Journals / Kahramanmaraş Sütçü İmam Üniversitesi Tıp Fakültesi Dergisi / 2017 / Cilt: 12 - Sayı: 1

Comparison Between Needle Biopsy and Radical Prostatectomy Samples in Assessing Gleason Score in Prostatic Adenocarcinomas

Prostat adenokarsinomlarında iğne biyopsileri ve radikal prostatektomi materyallerinin Gleason skoru açısından karşılaştırılması

Pages
25–30
Publication Date
2017-04-24
DOI
—
🏛️Bibliographic metadata and full text access for this article are provided via DergiPark.
DergiPark Record ↗
✨

AI Summary & Key Takeaways

AI Insight
⚡ TL;DR(Too Long; Didn't Read)

Overall, needle biopsies were under-graded in 1 (4.2%) cases, overgraded in 8 (33.3%), and correctly graded in 15 (62.5%) patients.

📌 3 Key Takeaways

🎯
Objective & Hypothesis:Objective: Prostate biopsy Gleason score is important for treatment planning in patients with localized prostate cancer.
📊
Key Findings & Data:However, discordance rates between those two was reported as 24-50% in the literature.
💡
Conclusion & Impact:Overall, needle biopsies were under-graded in 1 (4.2%) cases, overgraded in 8 (33.3%), and correctly graded in 15 (62.5%) patients.
🔬Design:Review & Systematic Survey
📍Scope:Comprehensive Sample
⚙️Variables:Biyopsi · prostat kanseri · Gleason skoru

Abstract

Objective: Prostate biopsy Gleason score is important for treatment planning in patients with localized prostate cancer. Therefore, concordance between biopsy and radical prostatectomy (RP) pathologies is critically important. However, discordance rates between those two was reported as 24-50% in the literature. Aim of present study is to evaluate concordance rates between biopsy and RP results.Material and Methods: A retrospective review of 24 patients, who underwent prostate biopsy (standart 12 cores) due to elevated PSA or abnormal digital rectal examination and diagnosed with localised prostate cancer was performed. All patients underwent radical prostatectomy within 8 weeks after biopsy. Associations between preoperative clinical factors and Gleason score upgrading were analyzed. Those factors include Gleason scores, percentage of positive cores, age, prostate volume and PSA value. Gleason upgrading or downgrading was defined as an increase or decrease from one prognostic group to another. Prognostic groups were categorised as GS 6; 7 and 8≤.Results: Median age of patients was68 (58–79) years and median PSA was 9,65 ng/ml (4.2–149). Median prostate volume was 46,5 ml (27–70). Overall, needle biopsies were under-graded in 1 (4.2%) cases, overgraded in 8 (33.3%), and correctly graded in 15 (62.5%) patients. While upgrading was identified in 7 out of 16 (43,5%) patients with GS 6 on needle biopsy, only one patient with GS=7 on biopsy was upgraded. Overall concordance between biopsy and pathological GS was 62.5% (p = 0.025) and k value was 0.31. Independent predictors of upgrading were age (k:0.47 [p=0.01]), PSA> 9 (k:0.50 [p=0.021]) and prostate volume ≥30 cc (k:0.42 [p=0.014]). Conclusion: Although our results were consistent with the literature, new approachs are required to better grading with biopsy.

Özet

Amaç: Prostat biyopsisiile elde edilen Gleason skoru (GS)lokalize prostat kanseri olgularının tedavi kararında önem taşıdığı için radikal prostatektomi (RP)GSile uyumuoldukça önemlidir. Ancak literatürde bu uyum %24-50 arasında bildirilmektedir. Çalışmamızda kliniğimizde yapılan prostat biyopsileri ile RP sonrası elde edilen patolojik bulguların uyumu değerlendirilmiştir.Gereç ve Yöntemler: KSÜ Tıp Fakültesi Üroloji Kliniği'nde standart 12 kor transrektalbiyopsi ile prostat kanseri tanısı konan ve sonraki sekiz haftada RP yapılan 24 hastanın patoloji sonuçları retrospektif olarak değerlendirildi. Biyopsilerde GS, kanserli kor sayısı,kanserli korlardaki kanser yüzdesi değerlendirildi. Ayrıca yaş,prostat hacmi,PSA değerlerininbiyopsi ve RP GS’ları arasındaki uyuma etkisi araştırıldı. GS artışı ya da azalışı bir prognostik gruptan diğerine geçiş olarak tanımlandı.Prognostik gruplar GS 6; 7 ve 8≤ olarak kategorize edildi. Bulgular: Hastaların ortanca yaşı 68 (58-79) yıl,ortanca PSA değeri 9,65 ng/ml (4.2-149) ve prostat hacmi 46.5 ml'ydi (27-70). Tüm hastalar değerlendirildiğinde yalnızca bir olguda (%4.2) GS düşüşü saptandı. Biyopsisinde GS=6 olan olguların %43.5'sinde (n:7/16) RP GS’unda artışısaptanırken, GS=7 olan 7 hastanın ise sadece birinde GS artışı izlendi. GS=8 olan bir hastanın RP GS biyopsi GS’u ile aynıydı. Prostat biyopsi ve patolojik GS arasındaki genel uyum %62.5ve kappa değeri 0,31(p:0,025) idi. GS artışı ile ileri yaş arasında k:0.47 (p=0.01),PSA> 9 olan 14 vaka için k:0.50 (p=0.021) ve prostat hacmi ≥30 cc olan olgularda k:0.42 (p=0.014) olarak bulundu.Sonuç: Çalışmamızda iğne biyopsi GS ile RP GS arasındaki uyum oranı literatürle uyumlu bulunmakla birlikte, verilerimiz biyopsi ile daha doğru derecelendirme için yeni teknik yaklaşımlara yönelmemiz gerektiğini düşündürtmektedir. Anahtar kelimeler: biyopsi, prostat kanseri, Gleason skoru, radikal prostatektomi

🔖

Cite This Article

ŞAHİNKANAT, T., KÜÇÜKDURMAZ, F., EFE, E., Koluş, E., EKERBİÇER, H. Ç., Bitiren, M. (2017). Comparison Between Needle Biopsy and Radical Prostatectomy Samples in Assessing Gleason Score in Prostatic Adenocarcinomas. Kahramanmaraş Sütçü İmam Üniversitesi Tıp Fakültesi Dergisi, Cilt: 12 - Sayı: 1, 25–30. https://ajindex.com/articles/783395

📄 Full Text PDF Viewer

📄

PDF görüntüleyici hazırlanıyor...

References (1)

  1. Hanno P, Malkowicz SB and Wein AJ (eds): Clinical Manual of Urology. 3rd edition. McGraw Hill, New York, NY, pp 519, 2001. 2. Donovan J, Hamdy F, Neal D, et al; ProtecT Study Group: Prostate testing for cancer and treatment (ProtecT) feasibility study. Health Technol Assess 2003; 7: 1-88 3. Bostwick DG. Grading prostate cancer. Am J Clin Pathol 1994; 102: 38-56. 4. Pan CC, Potter SR, Partin AW, Epstein JI. The prognostic significance of tertiary Gleason patterns of higher grade in radical prostatectomy specimens. A proposal to modify the Gleason grading system. Am J Surg Pathol 2000; 24: 563-569. 5. Rubin MA, Bismar TA, Curtis S, Montie JE. Prostate needle biopsy reporting: how are the surgical members of the Society of Urologic Oncology using pathology reports to guide treatment of prostate cancer patients? Am J Surg Pathol 2004; 28: 946-52. 6. El Hajj A, Ploussard G, de la Taille A, et al. Analysis of outcomes after radical prostatectomy in patients eligible for active surveillance (PRIAS). BJU Int 2013;111: 53-9. 7. Patel AR, Jones JS. Optimal biopsy strategies for the diagnosis and staging of prostate cancer. Curr Opin Urol 2009; 19: 232-7. 8. Lim T, Park SC, Jeong YB, Kim HJ, Rim JS. Predictors of Gleason score upgrading after radical prostatectomy in low-risk prostatecancer. Korean J Urol 2009; 50: 1182-7. 9. Miyake H, Kurahashi T, Takenaka A, Hara I, Fujisawa M.Improved accuracy for predicting the Gleason score of prostatecancer by increasing the number of transrectal biopsy cores. Urol Int 2007; 79: 302-6. 10. Hong SK, Han BK, Lee ST, et al. Prediction of Gleason score upgrading in low-risk prostate cancersdiagnosed via multi (>or =12)-core prostate biopsy. World J Urol 2009; 27: 271-6. 11. Dong F, Jones JS, Stephenson AJ, Magi-Galluzzi C, Reuther AM, Klein EA. Prostate cancer volume at biopsy predicts clinically significant upgrading. J Urol 2008; 179: 896-900. 12. Fu Q, Moul JW, Banez LL, et al. Association between percentage of tumor involvement and Gleason score upgrading in low-risk prostate cancer. Med Oncol 2012; 29: 3339-44. 13. Freedland SJ, Kane CJ, Amling CL, Aronson WJ, Terris MK, Prest JC. Upgrading and downgrading of prostate needle biopsyspecimens: risk factors and clinical implications. Urology 2007; 69: 495-9. 14. Richstone L, Bianco FJ, Shah HH, et al. Radical prostatectomy inmen aged > or =70 years: effect of age on upgrading, upstagingand the accuracy of a preoperative nomogram. BJU Int 2008; 101: 541–6. 15. Landis, J.R.; Koch,