Upgrading of Gleason score at radical retropubic prostatectomy (RRP) is a recognised event; however there are few large, national, multicentre studies of upgrading. With the increasing utilisation of active surveillance as an option in the treatment of prostate cancer upgrading is an increasing concern to urologists.
Objective:
To analyse the discordance between the biopsy Gleason score and the RRP Gleason score using the BAUS database from a non-screened UK population.
Methods and subjects:
Data were obtained from the BAUS cancer registry which holds data on national complex operations. All patients who underwent RRP with pre and post-operative Gleason score were included in the study.
Results:
1420 men were included in the study, mean age 62. Comparing Gleason score between the biopsy and the RRP specimen, 30% men were found to upgraded and 9% downgraded. Clinically significant upgrading was seen in 28%. Age and PSA were found to be higher in the upgraded cohort (p< 0.02). Positive margins and seminal vesicle invasion were significantly higher in the upgraded group (p < 0.02). Univariate analysis revealed PSA and age as significant predictors of upgrading at RRP (p<0.05).
Conclusions:
This large study provides novel data from a non-screened UK population, nearly one-third of whom had clinically significant upgrading. We have also shown that adverse pathological events, positive margin and seminal vesicle invasion, are more common in the upgraded cohort. This evidence needs to be considered when managing men with localised prostate cancer especially when considering active surveillance.
AusGAbbouCCBollaMHeidenreichASchmidHPvan PoppelHEAU guidelines on prostate cancer. Eur Urol2005;48(4):546–51.
2.
AlbertsenPCHanleyJAGleasonDFBarryMJ. Competing risk analysis of men aged 55 to 74 years at diagnosis managed conservatively for clinically localized prostate cancer. JAMA1998;280(11):975–80.
3.
DivrikRTErogluASahinAZorluFOzenH. Increasing the number of biopsies increases the concordance of Gleason scores of needle biopsies and prostatectomy specimens. Urol Oncol2007;25(5):376–82.
4.
ChunFKSteuberTErbersdoblerACurrlinEWalzJSchlommTDevelopment and internal validation of a nomogram predicting the probability of prostate cancer Gleason sum upgrading between biopsy and radical prostatectomy pathology. Eur Urol2006;49(5): 820–6.
5.
ChunFKBrigantiAShariatSFGraefenMMontorsiFErbersdoblerASignificant upgrading affects a third of men diagnosed with prostate cancer: predictive nomogram and internal validation. BJU Int2006;98(August (2):329–34.
6.
TurleyRSHamiltonRJTerrisMKKaneCJAronsonWJPrestiJCJrSmall transrectal ultrasound volume predicts clinically significant Gleason score upgrading after radical prostatectomy: results from the SEARCH database. J Urol2008;179(February (2):523–7.
7.
DongFJonesJSStephensonAJMagi-GalluzziCReutherAMKleinEA. Prostate cancer volume at biopsy predicts clinically significant upgrading. J Urol2008;179(March (3):896–900.
8.
RichstoneLBiancoFJShahHHKattanMWEasthamJAScardinoPTRadical prostatectomy in men aged >or=70 years: effect of age on upgrading, upstaging, and the accuracy of a preoperative nomogram. BJU Int2008;101(March (5):541–6.
9.
FreedlandSJKaneCJAmlingCLAronsonWJTerrisMKPrestiJCJrUpgrading and downgrading of prostate needle biopsy specimens: risk factors and clinical implications. Urology2007;69(3):495–9.
10.
KingCRPatelDATerrisMK. Prostate biopsy volume indices do not predict for significant Gleason upgrading. Am J Clin Oncol2005;28(April (2):125–9.
11.
KingCR. Patterns of prostate cancer biopsy grading: trends and clinical implications. Int J Cancer2000;90(6): 305–11.
12.
GregoriAViewegJDahmPPaulsonDF. Comparison of ultrasound-guided biopsies and prostatectomy specimens: predictive accuracy of Gleason score and tumor site. Urol Int2001;66(2):66–71.
13.
D'AmicoAVRenshawAAArsenaultLSchultzDRichieJP. Clinical predictors of upgrading to Gleason grade 4 or 5 disease at radical prostatectomy: potential implications for patient selection for radiation and androgen suppression therapy. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys1999;45(4): 841–6.
14.
KulkarniGSLockwoodGEvansAToiATrachtenbergJJewettMAClinical predictors of Gleason score upgrading: implications for patients considering watchful waiting, active surveillance, or brachytherapy. Cancer2007;109(June (12):2432–8.
15.
PinthusJHWitkosMFleshnerNESweetJEvansAJewettMAProstate cancers scored as Gleason 6 on prostate biopsy are frequently Gleason 7 tumors at radical prostatectomy: implication on outcome. J Urol2006;176(September (3):979–84.
16.
MukouyamaHNiimuraKOgawaY. Histologic upgrading of prostate cancer occurs frequently over a short period of time: single hospital experiences of radical prostatectomy. Int J Urol2001;8(August (8):545–9.
17.
TomiokaSNakatsuHSuzukiNMurakamiSMatsuzakiOShimazakiJ. Comparison of Gleason grade and score between preoperative biopsy and prostatectomy specimens in prostate cancer. Int J Urol2006;13(May (5):555–9.
18.
ChodakGWThistedRAGerberGSJohanssonJEAdolfssonJJonesGWResults of conservative management of clinically localized prostate cancer. N Engl J Med1994;330(4):242–8.
19.
PilepichMVCaplanRByhardtRWLawtonCAGallagherMJMesicJBPhase III trial of androgen suppression using goserelin in unfavorable-prognosis carcinoma of the prostate treated with definitive radiotherapy: report of Radiation Therapy Oncology Group Protocol 85–31. J Clin Oncol1997;15(3):1013–21.
20.
SteinbergDMSauvageotJPiantadosiSEpsteinJI. Correlation of prostate needle biopsy and radical prostatectomy Gleason grade in academic and community settings. Am J Surg Pathol1997;21(5):566–76.
21.
CarlsonGDCalvaneseCBKahaneHEpsteinJI. Accuracy of biopsy Gleason scores from a large uropathology laboratory: use of a diagnostic protocol to minimize observer variability. Urology1998;51(4):525–9.
22.
MontironiRMazzuccheliRScarpelliMLopez-BeltranAFellegaraGAlgabaF. Gleason grading of prostate cancer in needle biopsies or radical prostatectomy specimens: contemporary approach, current clinical significance and sources of pathology discrepancies. BJU Int2005;95(8):1146–52.
23.
OzdamarSOSarikayaSYildizLAtillaMKKandemirBYildizS. Intraobserver and interobserver reproducibility of WHO and Gleason histologic grading systems in prostatic adenocarcinomas. Int Urol Nephrol1996;28(1):73–7.
24.
MeliaJMoseleyRBallRYGriffithsDFGrigorKHarndenPA UK-based investigation of inter- and intra-observer reproducibility of Gleason grading of prostatic biopsies. Histopathology2006;48(6):644–54.
25.
De la TailleAViellefondABergerNBoucherEDe FromontMFondimareAEvaluation of the inter-observer reproducibility of Gleason grading of prostatic adenocarcinoma using tissue microarrays. Hum Pathol2003;34(5):444–9.
26.
SvanholmH. Evaluation of commercial immunoperoxidase kits for prostatic specific antigen and prostatic specific acid phosphatase. Acta Pathol Microbiol Immunol Scand [A]1986;94(1):7–12.
27.
SmithEBFriersonHFJrMillsSEBoydJCTheodorescuD. Gleason scores of prostate biopsy and radical prostatectomy specimens over the past 10 years: is there evidence for systematic upgrading?Cancer2002;94(April (8)): 2282–7.
28.
CooganCLLatchamsettyKCGreenfieldJCormanJMLynchBPorterCR. Increasing the number of biopsy cores improves the concordance of biopsy Gleason score to prostatectomy Gleason score. BJU Int2005;96(3): 324–7.
29.
OoiKSamaliR. Discrepancies in Gleason scoring of prostate biopsies and radical prostatectomy specimens and the effects of multiple needle biopsies on scoring accuracy. A regional experience in Tamworth, Australia. ANZ J Surg2007;77(5):336–8.
30.
San FranciscoIFDeWolfWCRosenSUptonMOlumiAF. Extended prostate needle biopsy improves concordance of Gleason grading between prostate needle biopsy and radical prostatectomy. J Urol2003;169(1):136–40.
