Literature DB >> 17826654

Does prostate biopsy Gleason score accurately express the biologic features of prostate cancer?

Kobi Stav1, Sandbank Judith, Herbert Merald, Dan Leibovici, Arie Lindner, Amnon Zisman.   

Abstract

PURPOSE: To correlate Gleason grading in prostate biopsies with the final Gleason score in radical prostatectomy specimens, and to investigate predictors for concordance and preoperative undergrading.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: The charts of 303 patients who underwent radical retropubic prostatectomy between 1992 and 2002 were retrospectively reviewed. Prostate biopsy and surgical specimen Gleason scores and correlative clinical data were recorded, and a multivariate analysis model was applied.
RESULTS: Data were available in 293 cases (97%). The preoperative biopsy predicted the prostatectomy Gleason score accurately in 51% and undergraded them in 41% of the patients. Accuracy rates were significantly higher for Gleason scores 7-10 compared to low Gleason scores (2-4), concordance 90% and 6%, respectively (P < 0.01). Moreover, accuracy rates were higher in patients with prostate-specific antigen (PSA) higher than 10 ng/ml (85% vs. 40%; P < 0.01) and prostate glands smaller than 55 g (68% vs. 38%; P < 0.01). In 233 patients, the biopsy Gleason score did not include 4 or 5 components. Upgrading to 4 or 5 in 1 of the components was noted in 32 patients (14%). Multivariate analysis revealed that upgrading is associated with preoperative serum PSA (odds ratio 1.05; P < 0.05) and the percentage of positive cores in the biopsy (odds ratio 1.47; P < 0.001).
CONCLUSIONS: Biopsy Gleason scores of 2-4, low PSA, and a low percentage of positive cores in the biopsy can predict the biopsy driven biologically significant undergrading of 1 of the components of the Gleason score that may adversely affect therapeutic decisions.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2007        PMID: 17826654     DOI: 10.1016/j.urolonc.2006.12.013

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Urol Oncol        ISSN: 1078-1439            Impact factor:   3.498


  12 in total

Review 1.  Current perspectives on Gleason grading of prostate cancer.

Authors:  Kenneth A Iczkowski; M Scott Lucia
Journal:  Curr Urol Rep       Date:  2011-06       Impact factor: 3.092

2.  The value of second-opinion pathology diagnoses on prostate biopsies from patients referred for management of prostate cancer.

Authors:  Al B Barqawi; Ruslan Turcanu; Eduard J Gamito; Scott M Lucia; Colin I O'Donnell; E David Crawford; David D La Rosa; Francisco G La Rosa
Journal:  Int J Clin Exp Pathol       Date:  2011-06-12

3.  T2-weighted MRI-derived textural features reflect prostate cancer aggressiveness: preliminary results.

Authors:  Gabriel Nketiah; Mattijs Elschot; Eugene Kim; Jose R Teruel; Tom W Scheenen; Tone F Bathen; Kirsten M Selnæs
Journal:  Eur Radiol       Date:  2016-12-14       Impact factor: 5.315

4.  Role of active surveillance in the management of localized prostate cancer.

Authors:  Allison S Glass; Matthew R Cooperberg; Maxwell V Meng; Peter R Carroll
Journal:  J Natl Cancer Inst Monogr       Date:  2012-12

5.  Prostate MRI: diffusion-weighted imaging at 1.5T correlates better with prostatectomy Gleason Grades than TRUS-guided biopsies in peripheral zone tumours.

Authors:  Leonardo Kayat Bittencourt; Jelle O Barentsz; Luiz Carlos Duarte de Miranda; Emerson Leandro Gasparetto
Journal:  Eur Radiol       Date:  2011-09-14       Impact factor: 5.315

6.  Management of prostate cancer in port harcourt, Nigeria: changing patterns.

Authors:  On Ekeke; Oe Amusan; N Eke
Journal:  J West Afr Coll Surg       Date:  2012-07

7.  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.

Authors:  Jonathan I Epstein; Zhaoyong Feng; Bruce J Trock; Phillip M Pierorazio
Journal:  Eur Urol       Date:  2012-02-08       Impact factor: 20.096

8.  Frequency and determinants of disagreement and error in gleason scores: a population-based study of prostate cancer.

Authors:  Michael Goodman; Kevin C Ward; Adeboye O Osunkoya; Milton W Datta; Daniel Luthringer; Andrew N Young; Katerina Marks; Vaunita Cohen; Jan C Kennedy; Michael J Haber; Mahul B Amin
Journal:  Prostate       Date:  2012-01-06       Impact factor: 4.104

9.  Urinary TMPRSS2:ERG and PCA3 in an active surveillance cohort: results from a baseline analysis in the Canary Prostate Active Surveillance Study.

Authors:  Daniel W Lin; Lisa F Newcomb; Elissa C Brown; James D Brooks; Peter R Carroll; Ziding Feng; Martin E Gleave; Raymond S Lance; Martin G Sanda; Ian M Thompson; John T Wei; Peter S Nelson
Journal:  Clin Cancer Res       Date:  2013-03-20       Impact factor: 12.531

10.  A second opinion pathology review improves the diagnostic concordance between prostate cancer biopsy and radical prostatectomy specimens.

Authors:  Takanori Maehara; Takuya Sadahira; Yuki Maruyama; Koichiro Wada; Motoo Araki; Masami Watanabe; Toyohiko Watanabe; Hiroyuki Yanai; Yasutomo Nasu
Journal:  Urol Ann       Date:  2021-03-04
View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.