Prostate Volume is A Predictor of Gleason Score Upgrading after Radical Prostatectomy in Low-Risk Prostate Cancer: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis
Urology Journal,
Vol. 21 No. 01 (2024),
28 February 2024
,
Page 20-28
https://doi.org/10.22037/uj.v20i.7796
Abstract
Purpose: The prediction of Gleason score (GS) upgrading in patients diagnosed with low-risk prostate cancer is
particularly important when opting for active surveillance (AS). Thus, we aimed to explore the association between
prostate volume and GS upgrading after radical prostatectomy in low-risk prostate cancer through a meta-analysis.
Methods: Multiple databases (Web of Science, MEDLINE, Embase, Scopus, and the Cochrane Library) were
searched for eligible studies regarding this issue and reporting sufficient data up to May 2023. Specific search
terms such as prostate cancer, radical prostatectomy, and prostate volume were used in our search strategy. Multivariable-adjusted odds ratios (ORs) and associated 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were calculated using random effects models according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses statement.
Results: Twenty studies comprising 14,823 patients who underwent radical prostatectomy matched our eligibility
criteria. Moreover, GS upgrading between biopsy and surgical pathological specimens occurs in 32.2% (4,771) of
cases. The results showed that smaller prostate volume is significantly associated with GS upgrading in patients
with low-risk prostate cancer (OR = 1.08, 95% CI = 1.05–1.11; P < 0.001; I-square [I2] = 89.8%) from biopsy
to radical prostatectomy after adjusting for confounding factors. Moreover, the results of our subgroup analyses
revealed that smaller prostate volume remained a substantial risk factor of GS upgrading in the studies designed
as retrospective cohorts and case-control studies performed in America, Italy, Turkey, and China. The findings are
robust as indicated by sensitivity and meta-regression analyses.
Conclusion: Smaller prostate volume predicts clinically substantial GS upgrading in patients diagnosed with lowrisk
prostate cancer after radical prostatectomy. The intriguing findings might be helpful when management options
other than surgery are selected based on the inability to recognise the true pathological GS of patients for AS.
Further studies focus on risk-stratification and treatment planning for patients with low-grade prostate cancer are
still needed to verify our results.
- Prostate volume
- Gleason score
- Radical prostatectomy
- Systematic review
- Meta-analysis
How to Cite
References
Partin AW, Kattan MW, Subong EN, et al. Combination of prostate specific antigen, clinical stage, and Gleason score to predict pathological stage of localized prostate cancer. A multi-institutional update. JAMA. 1997;277:1445–51.
Tosoian JJ, Trock BJ, Landis P, et al. Active surveillance program for prostate cancer: an update of the Johns Hopkins experience. J Clin Oncol. 2011;29:2185–90.
Klotz L, Zhang L, Lam A, et al. Clinical results of long-term follow-up of a large, active surveillance cohort with localized prostate cancer. J Clin Oncol. 2010;28:126–31.
Eggener SE, Scardino PT, Walsh PC, et al. Predicting 15-year prostate cancer-specific mortality after radical prostatectomy. J Urol. 2011;185:869–75.
Sooriakumaran P, Srivastava A, Christos P, et al. Predictive models for worsening prognosis in potential candidates for active surveillance of presumed low-risk prostate cancer. Int Urol Nephrol. 2012;44:459–70.
Lim T, Park SC, Jeong YB, et al. Predictors of Gleason score upgrading after radical prostatectomy in low-risk prostate cancer. Korean J Urol. 2009;50:1182.
Sved PD, Gomez P, Manoharan M, et al. Limitations of biopsy Gleason grade: Implications for counseling patients with biopsy Gleason score 6 prostate cancer. J Urol. 2004;172:98–102.
Wang X, Zhang Y, Ji Z, et al. Old men with prostate cancer have higher risk of Gleason score upgrading and pathological upstaging after initial diagnosis: a systematic review and meta-analysis.World J Surg Oncol. 2021;19:18.
Wang X, Zhang Y, Ji Z, et al. Men with High Prostate Specific Antigen Have Higher Risk of Gleason Upgrading after Prostatectomy: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis. Urol J. 2020.
Hsieh TF, Chang CH, Chen WC, et al. Correlation of Gleason scores between needle-core biopsy and radical prostatectomy specimens in patients with prostate cancer. J Chin Med Assoc. 2005;68:167–71.
Davies JD, Aghazadeh MA, Phillips S, et al. Prostate size as a predictor of Gleason score upgrading in patients with low risk prostate cancer. J Urol. 2011;186:2221–7.
Corcoran NM, Hovens CM, Hong MK, et al. Underestimation of Gleason score at prostate biopsy reflects sampling error in lower volume tumours. BJU Int. 2012;109:660–4.
Lee F, Gottsch H, Ellis WJ, et al. Differences in Upgrading of Prostate Cancer in Prostatectomies between Community and Academic Practices. Adv Urol. 2013;2013:471234.
Moher D, Shamseer L, Clarke M, et al. Preferred reporting items for systematic review and meta-analysis protocols (PRISMA-P) 2015 statement. Syst Rev. 2015;4:1.
Wells GA , Shea B, O’Connell D, et al. The Newcastle-Ottawa Scale (NOS) for assessing the quality of nonrandomized studies in meta-analysis. Ottawa Hospital Research Institute website. http:// www.ohri.ca/programs/clinical_epidemiology/oxford.asp. 2014.
Higgins JPT, Green S. Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions Version 5.1.0 (updated March 2011). The Cochrane Collaboration. 2011.
Egger M, Davey Smith G, Schneider M, et al. Bias in meta-analysis detected by a simple, graphical test. BMJ. 1997;315:629–34.
Chung MS, Lee SH, Lee DH, et al. Is small prostate volume a predictor of Gleason score upgrading after radical prostatectomy? Yonsei Med J. 2013;54:902–6.
Dong F, Jones JS, Stephenson AJ, et al. Prostate cancer volume at biopsy predicts clinically significant upgrading. J Urol. 2008;179:896–900; discussion 900.
Freedland SJ, Isaacs WB, Platz EA, et al. Prostate size and risk of high-grade, advanced prostate cancer and biochemical progression after radical prostatectomy: a search database study. J Clin Oncol. 2005;23:7546–54.
Gershman B, Dahl DM, Olumi AF, et al. Smaller prostate gland size and older age predict Gleason score upgrading. Urol Oncol. 2013;31:1033–7.
Hwang I, Lim D, Jeong YB, et al. Upgrading and upstaging of low-risk prostate cancer among Korean patients: a multicenter study. Asian J Androl. 2015;17:811–4.
Jeon HG, Yoo JH, Jeong BC, et al. Comparative rates of upstaging and upgrading in Caucasian and Korean prostate cancer patients eligible for active surveillance. PLoS One. 2017;12:e0186026.
Kassouf W, Nakanishi H, Ochiai A, et al. Effect of prostate volume on tumor grade in patients undergoing radical prostatectomy in the era of extended prostatic biopsies. J Urol. 2007;178:111–4.
Kim KH, Lim SK, Shin TY, et al. Upgrading of Gleason score and prostate volume: a clinicopathological analysis. BJU Int. 2013;111:1310–6.
Lellig E, Gratzke C, Kretschmer A, et al. Final pathohistology after radical prostatectomy in patients eligible for active surveillance (AS). World J Urol. 2015;33:917–22.
Leyh-Bannurah SR, Dell'Oglio P, Tian Z, et al. A proposal of a new nomogram for predicting upstaging in contemporary D'Amico low-risk prostate cancer patients. World J Urol. 2017;35:189–197.
Porcaro AB, Cavicchioli F, De Luyk N, et al. Clinical Factors Predicting Tumour Upgrading in Patients Under Active Surveillance and Elected to Active Treatment after Disease Reclassification or Progression. Urol Int. 2017;99:186–193.
Ngo TC, Conti SL, Shinghal R, et al. Prostate size does not predict high grade cancer.J Urol. 2012;187:477–80.
Sarici H, Telli O, Yigitbasi O, et al. Predictors of Gleason score upgrading in patients with prostate biopsy Gleason score 6. Can Urol Assoc J. 2014;8:E342–6.
Tilki D, Schlenker B, John M, et al. Clinical and pathologic predictors of Gleason sum upgrading in patients after radical prostatectomy: results from a single institution series. Urol Oncol. 2011;29:508–14.
Turley RS, Hamilton RJ, Terris MK, et al. Small transrectal ultrasound volume predicts clinically significant Gleason score upgrading after radical prostatectomy: results from the SEARCH database. J Urol. 2008;179:523–7; discussion 527–8.
Vora A, Large T, Aronica J, et al. Predictors of Gleason score upgrading in a large African-American population. Int Urol Nephrol. 2013;45:1257–62.
Xu N, Wu YP, Li XD, et al. Risk of upgrading from prostate biopsy to radical prostatectomy pathology: Is magnetic resonance imaging-guided biopsy more accurate? J Cancer. 2018;9:3634–9.
Porcaro AB, Siracusano S, De Luyk N, et al. Low-risk prostate cancer and tumor upgrading in the surgical specimen. Analysis of clinical factors predicitng tumor upgrading to higher Gleason patterns in a contemporary series of patients who have been evaluated according to the modified Gleason score grading system. Urol Int. 2016; 97: 32–41.
Schiffmann J, Wenzel P, Salomon G, et al. Heterogeneity in D’Amico classification-based low-risk prostate cancer: differences in upgrading and upstaging according to active surveillance eligibility. Urol Oncol. 2015;33:329:e13–e19.
Uzzo RG, Wei JT, Waldbaum RS, et al. The influence of prostate size on cancer detection. Urol, 1995;46:831–6.
Kulkarni GS, Al-Azab R, Lockwood G, et al. Evidence for a biopsy derived grade artifact among larger prostate glands. J Urol. 2006;175:505–9.
Lim T, Park SC, Jeong YB, et al. Predictors of Gleason score upgrading after radical prostatectomy in low-risk prostate cancer. Korean J Urol. 2009;50:1182–7.
Kojima M, Troncoso P, Babaian RJ. Influence of noncancerous prostatic tissue volume on prostate-specific antigen. Urology. 1998;51:293–9.
- Abstract Viewed: 416 times
- 7796/pdf Downloaded: 165 times