Liza Quintana1, Ashley Ward1, Sean J Gerrin1, Elizabeth M Genega2, Seymour Rosen1, Martin G Sanda3, Andrew A Wagner4, Peter Chang4, William C DeWolf4, Huihui Ye5. 1. Department of Pathology, Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center, Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA. 2. Department of Pathology, Tufts Medical Center, Boston, MA. 3. Department of Urology, Emory University School of Medicine, Atlanta, GA. 4. Division of Urologic Surgery, Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center, Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA. 5. Department of Pathology, Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center, Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA. Electronic address: hye@bidmc.harvard.edu.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To compare the utility of saturation core biopsy and 12-core biopsy in detecting true Gleason grades, using final pathology in prostatectomy specimens as outcome measures, with a particular interest in Gleason upgrading. PATIENTS AND METHODS: We compared the concordance rates of Gleason grades diagnosed on biopsies and prostatectomy specimens in 375 consecutive patients, including 106 saturation biopsies (18-33 cores, median = 20 cores) and 269 12-core biopsies. Grading bias was addressed by a central rereview of all cases that had discordance in reporting high Gleason grades (Gleason grade ≥ 4) on biopsies and prostatectomy specimens. RESULTS: For patients with high Gleason grades on final pathology, saturation and 12-core biopsy schemes had a comparable sensitivity, specificity, negative and positive predictive values (72.5% vs 69.5%, 91.9% vs 97.6%, 64.2% vs 58.4%, and 94.3% vs 98.5%, respectively) in detecting high Gleason grades. On multivariate analysis, prebiopsy serum prostate-specific antigen and clinical T stage independently predicted Gleason upgrading; saturation biopsy was not a significant predictor. Approximately one-third of cases where high Gleason grade was not present in the biopsy were attributed to the confinement of high-grade tumors to unusual anatomic locations such as anterior lobes, apex, bladder neck, and parasagittal zones. CONCLUSION: Our study showed that Gleason misclassification rate is independent of the number of biopsy cores in systematic biopsy. One of the reasons for missing high Gleason grade tumors on systematic biopsy was unusual tumor location outside of the biopsy grid, supporting the need for improved detection technique such as magnetic resonance imaging-guided targeted biopsies.
OBJECTIVE: To compare the utility of saturation core biopsy and 12-core biopsy in detecting true Gleason grades, using final pathology in prostatectomy specimens as outcome measures, with a particular interest in Gleason upgrading. PATIENTS AND METHODS: We compared the concordance rates of Gleason grades diagnosed on biopsies and prostatectomy specimens in 375 consecutive patients, including 106 saturation biopsies (18-33 cores, median = 20 cores) and 269 12-core biopsies. Grading bias was addressed by a central rereview of all cases that had discordance in reporting high Gleason grades (Gleason grade ≥ 4) on biopsies and prostatectomy specimens. RESULTS: For patients with high Gleason grades on final pathology, saturation and 12-core biopsy schemes had a comparable sensitivity, specificity, negative and positive predictive values (72.5% vs 69.5%, 91.9% vs 97.6%, 64.2% vs 58.4%, and 94.3% vs 98.5%, respectively) in detecting high Gleason grades. On multivariate analysis, prebiopsy serum prostate-specific antigen and clinical T stage independently predicted Gleason upgrading; saturation biopsy was not a significant predictor. Approximately one-third of cases where high Gleason grade was not present in the biopsy were attributed to the confinement of high-grade tumors to unusual anatomic locations such as anterior lobes, apex, bladder neck, and parasagittal zones. CONCLUSION: Our study showed that Gleason misclassification rate is independent of the number of biopsy cores in systematic biopsy. One of the reasons for missing high Gleason grade tumors on systematic biopsy was unusual tumor location outside of the biopsy grid, supporting the need for improved detection technique such as magnetic resonance imaging-guided targeted biopsies.
Authors: Hemamali Samaratunga; Rodolfo Montironi; Lawrence True; Jonathan I Epstein; David F Griffiths; Peter A Humphrey; Theo van der Kwast; Thomas M Wheeler; John R Srigley; Brett Delahunt; Lars Egevad Journal: Mod Pathol Date: 2010-09-10 Impact factor: 7.842
Authors: Judson D Davies; Monty A Aghazadeh; Sharon Phillips; Shady Salem; Sam S Chang; Peter E Clark; Michael S Cookson; Rodney Davis; S Duke Herrell; David F Penson; Joseph A Smith; Daniel A Barocas Journal: J Urol Date: 2011-10-19 Impact factor: 7.450
Authors: Ignacio F San Francisco; Lillian Werner; Meredith M Regan; Marc B Garnick; Glenn Bubley; William C DeWolf Journal: J Urol Date: 2010-12-17 Impact factor: 7.450
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
Authors: Stephen A Boorjian; R Jeffrey Karnes; Paul L Crispen; Laureano J Rangel; Eric J Bergstralh; Thomas J Sebo; Michael L Blute Journal: J Urol Date: 2008-11-13 Impact factor: 7.450
Authors: Guido Sauter; Stefan Steurer; Till Sebastian Clauditz; Till Krech; Corinna Wittmer; Florian Lutz; Maximilian Lennartz; Tim Janssen; Nayira Hakimi; Ronald Simon; Mareike von Petersdorff-Campen; Frank Jacobsen; Katharina von Loga; Waldemar Wilczak; Sarah Minner; Maria Christina Tsourlakis; Viktoria Chirico; Alexander Haese; Hans Heinzer; Burkhard Beyer; Markus Graefen; Uwe Michl; Georg Salomon; Thomas Steuber; Lars Henrik Budäus; Elena Hekeler; Julia Malsy-Mink; Sven Kutzera; Christoph Fraune; Cosima Göbel; Hartwig Huland; Thorsten Schlomm Journal: Eur Urol Date: 2015-11-02 Impact factor: 20.096
Authors: Kareem N Rayn; Jonathan B Bloom; Samuel A Gold; Graham R Hale; Joseph A Baiocco; Sherif Mehralivand; Marcin Czarniecki; Vikram K Sabarwal; Vladimir Valera; Bradford J Wood; Maria J Merino; Peter Choyke; Baris Turkbey; Peter A Pinto Journal: J Urol Date: 2018-05-29 Impact factor: 7.450
Authors: Kareem N Rayn; Graham R Hale; Jonathan B Bloom; Samuel A Gold; Filipe L F Carvalho; Sherif Mehralivand; Marcin Czarniecki; Bradford J Wood; Maria J Merino; Peter Choyke; Barış Türkbey; Peter A Pinto; Piyush K Agarwal Journal: Diagn Interv Radiol Date: 2018-09 Impact factor: 2.630
Authors: Anouk A M A van der Aa; Christophe K Mannaerts; Hans van der Linden; Maudy Gayet; Bart Ph Schrier; Massimo Mischi; Harrie P Beerlage; Hessel Wijkstra Journal: World J Urol Date: 2018-02-01 Impact factor: 4.226
Authors: Seyed Behzad Jazayeri; Young S Kwon; Russell McBride; Michael Leapman; Shemille Collingwood; Adele Hobbs; David B Samadi Journal: Curr Urol Date: 2017-05-30
Authors: Jonathan B Bloom; Samuel A Gold; Graham R Hale; Kareem N Rayn; Vikram K Sabarwal; Ivane Bakhutashvili; Vladimir Valera; Baris Turkbey; Peter A Pinto; Bradford J Wood Journal: Gland Surg Date: 2018-04
Authors: Jonathan B Bloom; Amir H Lebastchi; Samuel A Gold; Graham R Hale; Thomas Sanford; Sherif Mehralivand; Michael Ahdoot; Kareem N Rayn; Marcin Czarniecki; Clayton Smith; Vladimir Valera; Bradford J Wood; Maria J Merino; Peter L Choyke; Howard L Parnes; Baris Turkbey; Peter A Pinto Journal: BJU Int Date: 2019-06-26 Impact factor: 5.969
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