Discrepancies Between Biopsy Gleason Score and Radical Prostatectomy Specimen Gleason Score: An Iranian Experience

Shahaboddin Dolatkhah, Maryam Mirtalebi, Parnaz Daneshpajouhnejad, Ahmadreza Barahimi, Hamid Mazdak, Mohammad Hossein Izadpanahi, Mehrdad Mohammadi, Diana Taheri

Abstract


180

Purpose: Considering the importance of treatment decisions for prostate cancer (PCa) and the utility of Gleason scoring system (GS) in this field, we aimed to assess the percent of agreement and disagreement between needle biopsy (NB) Gleason score and radical prostatectomy (RP) specimen Gleason score.

Materials and Methods: In this retrospective study, consecutive patients with PCa, who underwent NB and subsequently RP were enrolled. GS of both NB and RP specimens were recorded for each patient. Patients were classified according to the GS as low-grade (?3+3), intermediate-grade (3+4 and 4+3), and high-grade (GS?8-10). The levels of agreement and discrepancy of NB GS was compared to its corresponding RP GS using Kappa coefficient of agreement. Over-grading and under-grading of NB GS were also determined.

Results: A total of 100 embedded RP and corresponding NB were analyzed. The rate of discrepancy for group and individual scoring of GS was 41% and 56%, respectively. The rate of under and over-grading was 34% and 7%, respectively. Kappa value for group and individual scoring was .443 (95%CI: .313 - .573) and .411 (95%CI: .291 - .531), respectively.

Conclusion: The findings of our study indicate that though the agreement between NB GS and RP GS are fair to moderate, but the feature of discrepancy, i.e. under-grading in low and intermediate grades and over-grading in high grades of NB GS, could help us in making more appropriate clinical decision especially considering other biochemical and pathological factors such as the level of PSA or peri-neural invasion.


Full Text:

Just Accepted

53

References


References

Siegel RL, Miller KD, Jemal A. Cancer statistics, 2015. CA Cancer J Clin. 2015 ;65(1):5-29.

Ferlay J., Shin H.R., Bray F. International Agency for Research on Cancer; Lyon, France: 2010. GLOBOCAN 2008, Cancer Incidence and Mortality Worldwide: IARC Cancer Base No. 10.

Epstein JI. An update of the Gleason grading system. J Urol. 2010;183(2):433-40.

King CR, Mc Neal JE, Gill H, Presti Jr JC. Extended prostate biopsy scheme improves reliability of Gleason grading: implication of radiotherapy patients. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 2004; 59: 386-61.

D'Elia C, Cerruto MA, Cioffi A, Novella G, Cavalleri S, Artibani W. Upgrading and upstaging in prostate cancer: From prostate biopsy to radical prostatectomy. Mol Clin Oncol. 2014 ;2(6):1145-1149.

Kvåle R, Møller B, Wahlqvist R, Fosså SD, Berner A, Busch C, Kyrdalen AE,Svindland A, Viset T, Halvorsen OJ. Concordance between Gleason scores of needle biopsies and radical prostatectomy specimens: a population-based study. BJU Int.2009; 103(12):1647-54.

Chun FK-H, Steuber T, Erbersdobler A. Development and internal validation of a nomogram predicting the probability of prostate cancer Gleason sum upgrading between biopsy and radical prostatectomy pathology. Eur Urol 2006; 49: 820-26.

Pérez, José Llanos, Eduardo Tejera Puente, Elena Izquierdo Kulich, Juvencio A. Betancourt MAr, Manuel Nistal, Pilar Gonzalez Peramato, Mar RoyuelaGarcía, José Manuel Nieto Villar, and María De Miguel. "Relationship between tumor grade and geometrical complexity in prostate cancer." bioRxiv (2015): 015016.

Steinberg DM, Sauvageot J, Piantadosi S, Epstein JI. Correlation of prostate needle biopsy and radical prostatectomy Gleason grade in academic and community settings. Am J Surg Pathol. 1997;21(5):566–76.

Cookson MS, Fleshner NE, Soloway SM, Fair WR. Corre1ation between Gleason score of needle biopsy and radical prostatectomy specimen: accuracy and clinical implications. J Urol 1997; 157: 559-62.

Hosseini M, Seyed Alinaghi S, Ahmoudi M, McFarland W. A case-control study of risk factors for prostate cancer in Iran. Acta Med Iran. 2010;48(1):61–66.

Arrabal-Polo MA, Jiménez-Pacheco A, Mijan-Ortiz JL, Arrabal-Martín M, Valle-Díaz de la Guardia F, López-Carmona Pintado F, López-León VM, Merino-Salas S, Tinaut-Ranera J, Zuluaga-Gómez A. Relationship between biopsy Gleason score and radical prostatectomy specimen Gleason score in patients undergoing sextant vs 12 core biopsies. Arch Esp Urol. 2010;63(9):791-6.

Rodríguez Faba O, Fernández Gómez JM, Guate Ortíz JL, Martín Benito JL, Pérez

García FJ, García Rodríguez J, Jalón Monzón A, Regadera Sejas J. Assessment of the Gleason score in biopsies and specimens of radical prostatectomy]. Arch Esp Urol. 2003 ;56(7):781-4.

Noguchi M, Stamey TA, McNeal JE, Yemoto CM. Relationship between systematic biopsies and histological features of 222 radical prostatectomy specimens: lack of prediction of tumor significance for men with nonpalpable prostate cancer. J Urol. 2001 Jul;166(1):104-9; discussion 109-10.

Epstein JI, Feng Z, Trock BJ, Pierorazio PM. 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. Eur Urol. 2012; 1(5):1019-24.

Rajinikanth A, Manoharan M, Soloway CT, Civantos FJ, Soloway MS. Trends in

Gleason score: concordance between biopsy and prostatectomy over 15 years.Urology. 2008;72(1):177-82.

Walker R, Lindner U, Louis A, Kalnin R, Ennis M, Nesbitt M, van der Kwast TH,

Finelli A, Fleshner NE, Zlotta AR, Jewett MA, Hamilton R, Kulkarni G,Trachtenberg J. Concordance between transrectal ultrasound guided biopsy results and radical prostatectomy final pathology: Are we getting better at predicting final pathology? Can Urol Assoc J. 2014 ;8(1-2):47-52.

Yang CW, Lin TP, Huang YH, Chung HJ, Kuo JY, Huang WJ, Wu HH, Chang YH, Lin AT, Chen KK. Does extended prostate needle biopsy improve the concordance of Gleason scores between biopsy and prostatectomy in the Taiwanese population? J Chin Med Assoc. 2012 ;75(3):97-101.

Rapiti E, Schaffar R, Iselin C, Miralbell R, Pelte MF, Weber D, Zanetti R,Neyroud-Caspar I, Bouchardy C. Importance and determinants of Gleason scoreundergrading on biopsy sample of prostate cancer in a population-based study. BMC Urol. 2013 11;13:19.

Eroglu M, Doluoglu OG, Sarici H, Telli O, Ozgur BC, Bozkurt S. Does the time from biopsy to radical prostatectomy affect Gleason score upgrading in patients with clinical t1c prostate cancer? Korean J Urol. 2014 ;55(6):395-9.

Epstein JI, Allsbrook WC Jr, Amin MB, Egevad LL: Update on the Gleason grading system for prostate cancer: results of an international consensus conference of urologic pathologists. Adv Anat Pathol 2006, 13:57–59.

Divrik RT, Eroglu A, Sahin A, Zorlu F, Ozen H. Increasing the number of biopsies increases the concordance of Gleason scores of needle biopsies and prostatectomy specimens. Urol Oncol. 2007 ;25(5):376-82.

Reis LO, Sanches BC, de Mendonça GB, Silva DM, Aguiar T, Menezes OP, Billis A.

Gleason underestimation is predicted by prostate biopsy core length. World J

Urol. 2014 Aug 2.




DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.22037/uj.v0i0.4174


Creative Commons License 
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 License