CENGİZ KOÇAK

Evaluation of concordance between histopathological prognostic findings from prostate needle biopsy samples and serum prostate-specific antigen levels

Prostate cancer is the most common cancer in men. Although the prostate-specific antigen (PSA) is still used as a diagnostic and screening test, there are some controversies about its performance for the differentiation of high-risk cancer from low-risk cancer at an early stage. The Gleason grading system for the pathological grading of prostatic adenocarcinoma is based on the architectural patterns of prostatic glands and it is one of the major predictors of prostate cancer prognosis and clinical management. This study aimed to investigate the concordance between histopathological prognostic findings from prostate needle biopsy samples and serum PSA levels. This retrospective study included data from 150 patients with histopathologically diagnosed as prostatic adenocarcinoma. All patients underwent multi-core transrectal ultrasound-guided prostate needle biopsy because of elevated PSA. Pathological data were classified as high-grade (≥7, 4+3) and low-grade (≤7, 3+4) based on the Gleason score values. Laboratory data were classified as high-risk (>10 ng/mL) and low-risk (≤10 ng/mL) based on the PSA levels. Ninety three (62%) patients had PSA >10 ng/mL. Seventy patients (46.7%) had Gleason score ≥7 (4+3). Age, tumor volume, PSA levels, and the number of tumor-positive cores were significantly higher in the tumors with Gleason score ≥7 (4+3). Tumor volume, Gleason score, and the number of tumor-positive cores were significantly higher in the tumors with PSA >10 ng/mL. Lymphovascular invasion (LVI) and perineural invasion (PNI) positivity were more often in the high-grade and high-risk tumors. Age, tumor volume, PSA, and the number of tumorpositive cores showed a significant positive correlation with the Gleason score and tumor volume. The cut-off values of PSA (Gleason score ≤7 vs ≥7) was 15.45 ng/mL with AUC=0.882 (95% confidence interval, CI: 0.82 to 0.94), sensitivity was 87% (95% CI: 0.76 to 0.94), specificity was 81% (95% CI: 0.69 to 0.88), and likelihood ratio was 4.4.

PDF

___

Fenton JJ, Weyrich MS, Durbin S, et al. Prostate-specific antigen-based screening for prostate cancer: Evidence report and systematic review for the US Preventive Services Task Force. JAMA. 2018;319:1914-31.

Barry MJ, Simmons LH. Prevention of prostate cancer morbidity and mortality: Primary prevention and early detection. Med Clin North Am. 2017;101:787-806.

Arneth BM. Clinical significance of measuring prostate-specific antigen. Lab Med. 2009;40:487–91.

National Cancer Institute. Prostate-Specific Antigen (PSA) Test. Available at: https://www.cancer.gov/types/prostate/psa-fact-sheet. Accessed date 20.01.2019.

Gleason DF. Classification of prostatic carcinomas. Cancer Chemother Rep. 1966;50:125-8.

Sauter G, Steurer S, Clauditz TS, et al. Clinical utility of quantitative Gleason grading in prostate biopsies and prostatectomy specimens. Eur Urol. 2016;69:592-8.

Gordetsky J, Epstein J. Grading of prostatic adenocarcinoma: current state and prognostic implications. Diagn Pathol. 2016;11:25.

Pezaro C, Woo HH, Davis ID. Prostate cancer: measuring PSA. Intern Med J. 2014;44:433-40.

Egevad L, Ahmad AS, Algaba F, et al. Standardization of Gleason grading among 337 European pathologists. Histopathology. 2013;62:247-56.

Epstein JI, Amin MB, Reuter VE, et al. Contemporary Gleason grading of prostatic carcinoma: An update with discussion on practical issues to implement the 2014 International Society of Urological Pathology (ISUP) consensus conference on Gleason grading of prostatic carcinoma. Am J Surg Pathol. 2017;41:1-7.

Rodrigues G, Warde P, Pickles T, et al. Pre-treatment risk stratification of prostate cancer patients: A critical review. Can Urol Assoc J. 2012;6:121-7.

Mottet N, Bellmunt J, Bolla M, et al. EAU-ESTRO-SIOG Guidelines on prostate cancer. Part 1: Screening, diagnosis, and local treatment with curative intent. Eur Urol. 2017;71:618-29.

D’Amico AV, Whittington R, Malkowicz SB, et al. Biochemical outcome after radical prostatectomy, external beam radiation therapy, or interstitial radiation therapy for clinically localized prostate cancer. JAMA. 1998;280:969-74.

D’Amico AV, Whittington R, Malkowicz SB, et al. Biochemical outcome after radical prostatectomy or external beam radiation therapy for patients with clinically localized prostate carcinoma in the prostate specific antigen era. Cancer. 2002;95:281-6.

Chan TY, Partin AW, Walsh PC, et al. Prognostic significance of Gleason score 3+4 versus Gleason score 4+3 tumor at radical prostatectomy. Urology. 2000;56:823–7.

Koontz BF, Tsivian M, Mouraviev V, et al. Impact of primary Gleason grade on risk stratification for Gleason score 7 prostate cancers. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2012;82:200–3.

Makarov DV, Sanderson H, Partin AW, et al. Gleason score 7 prostate cancer on needle biopsy: is the prognostic difference in Gleason scores 4+3 and 3+4 independent of the number of involved cores? J Urol. 2002;167:2440–2.

Burdick MJ, Reddy CA, Ulchaker J, et al. Comparison of biochemical relapse-free survival between primary Gleason score 3 and primary Gleason score 4 for biopsy Gleason score 7 prostate cancer. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2009;73:1439–45.

Kang DE, Fitzsimons NJ, Presti JC, Jr, et al. Risk stratification of men with Gleason score 7 to 10 tumors by primary and secondary Gleason score: results from the SEARCH database. Urology. 2007;70:277–82.

Vickers AJ, Sjoberg DD, Ankerst DP, et al. The Prostate Cancer Prevention Trial risk calculator and the relationship between prostate-specific antigen and biopsy outcome. Cancer. 2013;119:3007-11.

Ankerst DP, Hoefler J, Bock S, et al. Prostate Cancer Prevention Trial risk calculator 2.0 for the prediction of low- vs high-grade prostate cancer. Urology. 2014;83:1362-7.

Bright EA, Manuel C, Goddard JC, et al. Incidence and factors predicting the detection of prostate cancer after transurethral resection of the prostate for clinically benign disease. Urol Int. 2009;83:171-4.

Gunda D, Kido I, Kilonzo S, et al. Prevalence and associated factors of incidentally diagnosed prostatic carcinoma among patients who had transurethral prostatectomy in Tanzania: A retrospective study. Ethiop J Health Sci. 2018;28:11-8.

Partin AW, Kattan MW, Subong EN, et al. Combination of prostatespecific antigen, clinical stage, and Gleason score to predict pathological stage of localized prostate cancer. A multi-institutional update. JAMA. 1997;277:1445-51.

Guimaraes MS, Quintal MM, Meirelles LR, et al. Gleason score as predictor of clinicopathologic findings and biochemical (PSA) progression following radical prostatectomy. Int Braz J Urol. 2008;34:23-9.

Antunes AA, Freire Gde C, Aiello Filho D, et al. Analysis of the risk factors for incidental carcinoma of the prostate in patients with benign prostatic hyperplasia. Clinics (Sao Paulo). 2006;61:545-50.

Pai K, Salgaonkar GA, Kudva R, et al. Diagnostic correlation between serum PSA, Gleason score and bone scan results in prostatic cancer patients with bone metastasis. British Biomedical Bulletin. 2015;3:1-7.

Nnabugwu II, Udeh EI, Ugwumba FO, et al. Predicting Gleason score using the initial serum total prostate-specific antigen in Black men with symptomatic prostate adenocarcinoma in Nigeria. Clin Interv Aging. 2016;11:961-6.

Kato RB, Srougi V, Salvadori FA, et al. Pretreatment tumor volume estimation based on total serum psa in patients with localized prostate cancer. Clinics (Sao Paulo). 2008;63:759-62.

Carvalhal GF, Daudi SN, Kan D, et al. Correlation between serum prostatespecific antigen and cancer volume in prostate glands of different sizes. Urology. 2010;76:1072-6.

Partin AW, Carter HB, Chan DW, et al. Prostate specific antigen in the staging of localized prostate cancer: influence of tumor differentiation, tumor volume and benign hyperplasia. J Urol. 1990;143:747-52.

Stamey TA, Caldwell M, McNeal JE, et al. The prostate specific antigen era in the United States is over for prostate cancer: what happened in the last 20 years? J Urol. 2004;172:1297-301.

Miyake H, Muramaki M, Furukawa J, et al. Prognostic significance of primary Gleason pattern in Japanese men with Gleason score 7 prostate cancer treated with radical prostatectomy. Urol Oncol. 2013;31:1511-6.

Cheng L, Jones TD, Lin H, et al. Lymphovascular invasion is an independent prognostic factor in prostatic adenocarcinoma. J Urol. 2005;174:2181-5.

Liu H, Zhou H, Yan L, et al. Prognostic significance of six clinicopathological features for biochemical recurrence after radical prostatectomy: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Oncotarget. 2017;9:32238-32249.

Jiang W, Zhang L, Wu B, et al. The impact of lymphovascular invasion in patients with prostate cancer following radical prostatectomy and its association with their clinicopathological features: An updated PRISMAcompliant systematic review and meta-analysis. Medicine (Baltimore). 2018;97(49):e13537.

Kang M, Oh JJ, Lee S, et al. Perineural invasion and lymphovascular invasion are associated with increased risk of biochemical recurrence in patients undergoing radical prostatectomy. Ann Surg Oncol. 2016;23:2699-706.

Catalona WJ, Smith DS, Ratliff TL, et al. Measurement of prostate-specific antigen in serum as a screening test for prostate cancer. N Engl J Med. 1991;324:1156-61.

Lojanapiwat B, Anutrakulchai W, Chongruksut W, et al. Correlation and diagnostic performance of the prostate-specific antigen level with the diagnosis, aggressiveness, and bone metastasis of prostate cancer in clinical practice. Prostate Int. 2014;2:133-9.