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.

BACKGROUND Prior studies assessing the correlation of Gleason score (GS) at needle biopsy and corresponding radical prostatectomy (RP) predated the use of the modified Gleason scoring system and did not factor in tertiary grade patterns. OBJECTIVE To assess the relation of biopsy and RP grade in the largest study to date. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS A total of 7643 totally embedded RP and corresponding needle biopsies (2004-2010) were analyzed according to the updated Gleason system. INTERVENTIONS All patients underwent prostate biopsy prior to RP. MEASUREMENTS The relation of upgrading or downgrading to patient and cancer characteristics was compared using the chi-square test, Student t test, and multivariable logistic regression. RESULTS AND LIMITATIONS A total of 36.3% of cases were upgraded from a needle biopsy GS 5-6 to a higher grade at RP (11.2% with GS 6 plus tertiary). Half of the cases had matching GS 3+4=7 at biopsy and RP with an approximately equal number of cases downgraded and upgraded at RP. With biopsy GS 4+3=7, RP GS was almost equally 3+4=7 and 4+3=7. Biopsy GS 8 led to an almost equal distribution between RP GS 4+3=7, 8, and 9-10. A total of 58% of the cases had matching GS 9-10 at biopsy and RP. In multivariable analysis, increasing age (p<0.0001), increasing serum prostate-specific antigen level (p<0.0001), decreasing RP weight (p<0.0001), and increasing maximum percentage cancer/core (p<0.0001) predicted the upgrade from biopsy GS 5-6 to higher at RP. Despite factoring in multiple variables including the number of positive cores and the maximum percentage of cancer per core, the concordance indexes were not sufficiently high to justify the use of nomograms for predicting upgrading and downgrading for the individual patient. CONCLUSIONS Almost 20% of RP cases have tertiary patterns. A needle biopsy can sample a tertiary higher Gleason pattern in the RP, which is then not recorded in the standard GS reporting, resulting in an apparent overgrading on the needle biopsy.

[1]  A. Shalhav,et al.  Predicting the risk of patients with biopsy Gleason score 6 to harbor a higher grade cancer. , 2007, The Journal of urology.

[2]  A. Haese*,et al.  The novel nomogram of Gleason sum upgrade: Possible application for the eligible criteria of low dose rate brachytherapy , 2010, International journal of urology : official journal of the Japanese Urological Association.

[3]  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.

[4]  Yongmei Chen,et al.  Patient risk stratification using Gleason score concordance and upgrading among men with prostate biopsy Gleason score 6 or 7. , 2010, Urologic oncology.

[5]  M. Kattan,et al.  A nomogram for predicting upgrading in patients with low‐ and intermediate‐grade prostate cancer in the era of extended prostate sampling , 2010, BJU international.

[6]  S. Byun,et al.  Prediction of Gleason score upgrading in low-risk prostate cancers diagnosed via multi (≥12)-core prostate biopsy , 2009, World Journal of Urology.

[7]  Sung Yul Park,et al.  Predictive Factors of Gleason Score Upgrading in Localized and Locally Advanced Prostate Cancer Diagnosed by Prostate Biopsy , 2010, Korean journal of urology.

[8]  M. Kattan,et al.  Radical prostatectomy in men aged ≥70 years: effect of age on upgrading, upstaging, and the accuracy of a preoperative nomogram , 2008, BJU international.

[9]  U. Stenman,et al.  The Proportion of Free PSA and Upgrading of Biopsy Gleason Score after Radical Prostatectomy , 2010, Urologia Internationalis.

[10]  S. Chandrakanth.  Gleason Score 7 Prostate Cancer on Needle Biopsy: Relation of Primary Pattern 3 or 4 to Pathological Stage and Progression After Radical Prostatectomy , 2012 .

[11]  A. Zisman,et al.  Does prostate biopsy Gleason score accurately express the biologic features of prostate cancer? , 2007, Urologic oncology.

[12]  C. Stephan,et al.  Prostate specific antigen density to predict prostate cancer upgrading in a contemporary radical prostatectomy series: a single center experience. , 2010, The Journal of urology.

[13]  G. Bartsch,et al.  Upgrading of Gleason score 6 prostate cancers on biopsy after prostatectomy in the low and intermediate tPSA range , 2008, Prostate Cancer and Prostatic Diseases.

[14]  Y. Naya,et al.  External validation of a nomogram predicting the probability of prostate cancer Gleason sum upgrading between biopsy and radical prostatectomy pathology among Japanese patients. , 2010, Urology.

[15]  M. Terris,et al.  Prostate Biopsy Volume Indices do not Predict for Significant Gleason Upgrading , 2005, American journal of clinical oncology.

[16]  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.

[17]  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.

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

[19]  M. Menon,et al.  Role of PSA velocity in predicting pathologic upgrade for Gleason 6 prostate cancer. , 2011, Urologic oncology.

[20]  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.

[21]  S. Herrell,et al.  Prostate size as a predictor of Gleason score upgrading in patients with low risk prostate cancer. , 2011, The Journal of urology.

[22]  M. Terris,et al.  Upgrading and downgrading of prostate needle biopsy specimens: risk factors and clinical implications. , 2006, Urology.

[23]  K. Kuroiwa,et al.  Gleason score correlation between biopsy and prostatectomy specimens and prediction of high-grade Gleason patterns: significance of central pathologic review. , 2011, Urology.

[24]  J. Epstein,et al.  A contemporary study correlating prostate needle biopsy and radical prostatectomy Gleason score. , 2008, The Journal of urology.

[25]  G. Miller,et al.  Errors in histological grading by prostatic needle biopsy specimens: frequency and predisposing factors , 2000, The Journal of pathology.

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

[27]  B. Trock,et al.  Tertiary Gleason patterns and biochemical recurrence after prostatectomy: proposal for a modified Gleason scoring system. , 2009, The Journal of urology.

[28]  S Larry Goldenberg,et al.  Underestimation of Gleason score at prostate biopsy reflects sampling error in lower volume tumours , 2012, BJU international.

[29]  L. Turkeri,et al.  Presence of high grade tertiary Gleason pattern upgrades the Gleason sum score and is inversely associated with biochemical recurrence-free survival. , 2013, Urologic oncology.