Bülent ÖZTÜRK, Erman CEYHAN, Burak YILMAZ

The Comparison of ISUP Grades Between Prostate Biopsy and Radical Prostatectomy: The Incoherence and Related Factors

Objective: To assess the incoherence rates between prostate biopsies and radical prostatectomy specimens with the use of the International Society of Urological Pathology grading system and to identify the related factors. Materials and Methods: 89 radical prostatectomy patients were analyzed retrospectively. Patients with Gleason score≥6 were included to the study. Patients’ prostate spesific antigen levels, digital rectal examination, prostate biopsy parameters, prostate cancer risk groups and final prostatectomy pathologies were examined. Gleason scores and International Society of Urological Pathology grades of prostate biopsy and prostatectomy specimens were compared. The coherence, upgrading and downgrading rates of pathologies assessed and related factors were identified. Results: Patients’ mean age was 63.1±6.0 years. Prostate spesific antigen levels ranged from 2.8 to 114.0ng/mL(mean:14.8±16.7). The mean number of cores biopsied was 10.9±3.1. Number of patients in low, intermediate and high risk group were 27(30.3%), 34(38.2%) and 28(31.5%) respectively. The coherence, upgrading and downgrading rates according to International Society of Urological Pathology grading were 49.4%, 33.7% and 16.9% respectively. The low risk prostate cancer group showed the most coherent pathologies with the rate of 70.4%(p

PDF

___

[1] Thomsen FB, Brasso K, Klotz LH, et al. Active surveillance for clinically localized prostate cancer––A systematic review. J Surg Oncol. 2014; 109 (8): 830-5.
[2] Epstein JI, Egevad L, Amin MB, et al. The 2014 International Society of Urological Pathology (ISUP) consensus conference on Gleason grading of prostatic carcinoma. The American journal of surgical pathology. 2016; 40(2): 244-52.
[3] Egevad L, Norlen B, Norberg M. The value of multiple core biopsies for predicting the Gleason score of prostate cancer. BJU international. 2001; 88(7): 716-21.
[4] Bullock N, Simpkin A, Fowler S, et al. Pathological upgrading in prostate cancer treated with surgery in the United Kingdom: trends and risk factors from the British Association of Urological Surgeons Radical Prostatectomy Registry. BMC urology. 2019; 19: 94.
[5] Cohen MS, Hanley RS, Kurteva T, et al. Comparing the Gleason prostate biopsy and Gleason prostatectomy grading system: the Lahey Clinic Medical Center experience and an international meta-analysis. Eur Urol. 2008; 54(2): 371-81.
[6] Ruijter E, van Leenders G, Miller G, et al. Errors in histological grading by prostatic needle biopsy specimens: frequency and predisposing factors. The Journal of Pathology: A Journal of the Pathological Society of Great Britain and Ireland. 2000; 192(2): 229-33.
[7] EAU Guidelines E. EAU Guidelines. Edn. presented at the EAU Annual Congress Amsterdam 2020. ISBN 978-94- 92671-07-3. 2020.
[8] Aihara M, Wheeler TM, Ohori M, et al. Heterogeneity of prostate cancer inradical prostatectomy specimens. Urology. 1994; 43(1): 60-6.
[9] Epstein JI, Feng Z, Trock BJ, et al. 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. Eur Urol. 2012; 61(5): 1019-24.
[10] Ooi K, Samali R. Discrepancies in Gleason scoring of prostate biopsies and radical prostatectomy specimens and the effects of multiple needle biopsies on scoring accuracy. A regional experience in Tamworth, Australia. ANZ J Surg. 2007; 77(5): 336-8.
[11] Dolatkhah S, Mirtalebi M, Daneshpajouhnejad P, et al. Discrepancies between biopsy Gleason score and radical prostatectomy specimen Gleason score: an Iranian experience. Urology journal. 2019; 16(1): 56-61.
[12] Coogan CL, Latchamsetty KC, Greenfield J, et al. Increasing the number of biopsy cores improves the concordance of biopsy Gleason score to prostatectomy Gleason score. BJU international. 2005; 96(3): 324-7.
[13] Norberg M, Egevad L, Holmberg L, et al. The sextant protocol for ultrasound-guided core biopsies of the prostate underestimates the presence of cancer. Urology. 1997; 50(4): 562-6.
[14] Miyake H, Kurahashi T, Takenaka A, et al. Improved accuracy for predicting the Gleason score of prostate cancer by increasing the number of transrectal biopsy cores. Urol Int. 2007; 79(4): 302-6.
[15] Rajinikanth A, Manoharan M, Soloway CT, et al. Trends in Gleason score: concordance between biopsy and prostatectomy over 15 years. Urology. 2008; 72(1): 177-82.
[16] Freedland SJ, Kane CJ, Amling CL, et al. Delay of radical prostatectomy and risk of biochemical progression in men with low risk prostate cancer. J Urol. 2006; 175(4): 1298- 303.