Literature DB >> 24578745

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

Richard Walker1, Uri Lindner1, Alyssa Louis1, Robin Kalnin2, Marguerite Ennis3, Michael Nesbitt1, Theodorus H van der Kwast4, Antonio Finelli1, Neil E Fleshner1, Alexandre R Zlotta1, Michael A S Jewett1, Robert Hamilton1, Girish Kulkarni1, John Trachtenberg1.   

Abstract

INTRODUCTION: Inaccuracy in biopsy Gleason scoring poses a risk to men who may then receive inappropriate treatment. We assess whether there was a change in discordance rates between biopsy and radical prostatectomy at our institution in recent years, while considering the implementation of active surveillance and the shift in biopsy scores caused by the 2005 International Society of Urologic Pathology update to the Gleason scoring protocol.
METHODS: We reviewed patients who underwent radical prostatectomy at our institution between May 2004 and April 2011. We analyzed clinical and pathological correlates of upgrading in 3 subgroups: Gleason sum (GS) 6/6, GS6/7 and GS7/7, where the sum preceding the dash was determined from biopsy and the subsequent sum was determined from the radical prostatectomy specimen. We applied the log-rank test and Cox model to a Kaplan Meier analysis of biochemical recurrence in the subgroups, and also mapped GS6/7 discordance over time.
RESULTS: In total, 1717 patients met our inclusion criteria. The 3 subgroups had significantly different mean prostate-specific antigen, patient age, tumour volume, margin status, pathologic stage, prostate weight, transrectal ultrasound volume and rate of progression (p < 0.05). We noted a multiphasic trend with a fall in discordance after 2005. However, there was no sustained trend over the study period taken as a whole (p = 0.06).
CONCLUSIONS: Although no sustained trend was observed, the falling discordance after 2005 may reflect the accommodation to the Gleason scoring update, while the gradual adoption of active surveillance may have led to the otherwise increasing trends. However, our observations may also be spurious biopsy sampling errors.

Entities:  

Year:  2014        PMID: 24578745      PMCID: PMC3929481          DOI: 10.5489/cuaj.751

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


  19 in total

1.  The significance of modified Gleason grading of prostatic carcinoma in biopsy and radical prostatectomy specimens.

Authors:  Burkhard Helpap; Lars Egevad
Journal:  Virchows Arch       Date:  2006-11-08       Impact factor: 4.064

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

Authors:  Jehonathan H Pinthus; Maciej Witkos; N E Fleshner; Joan Sweet; Andrew Evans; M A Jewett; Murray Krahn; Shabir Alibhai; John Trachtenberg
Journal:  J Urol       Date:  2006-09       Impact factor: 7.450

3.  Radical prostatectomy versus observation for localized prostate cancer.

Authors:  Timothy J Wilt; Michael K Brawer; Karen M Jones; Michael J Barry; William J Aronson; Steven Fox; Jeffrey R Gingrich; John T Wei; Patricia Gilhooly; B Mayer Grob; Imad Nsouli; Padmini Iyer; Ruben Cartagena; Glenn Snider; Claus Roehrborn; Roohollah Sharifi; William Blank; Parikshit Pandya; Gerald L Andriole; Daniel Culkin; Thomas Wheeler
Journal:  N Engl J Med       Date:  2012-07-19       Impact factor: 91.245

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.  Active surveillance for prostate cancer: patient selection and management.

Authors:  L Klotz
Journal:  Curr Oncol       Date:  2010-09       Impact factor: 3.677

Review 6.  National Comprehensive Cancer Network guidelines for the management of prostate cancer.

Authors:  Douglas Scherr; Peter W Swindle; Peter T Scardino
Journal:  Urology       Date:  2003-02       Impact factor: 2.649

7.  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

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.  Pathologic and clinical findings to predict tumor extent of nonpalpable (stage T1c) prostate cancer.

Authors:  J I Epstein; P C Walsh; M Carmichael; C B Brendler
Journal:  JAMA       Date:  1994-02-02       Impact factor: 56.272

10.  Repeat transrectal ultrasound-guided prostate biopsy: a strategy to improve the reliability of needle biopsy grading in patients with well-differentiated prostate cancer.

Authors:  N E Fleshner; M S Cookson; S M Soloway; W R Fair
Journal:  Urology       Date:  1998-10       Impact factor: 2.649

View more
  2 in total

1.  The Role of Magnetic Resonance Image Guided Prostate Biopsy in Stratifying Men for Risk of Extracapsular Extension at Radical Prostatectomy.

Authors:  Dima Raskolnikov; Arvin K George; Soroush Rais-Bahrami; Baris Turkbey; M Minhaj Siddiqui; Nabeel A Shakir; Chinonyerem Okoro; Jason T Rothwax; Annerleim Walton-Diaz; Sandeep Sankineni; Daniel Su; Lambros Stamatakis; Maria J Merino; Peter L Choyke; Bradford J Wood; Peter A Pinto
Journal:  J Urol       Date:  2015-01-23       Impact factor: 7.450

2.  TRUS-Guided Target Biopsy for a PI-RADS 3-5 Index Lesion to Reduce Gleason Score Underestimation: A Propensity Score Matching Analysis.

Authors:  Jae Hoon Chung; Byung Kwan Park; Wan Song; Minyong Kang; Hyun Hwan Sung; Hwang Gyun Jeon; Byong Chang Jeong; Seong Il Seo; Seong Soo Jeon; Hyun Moo Lee
Journal:  Front Oncol       Date:  2022-01-24       Impact factor: 6.244

  2 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.