Literature DB >> 26931560

Clinical impact of prostate biopsy undergrading in an academic and community setting.

Ashkan Mortezavi1, Etienne Xavier Keller2, Cédric Poyet2, Thomas Hermanns2, Karim Saba2, Marco Randazzo2, Christian Daniel Fankhauser2, Peter J Wild3, Holger Moch3, Tullio Sulser2, Daniel Eberli4.   

Abstract

PURPOSE: To evaluate whether the rate of Gleason score (GS) upgrade on final pathology, the rate of positive surgical margins (PSM) and the rate of biochemical recurrence (BCR) after radical prostatectomy (RP) were different if prostate biopsy (PB) was graded by community pathologists (CP) as compared to specialized uro-pathologists (UP).
METHODS: A consecutive series of patients undergoing RP in our institution between 2005 and 2013 were retrospectively reviewed. Any GS higher or lower in RP specimen as compared to PB GS was defined as GS upgrade or downgrade, respectively. Additionally, stratification for the new ISUP 2014 grading system was performed. Predictors of GS upgrade and PSMs and prognostic parameters for BCR were assessed by stepwise logistic regression models and by multivariable Cox regression analyses, respectively.
RESULTS: A total of 786 patients were available for analysis, and median follow-up was 36 months (1-101 months). A GS upgrade was found in 345 patients (43.9 %) and a GS downgrade in 91 patients (11.6 %). Discordance between PB GS and RP GS was significantly more frequent when grading had been performed by a CP (50.5 % upgrade, 9.0 % downgrade) than by a UP (33.1 % upgrade, 15.7 % downgrade, p < 0.001). CP evaluation was an independent predictor for GS upgrade (odds ratio [OR] 1.91, p < 0.001) and for PSMs (OR 1.69, p = 0.003), as well as an independent predictor of BCR (hazard ratio [HR] 1.65, p = 0.028).
CONCLUSIONS: Pathologic evaluation of PBs by a dedicated UP should be recommended to reduce the rate of biopsy undergrading, PSM and BCR after RP.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Gleason score; Positive surgical margin; Prognosis; Prostate cancer; Transrectal biopsy; Undergrading

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2016        PMID: 26931560     DOI: 10.1007/s00345-016-1788-4

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  World J Urol        ISSN: 0724-4983            Impact factor:   4.226


  21 in total

1.  Biopsies performed at tertiary care centers are superior to referral biopsies in predicting pathologic Gleason sum.

Authors:  Pierre I Karakiewicz; Felix K-H Chun; Andrea Gallina; Nazareno Suardi; Alberto Briganti; Andreas Erbersdobler; Thorsten Schlomm; Jochen Walz; Eike Currlin; Uwe Michl; Alexander Haese; Philippe Arjane; Hans Heinzer; Markus Graefen; Hartwig Huland
Journal:  J Endourol       Date:  2008-03       Impact factor: 2.942

2.  Upgrade in Gleason score between prostate biopsies and pathology following radical prostatectomy significantly impacts upon the risk of biochemical recurrence.

Authors:  Niall M Corcoran; Matthew K H Hong; Rowan G Casey; Antonio Hurtado-Coll; Justin Peters; Laurence Harewood; S Larry Goldenberg; Chris M Hovens; Anthony J Costello; Martin E Gleave
Journal:  BJU Int       Date:  2011-03-28       Impact factor: 5.588

Review 3.  Long-term biochemical disease-free and cancer-specific survival following anatomic radical retropubic prostatectomy. The 15-year Johns Hopkins experience.

Authors:  M Han; A W Partin; C R Pound; J I Epstein; P C Walsh
Journal:  Urol Clin North Am       Date:  2001-08       Impact factor: 2.241

4.  Clinical biostatistics. LIV. The biostatistics of concordance.

Authors:  M S Kramer; A R Feinstein
Journal:  Clin Pharmacol Ther       Date:  1981-01       Impact factor: 6.875

Review 5.  Histologic grading of prostate cancer: a perspective.

Authors:  D F Gleason
Journal:  Hum Pathol       Date:  1992-03       Impact factor: 3.466

Review 6.  Best practices in robot-assisted radical prostatectomy: recommendations of the Pasadena Consensus Panel.

Authors:  Francesco Montorsi; Timothy G Wilson; Raymond C Rosen; Thomas E Ahlering; Walter Artibani; Peter R Carroll; Anthony Costello; James A Eastham; Vincenzo Ficarra; Giorgio Guazzoni; Mani Menon; Giacomo Novara; Vipul R Patel; Jens-Uwe Stolzenburg; Henk Van der Poel; Hein Van Poppel; Alexandre Mottrie
Journal:  Eur Urol       Date:  2012-06-07       Impact factor: 20.096

Review 7.  The 2014 International Society of Urological Pathology (ISUP) Consensus Conference on Gleason Grading of Prostatic Carcinoma: Definition of Grading Patterns and Proposal for a New Grading System.

Authors:  Jonathan I Epstein; Lars Egevad; Mahul B Amin; Brett Delahunt; John R Srigley; Peter A Humphrey
Journal:  Am J Surg Pathol       Date:  2016-02       Impact factor: 6.394

8.  Agreement of Gleason score on prostate biopsy and radical prostatectomy specimen: is there improvement with increased number of biopsy cylinders and the 2005 revised Gleason scoring?

Authors:  Charles Van Praet; Louis Libbrecht; Frederiek D'Hondt; Karel Decaestecker; Valérie Fonteyne; Stephanie Verschuere; Sylvie Rottey; Marleen Praet; Pieter De Visschere; Nicolaas Lumen
Journal:  Clin Genitourin Cancer       Date:  2013-11-12       Impact factor: 2.872

9.  A Contemporary Prostate Cancer Grading System: A Validated Alternative to the Gleason Score.

Authors:  Jonathan I Epstein; Michael J Zelefsky; Daniel D Sjoberg; Joel B Nelson; Lars Egevad; Cristina Magi-Galluzzi; Andrew J Vickers; Anil V Parwani; Victor E Reuter; Samson W Fine; James A Eastham; Peter Wiklund; Misop Han; Chandana A Reddy; Jay P Ciezki; Tommy Nyberg; Eric A Klein
Journal:  Eur Urol       Date:  2015-07-10       Impact factor: 20.096

10.  Focal therapy: patients, interventions, and outcomes--a report from a consensus meeting.

Authors:  Ian A Donaldson; Roberto Alonzi; Dean Barratt; Eric Barret; Viktor Berge; Simon Bott; David Bottomley; Scott Eggener; Behfar Ehdaie; Mark Emberton; Richard Hindley; Tom Leslie; Alec Miners; Neil McCartan; Caroline M Moore; Peter Pinto; Thomas J Polascik; Lucy Simmons; Jan van der Meulen; Arnauld Villers; Sarah Willis; Hashim U Ahmed
Journal:  Eur Urol       Date:  2014-10-01       Impact factor: 20.096

View more
  4 in total

1.  Prognostic value of unifocal and multifocal positive surgical margins in a large series of robot-assisted radical prostatectomy for prostate cancer.

Authors:  Etienne Xavier Keller; Jacqueline Bachofner; Anna Jelena Britschgi; Karim Saba; Ashkan Mortezavi; Basil Kaufmann; Christian D Fankhauser; Peter Wild; Tullio Sulser; Thomas Hermanns; Daniel Eberli; Cédric Poyet
Journal:  World J Urol       Date:  2018-12-05       Impact factor: 4.226

2.  Transrectal Ultrasound-guided Versus Transperineal Mapping Prostate Biopsy: Complication Comparison.

Authors:  Vassilios M Skouteris; E David Crawford; Vladimir Mouraviev; Paul Arangua; Marios Panagiotis Metsinis; Michael Skouteris; George Zacharopoulos; Nelson N Stone
Journal:  Rev Urol       Date:  2018

Review 3.  Developing a National Center of Excellence for Prostate Imaging.

Authors:  Annerleim Walton-Diaz; Manuel Madariaga-Venegas; Nicolas Aviles; Juan Carlos Roman; Ivan Gallegos; Mauricio Burotto
Journal:  Curr Urol Rep       Date:  2019-09-02       Impact factor: 3.092

4.  Histopathology: ditch the slides, because digital and 3D are on show.

Authors:  Ilaria Jansen; Marit Lucas; C Dilara Savci-Heijink; Sybren L Meijer; Henk A Marquering; Daniel M de Bruin; Patricia J Zondervan
Journal:  World J Urol       Date:  2018-02-02       Impact factor: 4.226

  4 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.