Discrepancy between Needle Biopsy and Radical Prostatectomy Gleason Score among Patients with Prostate Cancer
1 January 2020
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 among 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. Statistical analysis was done by using the Social Sciences Software version 21.
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.
- Gleason score; needle biopsy; prostate cancer; PSA; radical prostatectomy
How to Cite
Tennill TA, Gross ME, Frieboes HB. Automated analysis of co-localized protein expression in histologic sections of prostate cancer. PloS one. 2017;12(5):e0178362.
Karkan MF, Razzaghi MR, Javanmard B, Tayyebiazar A, Ghiasy S, Montazeri S. Holmium: YAG Laser Incision of Bladder Neck Contracture Following Radical Retropubic Prostatectomy. Nephro-Urology Monthly. (In Press).
Sarici H, Telli O, Yigitbasi O, Ekici M, Ozgur BC, Yuceturk CN, et al. Predictors of Gleason score upgrading in patients with prostate biopsy Gleason score≤ 6. Canadian Urological Association Journal. 2014;8(5-6):E342.
Pourmand G, Gooran S, Hossieni SR, Guitynavard F, Safavi M, Sharifi A, et al. Correlation of preoperative and radical prostatectomy gleason score: examining the predictors of upgrade and downgrade results. Acta Medica Iranica. 2017:249-53.
Ghiasy S, Abedi AR, Moradi A, Hosseini SY, Karkan MF, Sadri G, et al. Is active surveillance an appropriate approach to manage prostate cancer patients with Gleason Score 3+ 3 who met the criteria for active surveillance? Turkish journal of urology. 2019;45(4):261.
Allameh F, Rahavian AH, Ghiasy S. Prevalence of Castration Success Rate in Iranian Metastatic Prostate Cancer Patients: A Referral Center Statistics. International Journal of Cancer Management. 2018;11(10).
Khoddami M, Khademi Y, Aghdam MK, Soltanghoraee H. Correlation between Gleason scores in needle biopsy and corresponding radical prostatectomy specimens: a twelve-year review. Iranian journal of pathology. 2016;11(2):120.
Garmer M, Busch M, Mateiescu S, Fahlbusch DE, Wagener B, Grönemeyer DH. Accuracy of MRI-targeted in-bore prostate biopsy according to the Gleason score with postprostatectomy histopathologic control—a targeted biopsy-only strategy with limited number of cores. Academic radiology. 2015;22(11):1409-18.
Dall’Era MA, Albertsen PC, Bangma C, Carroll PR, Carter HB, Cooperberg MR, et al. Active surveillance for prostate cancer: a systematic review of the literature. European urology. 2012;62(6):976-83.
Heidenreich A, Bastian PJ, Bellmunt J, Bolla M, Joniau S, van der Kwast T, et al. EAU guidelines on prostate cancer. Part 1: screening, diagnosis, and local treatment with curative intent—update 2013. European urology. 2014;65(1):124-37.
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. European urology. 2012;61(5):1019-24.
Xu N, Wu Y-P, Li X-D, Lin M-Y, Zheng Q-S, Chen S-H, et al. Risk of upgrading from prostate biopsy to radical prostatectomy pathology: Is magnetic resonance imaging-guided biopsy more accurate? Journal of Cancer. 2018;9(19):3634.
King CR, Long JP. Prostate biopsy grading errors: a sampling problem? International journal of cancer. 2000;90(6):326-30.
Cohen MS, Hanley RS, Kurteva T, Ruthazer R, Silverman ML, Sorcini A, et al. Comparing the Gleason prostate biopsy and Gleason prostatectomy grading system: the Lahey Clinic Medical Center experience and an international meta-analysis. European urology. 2008;54(2):371-81.
Suer E, Gokce MI, Gulpinar O, Gucal Guclu A, Haciyev P, Gogus C, et al. How significant is upgrade in Gleason score between prostate biopsy and radical prostatectomy pathology while discussing less invasive treatment options? Scandinavian journal of urology. 2014;48(2):177-82.
Milonas D, Grybas A, Auskalnis S, Gudinaviciene I, Baltrimavicius R, Kincius M, et al. Factors predicting Gleason score 6 upgrading after radical prostatectomy. Central European journal of urology. 2011;64(4):205.
Moussa AS, Kattan MW, Berglund R, Yu C, Fareed K, Jones JS. A nomogram for predicting upgrading in patients with low‐and intermediate‐grade prostate cancer in the era of extended prostate sampling. BJU international. 2010;105(3):352-8.
Moussa AS, Li J, Soriano M, Klein EA, Dong F, Jones JS. Prostate biopsy clinical and pathological variables that predict significant grading changes in patients with intermediate and high grade prostate cancer. BJU international. 2009;103(1):43-8.
Freedland SJ, Isaacs WB, Platz EA, Terris MK, Aronson WJ, Amling CL, et al. Prostate size and risk of high-grade, advanced prostate cancer and biochemical progression after radical prostatectomy: a search database study. Journal of clinical oncology. 2005;23(30):7546-54.
Turley RS, Hamilton RJ, Terris MK, Kane CJ, Aronson WJ, Presti JC, et al. Small transrectal ultrasound volume predicts clinically significant Gleason score upgrading after radical prostatectomy: results from the SEARCH database. The Journal of urology. 2008;179(2):523-8.
Moon SJ, Park SY, Lee TY. Predictive factors of Gleason score upgrading in localized and locally advanced prostate cancer diagnosed by prostate biopsy. Korean journal of urology. 2010;51(10):677-82.
Chung MS, Lee SH, Lee DH, Chung BH. Is small prostate volume a predictor of Gleason score upgrading after radical prostatectomy? Yonsei medical journal. 2013;54(4):902-6.
Ruijter E, van Leenders G, Miller G, Debruyne F, van de Kaa C. Errors in histological grading by prostatic needle biopsy specimens: frequency and predisposing factors. The Journal of Pathology: A Journal of the Pathological Society of Great Britain and Ireland. 2000;192(2):229-33.
Richstone L, Bianco FJ, Shah HH, Kattan MW, Eastham JA, Scardino PT, et al. Radical prostatectomy in men aged≥ 70 years: effect of age on upgrading, upstaging, and the accuracy of a preoperative nomogram. BJU international. 2008;101(5):541-6.
Stav K, Judith S, Merald H, Leibovici D, Lindner A, Zisman A, editors. Does prostate biopsy Gleason score accurately express the biologic features of prostate cancer? Urologic Oncology: Seminars and Original Investigations; 2007: Elsevier.
Hong SK, Han BK, Lee ST, Kim SS, Min KE, Jeong SJ, et al. Prediction of Gleason score upgrading in low-risk prostate cancers diagnosed via multi (≥ 12)-core prostate biopsy. World journal of urology. 2009;27(2):271-6.
Gofrit ON, Zorn KC, Taxy JB, Lin S, Zagaja GP, Steinberg GD, et al. Predicting the risk of patients with biopsy Gleason score 6 to harbor a higher grade cancer. The Journal of urology. 2007;178(5):1925-8.
Budäus L, Graefen M, Salomon G, Isbarn H, Lughezzani G, Sun M, et al. The novel nomogram of Gleason sum upgrade: possible application for the eligible criteria of low dose rate brachytherapy. International journal of urology. 2010;17(10):862-8.
Davies JD, Aghazadeh MA, Phillips S, Salem S, Chang SS, Clark PE, et al. Prostate size as a predictor of Gleason score upgrading in patients with low risk prostate cancer. The Journal of urology. 2011;186(6):2221-7.
Corcoran NM, Hovens CM, Hong MK, Pedersen J, Casey RG, Connolly S, et al. Underestimation of Gleason score at prostate biopsy reflects sampling error in lower volume tumours. BJU international. 2012;109(5):660-4.
Freedland SJ, Kane CJ, Amling CL, Aronson WJ, Terris MK, Presti Jr JC, et al. Upgrading and downgrading of prostate needle biopsy specimens: risk factors and clinical implications. Urology. 2007;69(3):495-9.
Capitanio U, Karakiewicz PI, Valiquette L, Perrotte P, Jeldres C, Briganti A, et al. Biopsy core number represents one of foremost predictors of clinically significant Gleason sum upgrading in patients with low-risk prostate cancer. Urology. 2009;73(5):1087-91
- Abstract Viewed: 0 times
- Just Accepted/5985 Downloaded: 0 times