Scientific Online Resource System

Scripta Scientifica Medica

The effect of the Gleason score change on biochemical progression-free survival

Boyan Lazarov, Tosho Ganev, Iskra Mircheva

Abstract

Introduction: The degree of differentiation of prostate cancer is evaluated by the Gleason score (GS). Patients who undergo radical prostatectomy (RP) have their GS determined twice—first, during the biopsy, and second, after the RP. The two GSs often differ.

Aim: We have studied how the change of GS affects biochemical progression-free survival (BPFS) of the patients.

Materials and Methods: The patients were divided into three groups. Group 1—GS of the biopsy was equal to those of the RP; Group 2—GS of the biopsy increased after the RP; Group 3—GS of the biopsy decreased after the RP. Pearson's chi square test, Mann-Whitney U test, and the Kaplan-Meier test were used to evaluate the difference in the BPFS in the three groups.

Results: The patients available for analysis were 111—42 patients in Group 1, 40 patients in Group 2, and 29 patients in Group 3. A significantly better survival was proven for the patients in Group 1 compared with Groups 2 and 3.

Discussion: Group 2 had the worst prognosis expected—here the GS increased. We proved that Group 3 also had bad prognosis although here the GS improved. Group 1 had the best prognosis.

Conclusion: The likely explanation of these differences in BPFS is that the GS from the needle biopsy also has prognostic significance which is in accordance with the literature data analyzed in the text.

 


Keywords

Gleason score, biopsy of prostate, radical prostatectomy, biochemical progression-free survival

Full Text


References

Mills SE, Fowler JE Jr. Gleason histologic grading of prostatic carcinoma. Correlations between biopsy and prostatectomy specimens. Cancer. 1986;57(2):346-9. doi: 10.1002/1097-0142(19860115)57:2<346::aid-cncr2820570226>3.0.co;2-e.

Muentener M, Epstein J, Hernandez D, Gonzalgo M, Mangold L, Humphreys E, et al. Prognostic significance of Gleason score discrepancies between needle biopsy and radical prostatectomy. Eur Urol. 2008;53(4):767-75; discussion 775-6. doi: 10.1016/j.eururo.2007.11.016.

Fitzsimons NJ, Presti JC Jr, Kane CJ, Terris MK, Aronson WJ, Amling CL, et al. Is biopsy Gleason score independently associated with biochemical progression following radical prostatectomy after adjusting for pathological Gleason score? J Urol. 2006;176(6 Pt 1):2453-8; discussion 2458. doi: 10.1016/j.juro.2006.08.014.

Ferlay J, Soerjomataram I, Dikshit R, Eser S, Mathers C, Rebelo M, et al. Cancer incidence and mortality worldwide: sources, methods and major patterns in GLOBOCAN 2012. Int J Cancer. 2015; 136(5):E359-86. doi: 10.1002/ijc.29210.

Steinberg DM, Sauvageot J, Piantadosi S, Epstein JI. Correlation of prostate needle biopsy and radical prostatectomy Gleason grade in academic and community settings. Am J Surg Pathol. 1997;21(5):566-76. doi: 10.1097/00000478-199705000-00010.

Lattouf JB, Saad F. Gleason score on biopsy: is it reliable for predicting the final grade on pathology? BJU Int. 2002;90(7):694-8; discussion 698-9. doi: 10.1046/j.1464-410x.2002.02990.x.

Kato T, Nakano M, Uno H, Seike K, Kojima K, Kubota Y, et al. Discrepancy between Gleason score of needle biopsies and radical prostatectomy specimens-current situation of general pathologists. inyokika Kiyo. 2008;54(10):641-5. Japanese.

Lima NG, Soares Dde F, Rhoden EL. Importance of prostate-specific antigen (PSA) as a predictive factor for concordance between theGleason scores of prostate biopsies and radical prostatectomy specimens. Clinics (Sao Paulo). 2013;68(6):820-4. doi: 10.6061/clinics/2013(06)16.

Zuo Q, Zhang F, Huang Y, Ma LL, Lu M, Lu J. Clinically predictive factors of Gleason score upgrading in patients after radical prostatectomy. Beijing Da Xue Xue Bao Yi Xue Ban. 2016;48(4):603-6. Chinese.

Qi R, Foo WC, Ferrandino MN, Davis LG, Sekar S, Longo TA, et al. Over half of contemporary clinical Gleason 8 on prostate biopsy are downgraded at radical prostatectomy. Can J Urol. 2017;24(5):8982-9.

Dolatkhah S, Mirtalebi M, Daneshpajouhnejad P, Barahimi A, Mazdak H, Izadpanahi MH et al. Discrepancies between biopsy gleason score and radical prostatectomy specimen Gleason score: an Iranian experience. Urol J. 2019;16(1):56-61. doi: 10.22037/uj.v0i0.4174.

Divrik RT, Eroglu A, Sahin A, Zorlu F, Ozen H. Increasing the number of biopsies increases the concordance of Gleason scores of needle biopsies and prostatectomy specimens. Urol Oncol. 2007;25(5):376-82. doi: 10.1016/j.urolonc.2006.08.028.

Tomioka S, Nakatsu H, Suzuki N, Murakami S, Matsuzaki O, Shimazaki J. Comparison of Gleason grade and score between preoperative biopsy and prostatectomy specimens in prostate cancer. Int J Urol. 2006;13(5):555-9. doi: 10.1111/j.1442-2042.2006.01346.x.

Mazzucchelli R, Barbisan F, Tarquini LM, Filosa A, Campanini N, Galosi AB. Gleason grading of prostate carcinoma in needle biopsies vs. radical prostatectomy specimens. Anal Quant Cytol Histol. 2005;27(3):125-33.

San Francisco IF, DeWolf WC, Rosen S, Upton M, Olumi AF. Extended prostate needle biopsy improves concordance of Gleason grading between prostate needle biopsy and radical prostatectomy. J Urol. 2003;169(1):136-40. doi: 10.1097/01.ju.0000042811.83736.04.

Fukagai T, Namiki T, Namiki H, Carlile RG, Shimada M, Yoshida H. Discrepancies between Gleason scores of needle biopsy and radical prostatectomy specimens. Pathol Int. 2001;51(5):364-70. doi: 10.1046/j.1440-1827.2001.01207.x.

Brinker DA, Ross JS, Tran TA, Jones DM, Epstein JI. Can ploidy of prostate carcinoma diagnosed on needle biopsy predict radical prostatectomy stage and grade? J Urol. 1999;162(6):2036-9. doi: 10.1016/s0022-5347(05)68094-9.

Kuroiwa K, Shiraishi T, Naito S; Clinicopathological Research Group for Localized Prostate Cancer Investigators. Gleason score correlation between biopsy and prostatectomy specimens and prediction of high-grade Gleason patterns: significance of central pathologic review. Urology. 2011;77(2):407-11. doi: 10.1016/j.urology.2010.05.030.

Sinnott M, Falzarano SM, Hernandez AV, Jones JS, Klein EA, Zhou M, et al. Discrepancy in prostate cancer localization between biopsy and prostatectomy specimens in patients with unilateral positive biopsy: implications for focal therapy. Prostate. 2012;72(11):1179-86. doi: 10.1002/pros.22467.

Pereira RA, Costa RS, Muglia VF, Silva FF, Lajes JS, Dos Reis RB, et al. Gleason score and tumor laterality in radical prostatectomy and transrectal ultrasound-guided biopsy of the prostate: a comparative study. Asian J Androl. 2015;17(5):815-20. doi: 10.4103/1008-682X.146970.

Janane A, Hajji F, Dakkak Y, Ghadouane M, Ameur A, Abbar M, et al. Gleason score discrepancies between needle biopsies and radical prostatectomy specimens in an African men: clinical implication. J Anal Oncol. 2013;2:165-70. doi:10.6000/1927-7229.2013.02.03.6.

Yeldir N, Yildiz E, Dundar G. Gleason score correlation between prostate needle biopsy and radical prostatectomy materials. Turk Patoloji Derg. 2019;35(3):185-192. English. doi: 10.5146/tjpath.2018.01453.

Camtosun A, Gökçe H. Comparison of prostate biopsy pathology and radical prostatectomy pathologies. Dicle Medical Journal. 2019;46(1):133-9. doi:10.5798/dicletip.534851.

Sarici H, Telli O, Yigitbasi O, Ekici M, Ozgur BC, Yuceturk CN, et al. Predictors of Gleason score upgrading in patients with prostate biopsy Gleason score ≤6. Can Urol Assoc J. 2014;8(5-6):E342-6. doi: 10.5489/cuaj.1499.

Corcoran NM, Casey RG, Hong MK, Pedersen J, Connolly S, Peters J, et al. The ability of prostate-specific antigen (PSA) density to predict an upgrade in Gleason score between initial prostate biopsy and prostatectomy diminishes with increasing tumour grade due to reduced PSA secretion per unit tumour volume. BJU Int. 2012;110(1):36-42. doi: 10.1111/j.1464-410X.2011.10681.x.

Epstein J, Zhaoyong Feng, Trock BJ, Pierorazio PM. Upgrading and downgrading of prostate cancer from biopsy to radical prostatectomy: incidence and predictive factors using the modified Gleason grading system and factoring in tertiary grades. Eur Urol. 2012;61(5):1019-24. doi: 10.1016/j.eururo.2012.01.050.

Köksal IT, Ozcan F, Kadioglu TC, Esen T, Kiliçaslan I, Tunç M. Discrepancy between Gleason scores of biopsy and radical prostatectomy specimens. Eur Urol. 2000;37(6):670-4. doi: 10.1159/000020216.

Kojima M, Troncoso P, Babaian RJ. Use of prostate-specific antigen and tumor volume in predicting needle biopsy grading error. Urology. 1995;45(5):807-12. doi: 10.1016/s0090-4295(99)80088-0.

Goel S, Shoag JE, Gross MD, Al Hussein A, Awamlh B, Robinson B, et al. Concordance between biopsy and radical prostatectomy pathology in the era of targeted biopsy: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Eur Urol Oncol. 2020;3(1):10-20. doi: 10.1016/j.euo.2019.08.001.

Boorjian SA, Karnes RJ, Crispen PL, Rangel LJ, Bergstralh EJ, Sebo TJ, et al. The impact of discordance between biopsy and pathological Gleason scores on survival after radical prostatectomy. J Urol. 2009;181(1):95-104. doi: 10.1016/j.juro.2008.09.016.




DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.14748/ssm.v54i2.8213
About The Authors

Boyan Lazarov
Medical University of Varna
Bulgaria

Department of Surgery, Faculty of Medicine;

Clinic of Urology, St. Anna Hospital, Varna

Tosho Ganev
Medical University of Varna
Bulgaria

Department of Surgery, Faculty of Medicine;

Clinic of Urology, St. Anna Hospital, Varna

Iskra Mircheva
Medical University of Varna
Bulgaria

Department of Social Medicine and Health Care Organisation, Faculty of Public Health

Font Size


|