Importance and determinants of Gleason score undergrading on biopsy sample of prostate cancer in a population-based study

BackgroundIn this population-based study, we investigated the degree of concordance between Gleason scores obtained from prostate biopsies and those obtained from prostatectomy specimens, as well as the determinants of biopsy understaging.MethodsWe considered for this study all 371 prostate cancer patients recorded at the Geneva Cancer Registry diagnosed from 2004 to 2006 who underwent a radical prostatectomy. We used the kappa statistic to evaluate the Gleason score concordance from biopsy and prostatectomy specimens. Logistic regression was used to determine the parameters that predict the undergrading of the Gleason score in prostate biopsies.ResultsThe kappa statistic between biopsy and prostatectomy Gleason score was 0.42 (p < 0.0001), with 67% of patients exactly matched, and 26% (n = 95) patients with Gleason score underestimated by the biopsy. In a multi-adjusted model, increasing age, advanced clinical stage, having less than ten biopsy cores, and longer delay between the two procedures, were all independently associated with biopsy undergrading. In particular, the proportion of exact match increased to 72% when the patients had ten or more needle biopsy cores. The main limitation of the study is that both biopsy and prostatectomy specimens were examined by different laboratories.ConclusionsThe data show that concordance between biopsy and prostatectomy Gleason scores lies within the classic clinical standards in this population-based study. The number of biopsy cores appears to strongly impact on the concordance between biopsy and radical prostatectomy Gleason score.

[1]  D. Lubeck,et al.  Under staging and under grading in a contemporary series of patients undergoing radical prostatectomy: results from the Cancer of the Prostate Strategic Urologic Research Endeavor database. , 2001, The Journal of urology.

[2]  A. Renshaw,et al.  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. , 1999, International journal of radiation oncology, biology, physics.

[3]  F. Macbeth,et al.  Diagnosis and treatment of prostate cancer: summary of NICE guidance , 2008, BMJ : British Medical Journal.

[4]  Thomas Wiegel,et al.  EAU guidelines on prostate cancer. Part 1: screening, diagnosis, and treatment of clinically localised disease. , 2011, European urology.

[5]  Christopher J Kane,et al.  Is biopsy Gleason score independently associated with biochemical progression following radical prostatectomy after adjusting for pathological Gleason score? , 2006, The Journal of urology.

[6]  R. V. D. van den Bergh,et al.  Prostate-specific antigen kinetics in clinical decision-making during active surveillance for early prostate cancer--a review. , 2008, European urology.

[7]  J. Moul,et al.  Significant discrepancies between diagnostic and pathologic Gleason sums in prostate cancer: the predictive role of age and prostate-specific antigen. , 2008, Urology.

[8]  M. Srougi,et al.  The effect of the number of biopsy cores on the concordance between prostate biopsy and prostatectomy Gleason score: a prostate volume-controlled study. , 2009, Archives of pathology & laboratory medicine.

[9]  L. Egevad,et al.  Implications of the International Society of Urological Pathology modified Gleason grading system. , 2012, Archives of pathology & laboratory medicine.

[10]  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.

[11]  A. Evans,et al.  Prostate cancers scored as Gleason 6 on prostate biopsy are frequently Gleason 7 tumors at radical prostatectomy: implication on outcome. , 2006, The Journal of urology.

[12]  J. Cheville,et al.  Dedifferentiation in the metastatic progression of prostate carcinoma , 1999, Cancer.

[13]  S. Fosså,et al.  Concordance between Gleason scores of needle biopsies and radical prostatectomy specimens: a population‐based study , 2009, BJU international.

[14]  A. Feinstein,et al.  Clinical biostatistics: LIV. The biostatistics of concordance , 1981 .

[15]  Michel Bolla,et al.  [EAU guidelines on prostate cancer]. , 2009, Actas urologicas espanolas.

[16]  Alan W Partin,et al.  Prognostic significance of Gleason score discrepancies between needle biopsy and radical prostatectomy. , 2008, European urology.

[17]  J. Ferlay,et al.  Cancer Incidence in Five Continents , 1970, Union Internationale Contre Le Cancer / International Union against Cancer.

[18]  L. Egevad,et al.  The significance of modified Gleason grading of prostatic carcinoma in biopsy and radical prostatectomy specimens , 2006, Virchows Archiv.

[19]  A. Feinstein,et al.  THE BIOSTATISTICS OF CONCORDANCE , 1981 .

[20]  T. Stamey,et al.  The pathological features and prognosis of prostate cancer detectable with current diagnostic tests. , 1994, The Journal of urology.

[21]  Mahul B Amin,et al.  Update on the Gleason Grading System for Prostate Cancer: Results of an International Consensus Conference of Urologic Pathologists , 2006, Advances in anatomic pathology.

[22]  M. Soloway,et al.  Trends in Gleason score: concordance between biopsy and prostatectomy over 15 years. , 2008, Urology.

[23]  J. R. Landis,et al.  The measurement of observer agreement for categorical data. , 1977, Biometrics.

[24]  J. Cumming,et al.  De-differentiation with time in prostate cancer and the influence of treatment on the course of the disease. , 1990, British journal of urology.

[25]  Miguel Srougi,et al.  Upgrading the Gleason score in extended prostate biopsy: implications for treatment choice. , 2009, International journal of radiation oncology, biology, physics.

[26]  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.

[27]  Thomas Anil,et al.  Morbidity of prostate biopsy after simplified versus complex preparation protocols: assessment of risk factors. , 2011, Urology.

[28]  Athanase Billis,et al.  The impact of the 2005 international society of urological pathology consensus conference on standard Gleason grading of prostatic carcinoma in needle biopsies. , 2008, The Journal of urology.

[29]  M. Rubin,et al.  Interobserver reproducibility of Gleason grading: evaluation using prostate cancer tissue microarrays , 2008, Journal of Cancer Research and Clinical Oncology.

[30]  O. Jeanneret,et al.  [Institute for Social and Preventive Medicine of the Geneva University: research structures and directions]. , 1979, Sozial- und Praventivmedizin.