Literature DB >> 24069097

Needle biopsy size and pathological Gleason Score diagnosis: No evidence for a link.

Antonio Cicione1, Francesco Cantiello, Cosimo De Nunzio, Andrea Tubaro, Rocco Damiano.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Biopsy Gleason score (GS), in combination with other clinical parameters, is important to take a therapeutic decision for patients with diagnosis of localized prostate cancer. However, preoperative GS is often upgraded after a radical prostatectomy. Increasing the amount of tissue in prostate biopsy may be a way to avoid this issue. We evaluate the influence of a larger biopsy needle size on the concordance between biopsy and pathological GS.
METHODS: We analyzed paired biopsies and prostatectomy specimens from 104 cases of men with clinically localized prostate cancer. At the time of prostate biopsy, the patients were prospectively randomized into two needle groups (16-Gauge [G] and 18G) using a 1:1 ratio. GS concordance was estimated performing kappa statistic testing, overall concordance rate and risk to under grade biopsy GS=6. A logistic regression analysis was performed to evaluate the patients' characteristics as possible risk factors.
RESULTS: The overall concordance between prostate biopsy and pathological GS was 76.9% and 75.6% (p = 0.875) and the k values were 0.821 and 0.811 (p = 0.424), respectively, for 16G and 18G needle study groups. The risk to undergrade a biopsy GS=6 was 21.1% and 15.4% (p = 0.709) using a 16G and 18G needle, respectively. Age, prostate-specific antigen, prostate volume and needle calibre were not independently associated with a higher risk of GS discordance.
CONCLUSIONS: Needle size does not affect the concordance between biopsy and pathological GS. Although GS is not the only way to determine treatment, it is still an unresolved urological issue.

Entities:  

Year:  2013        PMID: 24069097      PMCID: PMC3776030          DOI: 10.5489/cuaj.311

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Can Urol Assoc J        ISSN: 1911-6470            Impact factor:   1.862


  19 in total

1.  Should a Gleason score be assigned to a minute focus of carcinoma on prostate biopsy?

Authors:  M A Rubin; R Dunn; N Kambham; C P Misick; K M O'Toole
Journal:  Am J Surg Pathol       Date:  2000-12       Impact factor: 6.394

Review 2.  Gleason grading of prostate cancer in needle biopsies or radical prostatectomy specimens: contemporary approach, current clinical significance and sources of pathology discrepancies.

Authors:  Rodolfo Montironi; Roberta Mazzuccheli; Marina Scarpelli; Antonio Lopez-Beltran; Giovanni Fellegara; Ferran Algaba
Journal:  BJU Int       Date:  2005-06       Impact factor: 5.588

3.  Correlation between Gleason score of needle biopsy and radical prostatectomy specimen: accuracy and clinical implications.

Authors:  M S Cookson; N E Fleshner; S M Soloway; W R Fair
Journal:  J Urol       Date:  1997-02       Impact factor: 7.450

4.  Extended prostate needle biopsy improves concordance of Gleason grading between prostate needle biopsy and radical prostatectomy.

Authors:  Ignacio F San Francisco; William C DeWolf; Seymour Rosen; Melissa Upton; Aria F Olumi
Journal:  J Urol       Date:  2003-01       Impact factor: 7.450

5.  Increased accuracy of biopsy Gleason score obtained by extended needle biopsy.

Authors:  P Emiliozzi; S Maymone; A Paterno; P Scarpone; M Amini; G Proietti; M Cordahi; V Pansadoro
Journal:  J Urol       Date:  2004-12       Impact factor: 7.450

6.  Effect of needle size on cancer detection, pain, bleeding and infection in TRUS-guided prostate biopsies: A prospective trial.

Authors:  Michael McCormack; Alain Duclos; Mathieu Latour; Marie Hélène McCormack; Daniel Liberman; Orchidee Djahangirian; Josette Bergeron; Luc Valiquette; Kevin Zorn
Journal:  Can Urol Assoc J       Date:  2012-04       Impact factor: 1.862

7.  Underestimation of Gleason score at prostate biopsy reflects sampling error in lower volume tumours.

Authors:  Niall M Corcoran; Chris M Hovens; Matthew K H Hong; John Pedersen; Rowan G Casey; Stephen Connolly; Justin Peters; Laurence Harewood; Martin E Gleave; S Larry Goldenberg; Anthony J Costello
Journal:  BJU Int       Date:  2011-09-02       Impact factor: 5.588

Review 8.  An update of the Gleason grading system.

Authors:  Jonathan I Epstein
Journal:  J Urol       Date:  2009-12-14       Impact factor: 7.450

9.  Effect of the number of core biopsies of the prostate on predicting Gleason score of prostate cancer.

Authors:  D Thickman; W C Speers; P J Philpott; H Shapiro
Journal:  J Urol       Date:  1996-07       Impact factor: 7.450

10.  Competing risk analysis of men aged 55 to 74 years at diagnosis managed conservatively for clinically localized prostate cancer.

Authors:  P C Albertsen; J A Hanley; D F Gleason; M J Barry
Journal:  JAMA       Date:  1998-09-16       Impact factor: 56.272

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.