84 (04) :378-381
[37]   The outcome of patients with pathological Gleason score ≥8 prostate cancer after radical prostatectomy [J].
Rodriguez-Covarrubias, Francisco ;
Larre, Stephane ;
De La Taille, Alexandre ;
Abbou, Claude-Clement ;
Salomon, Laurent .
BJU INTERNATIONAL, 2008, 101 (03) :305-307
[38]   Gleason Score 7 Prostate Cancer on Needle Biopsy: Relation of Primary Pattern 3 or 4 to Pathological Stage and Progression After Radical Prostatectomy [J].
Amin, Ali ;
Partin, Alan ;
Epstein, Jonathan I. .
JOURNAL OF UROLOGY, 2011, 186 (04) :1286-1290
[39]   Is Small Prostate Volume a Predictor of Gleason Score Upgrading after Radical Prostatectomy? [J].
Chung, Mun Su ;
Lee, Seung Hwan ;
Lee, Dong Hoon ;
Chung, Byung Ha .
YONSEI MEDICAL JOURNAL, 2013, 54 (04) :902-906
[40]   Influence of Obesity on Gleason Score Inconsistencies between Biopsy and Radical Prostatectomy Specimens [J].
Sahin, Aytac ;
Urkmez, Ahmet ;
Yuksel, Ozgur Haki ;
Verit, Ayhan .
JCPSP-JOURNAL OF THE COLLEGE OF PHYSICIANS AND SURGEONS PAKISTAN, 2018, 28 (07) :541-545