Concordance Between Biopsy and Radical Prostatectomy Gleason Scores: Evaluation of Determinants in a Large-Scale Study of Patients Undergoing RARP in Belgium.
Center size
Concordance
Gleason score
Prostate cancer
Upgrading
Journal
Pathology oncology research : POR
ISSN: 1532-2807
Titre abrégé: Pathol Oncol Res
Pays: Switzerland
ID NLM: 9706087
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
Oct 2020
Oct 2020
Historique:
received:
05
11
2019
accepted:
23
06
2020
pubmed:
8
7
2020
medline:
13
7
2021
entrez:
8
7
2020
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
To determine whether Gleason scores were concordant between prostate biopsies (bGS) and the definitive resection specimen (pGS) excised with robot-assisted radical prostatectomy (RARP); to identify clinical and pathological factors that might predict upgrading; and to evaluate how upgrading affected outcome. Between 2009 and 2016, 25 Belgian centers participated in collecting prospective data for patients that underwent RARP. We analyzed the concordance rate between the bGS and the pGS in 8021 patients with kappa statistics, and we compared concordance rates from different centers. We assessed the effect of several clinical and pathological factors on the concordance rate with logistic regression analysis. The concordance rate for the entire population was 62.9%. Upgrading from bGS to pGS occurred in 27.3% of patients. The number of biopsies was significantly associated with concordance. Older age (>60 y), a higher clinical T stage (≥cT2), a higher PSA value at the time of biopsy (>10 ng/ml), and more time between the biopsy and the radical prostatectomy were significantly associated with a higher risk of upgrading. Positive margins and PSA relapse occurred more frequently in upgraded patients. Center size did not significantly affect the concordance rate (p = 0.40).This prospective, nationwide analysis demonstrated a Gleason score concordance rate of 62.9%. Upgrading was most frequently observed in the non-concordant group. We identified clinical and pathological factors associated with (non)-concordance. Upgrading was associated with a worse oncological outcome. Center volume was not associated with pathological accuracy.
Identifiants
pubmed: 32632897
doi: 10.1007/s12253-020-00860-w
pii: 10.1007/s12253-020-00860-w
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
2605-2612Références
Gleason DF (1966) Classification of prostate carcinomas. Cancer Chemother 50:125–128
Epstein JI, Allsbrook WC Jr, Amin MB, Egevad LL (2005) The 2005 International Society of Urological Pathology (ISUP) consensus conference on Gleason grading of prostatic carcinoma. Am J Surg Pathol 29(9):1228–1242
doi: 10.1097/01.pas.0000173646.99337.b1
Epstein JI, Egevad L, Amin MB, Delahunt B, Srigley JR, Humphrey PA (2014) The 2014 International Society of Urological Pathology (ISUP) consensus conference on Gleason grading of prostatic carcinoma: definition of grading patterns and proposal for a new grading system. Am J Surg Pathol 40(2):244–252
Kvale R, Moller B, Wahiqvist R et al (2008) Concordance between Gleason score of needle biopsies and radical prostatectomy specimens: a population-based study. BJUI 103:1647–1654
doi: 10.1111/j.1464-410X.2008.08255.x
Rapiti E, Schaffar R, Iselin C et al (2013) Importance and determinants of Gleason score undergrading on biopsy sample of prostate cancer in a population-based study. MBC Urol 13:19
Müntener M, Epstein JI, Henandez DJ et al (2008) Prognostic significance of Gleason score discrepancies between needle biopsy and radical prostatectomy. Eur Urol 53:767–776
doi: 10.1016/j.eururo.2007.11.016
King CR (2000) Patterns of prostate cancer biopsy grading: trends and clinical implications. Int J Cancer 90:305–311
doi: 10.1002/1097-0215(20001220)90:6<305::AID-IJC1>3.0.CO;2-U
Isariyawongse BK, Sun L, Banez L et al (2008) Significant discrepancies between diagnostic and pathologic Gleason sums in prostate cancer: the predictive role of age and prostate-specific antigen. Urology 72:882–886
doi: 10.1016/j.urology.2008.02.021
Joniau S, Spyrantis M, Birganti A et al (2018) Gleason score 6 prostate cancer is not always harmless. Eur Urol Suppl 17(2):e242–e243
doi: 10.1016/S1569-9056(18)31015-7
Albissini S, Joniau S, Quackels T et al (2017) Current trends in patient enrolment for robotic-assisted laparoscopic prostatectomy in Belgium. Cancer 123(21):4139–4146
doi: 10.1002/cncr.30874
European association of urology: guideline on clinical diagnosis of prostate. https://uroweb.org/guideline/prostate-cancer/
McHugh (2012) Interrater reliability: the kappa statistic. Biochem Med 22(3):276–282
doi: 10.11613/BM.2012.031
Wong AT, Agarwal M, Navo EB, Schwartz D, Schreiber D (2017) Concordance of gleason score on biopsy and after prostatectomy: a SEER databyse analysis. J Clin Oncol 33:50
doi: 10.1200/jco.2015.33.7_suppl.50
Evans SM, Bandarage VP, Kronborg C, Earnest A, Millar J, Clouston D (2016) Gleason group concordance between biopsy and radical prostatectomy specimen. A cohort study from prostate Cancer outcome registry – Victoria. Prostate Int 4:145–151
doi: 10.1016/j.prnil.2016.07.004
Cumming JA, Ritchie AWS, Goodman CM, McIntyre MA, Chisholm GF (1990) De-differentiation with time in prostate cancer and the influence of treatment on the course of the disease. BJI 65:271–274
Fossati N, Rossi MS, Cucchiara V et al (2017) Evaluating the effect of time from prostate cancer diagnosis to radical prostatectomy on cancer control: Can surgery be postponed safely? Urol Oncol 35(4):150.e9–150.15
doi: 10.1016/j.urolonc.2016.11.010
Gupta N, Bivalacqua TJ, Han M, Gorin MA, Challacombe BJ, Partin AW, Mamawala MK (2019) Evaluating the impact of length of time from diagnosis to surgery in patients with unfavourable intermediate-risk to very-high-risk clinically localised prostate cancer. BJU Int 124:268–274
doi: 10.1111/bju.14659
Meunier ME, Neuzillet Y, Radulescu C, Cherbonnier C, Hervé JM, Rouanne M, Molinié V, Lebret T (2018) Does the delay from prostate biopsy to radical prostatectomy influence the risk of biochemical recurrence? Prog Urol 28(10):475–481
doi: 10.1016/j.purol.2018.05.003
Wallis CJD, Novara G, Marandino L, Bex A, Kamat AM, Karnes RJ, Morgan TM, Mottet N, Gillessen S, Bossi A, Roupret M, Powles T, Necchi A, Catto JWF, Klaassen Z (2020) Risks from deferring treatment for genitourinary cancers: a collaborative review to aid triage and management during the COVID-19 pandemic. Eur Urol 78:29–42
doi: 10.1016/j.eururo.2020.04.063
Ahmed HU, Bosaily AE, Brown LC et al (2017) Diagnostic accuracy of multi-parametric MRI and TRUS biopsy in prostate cancer (PROMIS): a paired validating confirmatory study. Lancet 389:815–822
doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(16)32401-1
Kasivisvanathan V, Rannikko AS, Borghi M, Panebianco V, Mynderse LA, Vaarala MH, Briganti A, Budäus L, Hellawell G, Hindley RG, Roobol MJ, Eggener S, Ghei M, Villers A, Bladou F, Villeirs GM, Virdi J, Boxler S, Robert G, Singh PB, Venderink W, Hadaschik BA, Ruffion A, Hu JC, Margolis D, Crouzet S, Klotz L, Taneja SS, Pinto P, Gill I, Allen C, Giganti F, Freeman A, Morris S, Punwani S, Williams NR, Brew-Graves C, Deeks J, Takwoingi Y, Emberton M, Moore CM, PRECISION Study Group Collaborators (2018) MRI-targeted or standard biopsy for prostate-Cancer diagnosis. N Engl J Med 378(19):1767–1777
doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa1801993
Van Hove A, Savoie PH, Maurin C et al (2014) Comparison of image-guided targeted biopsies versus systematic randomized biopsies in the detection of prostate cancer: a systematic literature review of well-designed studies. World J Urol 32:847–858
doi: 10.1007/s00345-014-1332-3
Kayano PP, Carneiro K, Castilho TML et al (2018) Comparison of Gleason upgrading rates in transrectal ultrasound systematic random biopsies versus US-MRI fusion biopsies for prostate cancer. Int Braz J Urol 44(6):1106–1113
doi: 10.1590/s1677-5538.ibju.2017.0552
Truesdale MD, Cheetham PJ, Turk AT et al (2010) Gleason score concordance on biopsy-confirmed prostate cancer: is pathological re-evaluation necessary prior to radical prostatectomy? BJU Int 107:749–754
doi: 10.1111/j.1464-410X.2010.09570.x
Allsbrook WC, Mangold KA, Johnson MH, Lane RB, Lane CG, Epstein JI (2001) Interobserver reproducibility of Gleason grading of prostatic carcinoma: general pathologist. Hum Pathol 32(1):81–88
doi: 10.1053/hupa.2001.21135
Corcoran NM, Hong MK, Casey RG et al (2011) Upgrading in Gleason score between prostate biopsies and pathology following radical prostatectomy significantly impacts upon the risk of biochemical recurrence. BJU Int 108:202–210
doi: 10.1111/j.1464-410X.2011.10119.x