Patterns of prostate cancer biopsy grading: Trends and clinical implications

The predictive value of Gleason grading from prostate needle biopsy was examined and the patterns of grade discordance with surgical specimens are discussed in terms of their clinical implications. Gleason scores from biopsy and matched radical prostatectomy specimens were compared in 428 consecutive patients. Patterns of concordance were examined with respect to numerical agreement as well as to whether differences result in a change in group assignment with respect to Gleason score group 2–4, 5–6, 7, and 8–10. The coefficient of agreement, kappa, and accuracy were used to measure predictive value. An exact Gleason score match was present in 41% of the cases, while 48% were undergraded and 17% overgraded. With respect to group assignment, 51% remained unchanged while 35% were undergraded and 14% overgraded. Kappa analysis yielded a value of 0.26, which represents a poor agreement beyond chance. A Gleason score of 5–6, 7, or 8 was reproduced in 52%, 53%, and 58% of cases, respectively. A systematic bias toward progressive undergrading of more well‐differentiated cancers and overgrading of more poorly differentiated cancers on biopsy is suggested by the data. A pooled analysis with nine additional series (n = 2,687) confirms this conclusion. No correlation was found between the amount of tumor in the biopsy specimen and grade discordance. Biases in pathologic interpretation and sampling effects are suggested as responsible for grade discordance. Predictable differences exist between the histologic grade in prostate needle biopsies and the surgical specimen. Clinical staging of organ‐confined prostate cancer should include the likelihood of histologic upgrading or downgrading when used to stratify patients for clinical trials, in comparing results among therapies based on biopsy grading and when recommending a radical therapy. Developing a methodology which reduces both sampling effects and pathologic interpretation bias would likely result in significantly improved accuracy of Gleason grading of prostate biopsies. Int. J. Cancer (Radiat. Oncol. Invest.) 90, 305–311 (2000). © 2000 Wiley‐Liss, Inc.

[1]  C. Pan,et al.  The prognostic significance of tertiary Gleason patterns of higher grade in radical prostatectomy specimens: a proposal to modify the Gleason grading system. , 2000, The American journal of surgical pathology.

[2]  D. Paulson Impact of radical prostatectomy in the management of clinically localized disease. , 1994, The Journal of urology.

[3]  C. King,et al.  Prostate biopsy grading errors: A sampling problem? , 2000, International journal of cancer.

[4]  P. Lange,et al.  Understaging and undergrading of prostate cancer. Argument for postoperative radiation as adjuvant therapy. , 1983, Urology.

[5]  D. Gleason,et al.  Histologic grading of prostate cancer: a perspective. , 1992, Human pathology.

[6]  D. Wood,et al.  Gleason histologic grading in prostatic carcinoma. Correlation of 18-gauge core biopsy with prostatectomy. , 1994, Archives of pathology & laboratory medicine.

[7]  D. Thickman,et al.  Effect of the number of core biopsies of the prostate on predicting Gleason score of prostate cancer. , 1996, The Journal of urology.

[8]  W. Fair,et al.  Correlation between Gleason score of needle biopsy and radical prostatectomy specimen: accuracy and clinical implications. , 1997, The Journal of urology.

[9]  J. Epstein,et al.  Accuracy of biopsy Gleason scores from a large uropathology laboratory: use of a diagnostic protocol to minimize observer variability. , 1998, Urology.

[10]  S. Piantadosi,et al.  Correlation of prostate needle biopsy and radical prostatectomy Gleason grade in academic and community settings. , 1997, The American journal of surgical pathology.

[11]  R. Oyasu,et al.  The accuracy of diagnostic biopsy specimens in predicting tumor grades by Gleason's classification of radical prostatectomy specimens. , 1984, The Journal of urology.

[12]  P. Troncoso,et al.  Use of prostate-specific antigen and tumor volume in predicting needle biopsy grading error. , 1995, Urology.

[13]  D. Bostwick,et al.  Gleason grading of prostatic needle biopsies. Correlation with grade in 316 matched prostatectomies. , 1994, The American journal of surgical pathology.

[14]  S. Mills,et al.  Gleason histologic grading of prostatic carcinoma. Correlations between biopsy and prostatectomy specimens , 1986, Cancer.