David Schreiber1, Andrew T Wong1, Justin Rineer2, Jeremy Weedon3, David Schwartz1. 1. Department of Veterans Affairs, New York Harbor Healthcare System, Brooklyn, New York, USA SUNY Downstate Medical Center, Brooklyn, New York, USA. 2. UF Orlando Health, Orlando, Florida, USA. 3. SUNY Downstate Medical Center, Brooklyn, New York, USA.
Abstract
AIMS: To use the Surveillance, Epidemiology and End Results database in order to evaluate prostate biopsy concordance in a large population-based sample. METHODS: We identified 34 195 men who were diagnosed with prostate cancer and underwent a radical prostatectomy from 2010 to 2011. All patients also had to have both clinical and pathological Gleason scores available for analysis. The concordance of the biopsy Gleason score to the pathological Gleason score was analysed using the coefficient of agreement (κ). Univariate and multivariate logistic regression analyses were performed to determine potential factors that may impact concordance of Gleason score. RESULTS: Overall, the clinical and pathological Gleason scores matched in 55.4% of patients. The concordance rates were 55.3% for Gleason 6, 66.9% for Gleason 3+4, 42.9% for Gleason 4+3 and 24.8% for Gleason 8, with frequent downgrading to Gleason 7. The κ for Gleason score concordance was 0.36 (95% CI 0.35 to 0.37), indicating fair agreement. The weighted κ for Gleason score concordance was 0.51 (95% CI 0.50 to 0.52), indicating moderate agreement. Additionally, the Bowker tests of symmetry were highly significant (p<0.001), indicating that when discordant findings were present, pathological upgrading was more common than downgrading. CONCLUSIONS: This study is, to our knowledge, the largest contemporary study of prostate biopsy concordance. We found that there continues to be significant Gleason migration both upward from biopsy Gleason 6 or 3+4 and downgrading from biopsy Gleason ≥8. Further studies are needed to better determine other potential genomic or biologic factors that may help increase the biopsy Gleason concordance. Published by the BMJ Publishing Group Limited. For permission to use (where not already granted under a licence) please go to http://group.bmj.com/group/rights-licensing/permissions.
AIMS: To use the Surveillance, Epidemiology and End Results database in order to evaluate prostate biopsy concordance in a large population-based sample. METHODS: We identified 34 195 men who were diagnosed with prostate cancer and underwent a radical prostatectomy from 2010 to 2011. All patients also had to have both clinical and pathological Gleason scores available for analysis. The concordance of the biopsy Gleason score to the pathological Gleason score was analysed using the coefficient of agreement (κ). Univariate and multivariate logistic regression analyses were performed to determine potential factors that may impact concordance of Gleason score. RESULTS: Overall, the clinical and pathological Gleason scores matched in 55.4% of patients. The concordance rates were 55.3% for Gleason 6, 66.9% for Gleason 3+4, 42.9% for Gleason 4+3 and 24.8% for Gleason 8, with frequent downgrading to Gleason 7. The κ for Gleason score concordance was 0.36 (95% CI 0.35 to 0.37), indicating fair agreement. The weighted κ for Gleason score concordance was 0.51 (95% CI 0.50 to 0.52), indicating moderate agreement. Additionally, the Bowker tests of symmetry were highly significant (p<0.001), indicating that when discordant findings were present, pathological upgrading was more common than downgrading. CONCLUSIONS: This study is, to our knowledge, the largest contemporary study of prostate biopsy concordance. We found that there continues to be significant Gleason migration both upward from biopsy Gleason 6 or 3+4 and downgrading from biopsy Gleason ≥8. Further studies are needed to better determine other potential genomic or biologic factors that may help increase the biopsy Gleason concordance. Published by the BMJ Publishing Group Limited. For permission to use (where not already granted under a licence) please go to http://group.bmj.com/group/rights-licensing/permissions.
Authors: Liang G Qu; Modher Al-Shawi; Tess Howard; Nathan Papa; Cedric Poyet; Brian Kelly; A J Matthew Egan; Nathan Lawrentschuk; Damien Bolton; Gregory S Jack Journal: Int Urol Nephrol Date: 2021-10-08 Impact factor: 2.370
Authors: Emanuel Darius Cata; Iulia Andras; Teodora Telecan; Attila Tamas-Szora; Radu-Tudor Coman; Dan-Vasile Stanca; Ioan Coman; Nicolae Crisan Journal: Med Pharm Rep Date: 2021-04-29
Authors: B H E Jansen; F H K Oudshoorn; A M Tijans; M J Yska; A P Lont; E R P Collette; J A Nieuwenhuijzen; A N Vis Journal: World J Urol Date: 2018-04-21 Impact factor: 4.226
Authors: Kerri Beckmann; Michael O'Callaghan; Andrew Vincent; Penelope Cohen; Martin Borg; David Roder; Sue Evans; Jeremy Millar; Kim Moretti Journal: Asian J Urol Date: 2019-03-07
Authors: Kianoush Falahkheirkhah; Tao Guo; Michael Hwang; Pheroze Tamboli; Christopher G Wood; Jose A Karam; Kanishka Sircar; Rohit Bhargava Journal: Lab Invest Date: 2021-12-28 Impact factor: 5.502
Authors: Leander Van Neste; Alan W Partin; Grant D Stewart; Jonathan I Epstein; David J Harrison; Wim Van Criekinge Journal: Prostate Date: 2016-04-28 Impact factor: 4.104