OBJECTIVES: To assess the changes in the concordance rate of prostate biopsy and radical prostatectomy (RP) Gleason score (GS) over 15 years. METHODS: We reviewed 1670 consecutive patients who underwent RP between 1992 and 2006. We excluded patients who underwent neoadjuvant hormone therapy or salvage RP, or who had incomplete data. Patients who had RP during 1992 through 1996, 1997 through 2001, and 2002 through 2006 were assigned to groups 1, 2, and 3, respectively. All clinical and pathological data were collected retrospectively. We defined overgrading as a biopsy GS higher than the RP Gleason score. Undergrading was a biopsy GS less than the RP Gleason score. The GS concordance between biopsy and RP was evaluated by kappa coefficient. RESULTS: A total of 1363 patients satisfied the inclusion criteria. Biopsy and RP Gleason score categories correlated exactly in 937 (69%) men. Gleason undergrading occurred in 361 (26%) men and overgrading in 65 (5%). The exact correlation of GS between biopsy and RP was 58%, 66%, and 75% in groups 1, 2, and 3, respectively. The most common discordant finding was undergrading of the biopsy specimen. The number of cases with exact correlation was highest in GS 7 (78%). Undergrading was more in GS 6 or less (35%) and overgrading was more in the GS 8 through 10 (35%) category. CONCLUSIONS: This large, single institutional study confirms increasing concordance of Gleason scores in prostate needle biopsies and surgical specimens. This is reassuring for patients assessing various treatment options for prostate cancer.
OBJECTIVES: To assess the changes in the concordance rate of prostate biopsy and radical prostatectomy (RP) Gleason score (GS) over 15 years. METHODS: We reviewed 1670 consecutive patients who underwent RP between 1992 and 2006. We excluded patients who underwent neoadjuvant hormone therapy or salvage RP, or who had incomplete data. Patients who had RP during 1992 through 1996, 1997 through 2001, and 2002 through 2006 were assigned to groups 1, 2, and 3, respectively. All clinical and pathological data were collected retrospectively. We defined overgrading as a biopsy GS higher than the RP Gleason score. Undergrading was a biopsy GS less than the RP Gleason score. The GS concordance between biopsy and RP was evaluated by kappa coefficient. RESULTS: A total of 1363 patients satisfied the inclusion criteria. Biopsy and RP Gleason score categories correlated exactly in 937 (69%) men. Gleason undergrading occurred in 361 (26%) men and overgrading in 65 (5%). The exact correlation of GS between biopsy and RP was 58%, 66%, and 75% in groups 1, 2, and 3, respectively. The most common discordant finding was undergrading of the biopsy specimen. The number of cases with exact correlation was highest in GS 7 (78%). Undergrading was more in GS 6 or less (35%) and overgrading was more in the GS 8 through 10 (35%) category. CONCLUSIONS: This large, single institutional study confirms increasing concordance of Gleason scores in prostate needle biopsies and surgical specimens. This is reassuring for patients assessing various treatment options for prostate cancer.
Authors: Kevin C McCammack; Natalie M Schenker-Ahmed; Nathan S White; Shaun R Best; Robert M Marks; Jared Heimbigner; Christopher J Kane; J Kellogg Parsons; Joshua M Kuperman; Hauke Bartsch; Rahul S Desikan; Rebecca A Rakow-Penner; Michael A Liss; Daniel J A Margolis; Steven S Raman; Ahmed Shabaik; Anders M Dale; David S Karow Journal: Abdom Radiol (NY) Date: 2016-05
Authors: K C McCammack; C J Kane; J K Parsons; N S White; N M Schenker-Ahmed; J M Kuperman; H Bartsch; R S Desikan; R A Rakow-Penner; D Adams; M A Liss; R F Mattrey; W G Bradley; D J A Margolis; S S Raman; A Shabaik; A M Dale; D S Karow Journal: Prostate Cancer Prostatic Dis Date: 2016-01-12 Impact factor: 5.554
Authors: A Pichon; Y Neuzillet; H Botto; J-P Raynaud; C Radulescu; V Molinié; J-M Herve; T Lebret Journal: Prostate Cancer Prostatic Dis Date: 2015-10-06 Impact factor: 5.554
Authors: Jussi Toivonen; Ileana Montoya Perez; Parisa Movahedi; Harri Merisaari; Marko Pesola; Pekka Taimen; Peter J Boström; Jonne Pohjankukka; Aida Kiviniemi; Tapio Pahikkala; Hannu J Aronen; Ivan Jambor Journal: PLoS One Date: 2019-07-08 Impact factor: 3.240
Authors: Kirsten Bouchelouche; Scott T Tagawa; Stanley J Goldsmith; Baris Turkbey; Jacek Capala; Peter Choyke Journal: Semin Nucl Med Date: 2011-01 Impact factor: 4.446
Authors: Wendy J M van de Ven; Christina A Hulsbergen-van de Kaa; Thomas Hambrock; Jelle O Barentsz; Henkjan J Huisman Journal: Eur Radiol Date: 2012-11-09 Impact factor: 5.315