Men with High Prostate Specific Antigen Have Higher Risk of Gleason Upgrading after Prostatectomy: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis
Vol. 18 No. 05 (2021),
Purpose: To examine the correlation between prostate specific antigen (PSA) and the risk of Gleason sum upgrading (GSU) from biopsy Gleason sum (bGS) to prostatectomy Gleason sum (pGS).
Materials and Methods: Five electronic databases (Web of Science, Ovid Medline, Ovid Embase, SCOPUS and the Cochrane Library) were searched from inception until March 2020. Studies were included if they focused on the relationship between PSA and GSU analyzed in multivariable analysis. Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines were utilized. Quality of included studies was appraised utilizing the Newcastle-Ottawa Quality Assessment Scale (NOS) for case-control studies. The publication bias was evaluated by funnel plot and Egger’s test.
Results: Our search yielded 19 studies with high quality including 42193 patients. GSU was found in 28.2% of patients. Higher PSA level was associated with a significant increased risk of GSU (pooled OR = 1.14, 95% CI: 1.10–1.18; P < .05; I2 = 92%). For the definition of upgrading from bGS ≤ 6 to pGS ≥ 7, the odds of upgrading with higher PSA level as opposed to lower PSA level was 1.12 (95% CI: 1.11–1.14; P < .05; I2 = 13%), while the odds of upgrading with other definitions were 1.11 (95% CI: 1.05–1.18; P < .05; I2 = 89%).
Conclusion: Patients with high level of serum PSA are at high risk of undergoing pathologic upgrading at prostatectomy. Combined with other risk factors, PSA prompts risk reclassification and improve confidence of urologists in management decisions for optimal therapy. Nevertheless, further robust studies are necessitated to confirm these results.
- Systematic review
- Prostate cancer
- Gleason grading system
- Needle biopsy
- Prostate specific antigen
How to Cite
Delahunt Brett, Egevad Lars, Samaratunga Hemamali, Martignoni Guido, Nacey John N, Srigley John R. Gleason and Fuhrman no longer make the grade[J]. Histopathology, 2016,68(4):475-481.
Cohen M S, Hanley R S, Kurteva T, et al. Comparing the Gleason prostate biopsy and Gleason prostatectomy grading system: the Lahey Clinic Medical Center experience and an international meta-analysis[J]. Eur Urol, 2008,54(2):371-381.
Thomsen F B, Brasso K, Klotz L H, Roder M A, Berg K D, Iversen P. Active surveillance for clinically localized prostate cancer--a systematic review[J]. J Surg Oncol, 2014,109(8):830-835.
Briganti A, Larcher A, Abdollah F, et al. Updated nomogram predicting lymph node invasion in patients with prostate cancer undergoing extended pelvic lymph node dissection: the essential importance of percentage of positive cores[J]. Eur Urol, 2012,61(3):480-487.
D'Amico A V, Chen M H, Renshaw A A, Loffredo M, Kantoff P W. Androgen suppression and radiation vs radiation alone for prostate cancer: a randomized trial[J]. JAMA, 2008,299(3):289-295.
Oderda M, Gontero P, Sanchez-Salas R, et al. 936 Gleason score upgrading to 8–10 predicts biochemics from al recurrence in patients undergoing radical prostatectomy: Analysis on 7310 high-risk patient the EMPaCT database[J]. European Urology Supplements, 2015,14(2):e936.
Jang W S, Koh D H, Kim J, et al. The prognostic impact of downgrading and upgrading from biopsy to radical prostatectomy among men with Gleason score 7 prostate cancer[J]. Prostate, 2019,79(16):1805-1810.
Corcoran N M, Hong M K, Casey R G, et al. Upgrade in Gleason score between prostate biopsies and pathology following radical prostatectomy significantly impacts upon the risk of biochemical recurrence[J]. BJU Int, 2011,108(8 Pt 2):E202-E210.
Chun F K, Steuber T, Erbersdobler A, et al. Development and internal validation of a nomogram predicting the probability of prostate cancer Gleason sum upgrading between biopsy and radical prostatectomy pathology[J]. Eur Urol, 2006,49(5):820-826.
Liberati A, Altman D G, Tetzlaff J, et al. The PRISMA statement for reporting systematic reviews and meta-analyses of studies that evaluate healthcare interventions: explanation and elaboration[J]. BMJ, 2009,339:b2700.
Luo D, Wan X, Liu J, Tong T. Optimally estimating the sample mean from the sample size, median, mid-range, and/or mid-quartile range[J]. Stat Methods Med Res, 2018,27(6):1785-1805.
Danneman D, Drevin L, Delahunt B, et al. Accuracy of prostate biopsies for predicting Gleason score in radical prostatectomy specimens: nationwide trends 2000-2012[J]. BJU Int, 2017,119(1):50-56.
Lyon T D, Turner R N, Yabes J G, et al. Preoperative Statin Use at the Time of Radical Prostatectomy Is Not Associated With Biochemical Recurrence or Pathologic Upgrading[J]. Urology, 2016,97:153-159.
Porcaro A B, Siracusano S, de Luyk N, et al. Low-Risk Prostate Cancer and Tumor Upgrading in the Surgical Specimen: Analysis of Clinical Factors Predicting Tumor Upgrading in a Contemporary Series of Patients Who were Evaluated According to the Modified Gleason Score Grading System[J]. Current Urology, 2017,10(3):118-125.
Santok G D, Abdel R A, Kim L H, et al. Prostate-specific antigen 10-20 ng/mL: A predictor of degree of upgrading to ≥ 8 among patients with biopsy Gleason score 6[J]. Investig Clin Urol, 2017,58(2):90-97.
Sooriakumaran P, Srivastava A, Christos P, Grover S, Shevchuk M, Tewari A. Predictive models for worsening prognosis in potential candidates for active surveillance of presumed low-risk prostate cancer[J]. Int Urol Nephrol, 2012,44(2):459-470.
Freedland S J, Isaacs W B, Platz E A, et al. Prostate Size and Risk of High-Grade, Advanced Prostate Cancer and Biochemical Progression After Radical Prostatectomy: A Search Database Study[J]. Journal of Clinical Oncology, 2005,23(30):7546-7554.
Epstein J I, Feng Z, Trock B J, Pierorazio P M. 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]. Eur Urol, 2012,61(5):1019-1024.
Kassouf W, Nakanishi H, Ochiai A, Babaian Kara N, Troncoso Patricia, Babaian R Joseph. Effect of Prostate Volume on Tumor Grade in Patients Undergoing Radical Prostatectomy in the Era of Extended Prostatic Biopsies[J]. Journal of Urology, 2007,178(1):111-114.
Quintana L, Ward A, Gerrin S J, et al. Gleason Misclassification Rate Is Independent of Number of Biopsy Cores in Systematic Biopsy[J]. Urology, 2016,91:143-149.
Jalloh M, Myers F, Cowan J E, Carroll P R, Cooperberg M R. Racial variation in prostate cancer upgrading and upstaging among men with low-risk clinical characteristics[J]. Eur Urol, 2015,67(3):451-457.
Lee S, Jeong S J, Hwang S I, et al. Clinical value of core length in contemporary multicore prostate biopsy[J]. PLoS One, 2015,10(4):e123704.
Porcaro A B, De Luyk N, Corsi P, et al. Association between Basal Total Testosterone Levels and Tumor Upgrading in Low and Intermediate Risk Prostate Cancer[J]. Urol Int, 2017,99(2):215-221.
Gofrit O N, Zorn K C, Taxy J B, et al. Predicting the Risk of Patients With Biopsy Gleason Score 6 to Harbor a Higher Grade Cancer[J]. Journal of Urology, 2007,178(5):1925-1928.
Freedland S J, Wieder J A, Jack G S, Dorey FrederiCK, Dekernion Jean B, Aronson William J. Improved Risk Stratification for Biochemical Recurrence after Radical Prostatectomy Using a Novel Risk Group System based on Prostate Specific Antigen Density and Biopsy Gleason Score[J]. The Journal of Urology, 2002,168(1):110-115.
Magheli A, Hinz S, Hege C, et al. Prostate specific antigen density to predict prostate cancer upgrading in a contemporary radical prostatectomy series: a single center experience[J]. J Urol, 2010,183(1):126-131.
Bullock N, Simpkin A, Fowler S, Varma M, Kynaston H. Narahari K. Pathological upgrading in prostate cancer treated with surgery in the United Kingdom: trends and risk factors from the British Association of Urological Surgeons Radical Prostatectomy Registry[J]. BMC Urol, 2019,19(1):94.
Coogan C L, Latchamsetty K C, Greenfield J, Corman John M, Lynch Barlow, Porter Christopher R. Increasing the number of biopsy cores improves the concordance of biopsy Gleason score to prostatectomy Gleason score[J]. BJU International, 2005,96(3):324-327.
Gokce M I, Tangal S, Hamidi N, Suer E, Ibis M A, Beduk Y. Role of neutrophil-to-lymphocyte ratio in prediction of Gleason score upgrading and disease upstaging in low-risk prostate cancer patients eligible for active surveillance[J]. Can Urol Assoc J, 2016,10(11-12):E383-E387.
Martin N E, Chen M H, Zhang D, Richie J P, D'Amico A V. Unfavorable Intermediate-Risk Prostate Cancer and the Odds of Upgrading to Gleason 8 or Higher at Prostatectomy[J]. Clin Genitourin Cancer, 2017,15(2):237-241.
Allsbrook W J, Mangold K A, Johnson M H, et al. Interobserver reproducibility of Gleason grading of prostatic carcinoma: urologic pathologists[J]. Hum Pathol, 2001,32(1):74-80.
Freedland S J, Kane C J, Amling C L, Aronson W J, Terris M K, Presti JC Jr. Upgrading and downgrading of prostate needle biopsy specimens: risk factors and clinical implications[J]. Urology, 2007,69(3):495-499.
Pietzak E R, Kabarriti A E, Mucksavage P, et al. The presence of high-grade prostatic intraepithelial neoplasia or atypia on prostate biopsy does not adversely affect prostatectomy outcomes for patients otherwise eligible for active surveillance[J]. Urology, 2014,84(6):1442-1447.
- Abstract Viewed: 0 times
- 6127/pdf Downloaded: 0 times