Literature DB >> 16890675

Prostate cancers scored as Gleason 6 on prostate biopsy are frequently Gleason 7 tumors at radical prostatectomy: implication on outcome.

Jehonathan H Pinthus1, Maciej Witkos, N E Fleshner, Joan Sweet, Andrew Evans, M A Jewett, Murray Krahn, Shabir Alibhai, John Trachtenberg.   

Abstract

PURPOSE: Differentiation between Gleason score 6 and 7 in prostate biopsy is important for treatment decision making. Nevertheless, under grading errors compared with the actual pathological grade at radical prostatectomy are common. We compared the characteristics and outcomes of tumors that were scored 6 on prostate biopsy but were 7 on subsequent radical prostatectomy pathological evaluation to those in tumors with a consistent rating of Gleason score 6 or 7 at biopsy and surgery.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: We performed a retrospective database analysis from our referral center (1989 to 2004). We compared pre-prostatectomy characteristics, radical prostatectomy pathological features and the post-radical prostatectomy prostate specific antigen failure rate, defined as any 2 consecutive detectable prostate specific antigen measurements, in 3 subgroups of patients, including 156 with matched Gleason score 6 in the prostate biopsy and radical prostatectomy, 205 with upgraded Gleason score 6/7, that is prostate biopsy Gleason score 6 and radical prostatectomy Gleason score 7, and 412 with matched Gleason score 7 in the prostate biopsy and radical prostatectomy.
RESULTS: Radical prostatectomy Gleason score matched the prostate biopsy score in 38.2% of biopsy Gleason score 6 and 81.4% of biopsy Gleason score 7 cases. Higher prostate specific antigen was associated and an increased percent of cancer in the prostate biopsy was predictive of discordance between the prostate biopsy and radical prostatectomy Gleason scores (p <0.001). Margin (p = 0.0075) or seminal vesicle involvement (p = 0.0002), cancer volume (p <0.001) and the prostate specific antigen failures rate (p = 0.014) were significantly higher in under graded Gleason score 7 cancer compared to those in matched Gleason score 6 cases. However, they were comparable to those with a matched Gleason score 7 tumor grade (p = 0.66).
CONCLUSIONS: Almost half of tumors graded Gleason score 6 at biopsy are Gleason score 7 at surgery. Upgraded Gleason score 6 to 7 tumors have outcomes similar to those of genuine Gleason score 7 cancer. For prostate biopsy Gleason score 6 tumors clinicians should consider the overall likelihood of tumor upgrading as well as specific patient characteristics, such as prostate specific antigen and the percent of tumor in the prostate biopsy, when contemplating treatments that are optimized for low grade tumors, including watchful waiting or brachytherapy.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2006        PMID: 16890675     DOI: 10.1016/j.juro.2006.04.102

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Urol        ISSN: 0022-5347            Impact factor:   7.450


  41 in total

1.  The influence of expertise of the surgical pathologist to undergrading, upgrading, and understaging of prostate cancer in patients undergoing subsequent radical prostatectomy.

Authors:  Attila Majoros; Attila Marcell Szász; Péter Nyirády; Eszter Székely; Péter Riesz; Attila Szendrői; Attila Keszthelyi; Janina Kulka; Imre Romics
Journal:  Int Urol Nephrol       Date:  2013-08-30       Impact factor: 2.370

2.  [Transrectal prostate biopsy: effective anesthesia, complications, and influence on clinical outcome after radical prostatectomy].

Authors:  G Müller; H Borrusch; I Knop; U Otto
Journal:  Urologe A       Date:  2011-04       Impact factor: 0.639

3.  Predictors of Gleason Score (GS) upgrading on subsequent prostatectomy: a single Institution study in a cohort of patients with GS 6.

Authors:  Vikas Mehta; Kevin Rycyna; Bart M M Baesens; Güliz A Barkan; Gladell P Paner; Robert C Flanigan; Eva M Wojcik; Girish Venkataraman
Journal:  Int J Clin Exp Pathol       Date:  2012-07-29

4.  Predicting the risk of harboring high-grade disease for patients diagnosed with prostate cancer scored as Gleason ≤ 6 on biopsy cores.

Authors:  Thomas Seisen; Françoise Roudot-Thoraval; Pierre Olivier Bosset; Aurélien Beaugerie; Yves Allory; Dimitri Vordos; Claude-Clément Abbou; Alexandre De La Taille; Laurent Salomon
Journal:  World J Urol       Date:  2014-07-02       Impact factor: 4.226

5.  The role of PSA density to predict a pathological tumour upgrade between needle biopsy and radical prostatectomy for low risk clinical prostate cancer in the modified Gleason system era.

Authors:  Stavros Sfoungaristos; Ioannis Katafigiotis; Petros Perimenis
Journal:  Can Urol Assoc J       Date:  2013 Nov-Dec       Impact factor: 1.862

6.  Prostate gland biopsies and prostatectomies: an Ontario community hospital experience.

Authors:  Ken J Newell; John F Amrhein; Rashmikant J Desai; Paul F Middlebrook; Todd M Webster; Barry W Sawka; Brian F Rudrick
Journal:  Can Urol Assoc J       Date:  2008-10       Impact factor: 1.862

Review 7.  [Trends in prostate biopsy interpretation].

Authors:  J Köllermann; G Sauter
Journal:  Urologe A       Date:  2009-03       Impact factor: 0.639

8.  Upgrading of Gleason score on radical prostatectomy specimen compared to the pre-operative needle core biopsy: an Indian experience.

Authors:  Rishi Nayyar; Prabhjot Singh; Narmada P Gupta; Ashok K Hemal; Prem N Dogra; Amlesh Seth; Rajeev Kumar
Journal:  Indian J Urol       Date:  2010 Jan-Mar

9.  Concordance between transrectal ultrasound guided biopsy results and radical prostatectomy final pathology: Are we getting better at predicting final pathology?

Authors:  Richard Walker; Uri Lindner; Alyssa Louis; Robin Kalnin; Marguerite Ennis; Michael Nesbitt; Theodorus H van der Kwast; Antonio Finelli; Neil E Fleshner; Alexandre R Zlotta; Michael A S Jewett; Robert Hamilton; Girish Kulkarni; John Trachtenberg
Journal:  Can Urol Assoc J       Date:  2014 Jan-Feb       Impact factor: 1.862

10.  Contrast-enhanced harmonic ultrasonography for the assessment of prostate cancer aggressiveness: a preliminary study.

Authors:  Yunkai Zhu; Yaqing Chen; Jun Jiang; Ren Wang; Yongchang Zhou; Huizhen Zhang
Journal:  Korean J Radiol       Date:  2009-12-28       Impact factor: 3.500

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.