Clinical Significance of a Large Difference (≥ 2 points) between Biopsy and Post-prostatectomy Pathological Gleason Scores in Patients with Prostate Cancer

We investigated the clinical significance of large difference (≥ 2 points) between biopsy-derived (bGS) and post-prostatectomy Gleason scores (pGS). At 14 medical centers in Korea, 1,582 men who underwent radical prostatectomy for prostate cancer were included. According to the difference between bGS and pGS, the patients were divided into three groups: A (decreased in pGS ≥ 2, n = 30), B (changed in pGS ≤ 1, n = 1,361; control group), and C (increased in pGS ≥ 2, n = 55). We evaluated various clinicopathological factors of prostate cancer and hazards for biochemical failure. Group A showed significantly higher mean maximal percentage of cancer in the positive cores (max%) and pathological T stage than control. In group C, the number of biopsy core was significantly smaller, however, tumor volume and max% were significantly higher and more positive biopsy cores were presented than control. Worse pathological stage and more margin-positive were observed in group A and C than in control. Hazard ratio for biochemical failure was also higher in group A and C (P = 0.001). However, the groups were not independent factors in multivariate analysis. In conclusion, large difference between bGS and pGS shows poor prognosis even in the decreased group. However it is not an independent prognostic factor for biochemical failure.

[1]  Kyu-Won Jung,et al.  Cancer Statistics in Korea: Incidence, Mortality and Survival in 2006-2007 , 2009, Journal of Korean medical science.

[2]  U. Capitanio,et al.  Biopsy core number represents one of foremost predictors of clinically significant gleason sum upgrading in patients with low-risk prostate cancer. , 2009, Urology.

[3]  E. Klein,et al.  Prostate biopsy clinical and pathological variables that predict significant grading changes in patients with intermediate and high grade prostate cancer , 2009, BJU international.

[4]  M. Terris,et al.  The association between prostate size and Gleason score upgrading depends on the number of biopsy cores obtained: results from the Shared Equal Access Regional Cancer Hospital Database , 2008, BJU International.

[5]  J. Staffurth,et al.  Should the Gleason grading system for prostate cancer be modified to account for high-grade tertiary components? A systematic review and meta-analysis. , 2007, The Lancet. Oncology.

[6]  Deborah Schrag,et al.  Annual report to the nation on the status of cancer, 1975-2002, featuring population-based trends in cancer treatment. , 2005, Journal of the National Cancer Institute.

[7]  L. Egevad,et al.  The 2005 International Society of Urological Pathology (ISUP) Consensus Conference on Gleason Grading of Prostatic Carcinoma , 2005, The American journal of surgical pathology.

[8]  T. Tsuzuki,et al.  The Prognostic Significance of Tertiary Gleason Pattern 5 in Radical Prostatectomy Specimens , 2004, The American journal of surgical pathology.

[9]  L. Kiemeney,et al.  Does the tertiary Gleason pattern influence the PSA progression-free interval after retropubic radical prostatectomy for organ-confined prostate cancer? , 2004, European urology.

[10]  H. Frierson,et al.  Gleason scores of prostate biopsy and radical prostatectomy specimens over the past 10 years , 2002, Cancer.

[11]  T. Esen,et al.  Discrepancy between Gleason Scores of Biopsy and Radical Prostatectomy Specimens , 2000, European Urology.

[12]  D J Ruiter,et al.  HISTOLOGICAL GRADE HETEROGENEITY IN MULTIFOCAL PROSTATE CANCER. BIOLOGICAL AND CLINICAL IMPLICATIONS , 1996, The Journal of pathology.

[13]  D. Bostwick,et al.  Analysis of risk factors for progression in patients with pathologically confined prostate cancers after radical retropubic prostatectomy. , 1996, The Journal of urology.

[14]  A. Partin,et al.  Prediction of progression following radical prostatectomy. A multivariate analysis of 721 men with long-term follow-up. , 1996, The American journal of surgical pathology.

[15]  W. Catalona,et al.  Grading errors in prostatic needle biopsies: relation to the accuracy of tumor grade in predicting pelvic lymph node metastases. , 1982, The Journal of urology.

[16]  J. Epstein,et al.  Interobserver reproducibility of Gleason grading of prostatic carcinoma: general pathologist. , 2001, Human pathology.

[17]  J. Srigley,et al.  Interobserver variation in prostate cancer Gleason scoring: are there implications for the design of clinical trials and treatment strategies? , 1997, Clinical oncology (Royal College of Radiologists (Great Britain)).

[18]  T. Wheeler,et al.  Heterogeneity of prostate cancer in radical prostatectomy specimens. , 1994, Urology.

[19]  R. Ackermann,et al.  The value of perineal punch biopsy in estimating the histological grade of carcinoma of the prostate , 1980, The Prostate.