Upgrade in Gleason score between prostate biopsies and pathology following radical prostatectomy significantly impacts upon the risk of biochemical recurrence

BJU International

Volumn 108, Issue 8 B, 2011, Pages

  Corcoran, Niall M ^a,b,c   Hong, Matthew K H ^b,c   Casey, Rowan G ^a   Hurtado Coll, Antonio ^a   Peters, Justin ^b,c   Harewood, Laurence ^b,c   Goldenberg, S Larry ^a   Hovens, Chris M ^b,c   Costello, Anthony J ^b,c   Gleave, Martin E ^a  

^a VANCOUVER PROSTATE CENTRE   (Canada)

^b UNIVERSITY OF MELBOURNE   (Australia)

^c Australian Prostate Cancer Research Centre at Epworth   (Australia)

Author keywords

biochemical recurrence; biopsy; Gleason score; prostate cancer

Indexed keywords

PROSTATE SPECIFIC ANTIGEN;

ADULT; AGED; ARTICLE; BIOCHEMISTRY; CANCER GRADING; CANCER RECURRENCE; CANCER STAGING; DATA BASE; FOLLOW UP; GLEASON SCORE; HISTOPATHOLOGY; HUMAN; KAPLAN MEIER METHOD; MAJOR CLINICAL STUDY; MALE; MULTIVARIATE ANALYSIS; PREDICTION; PRIORITY JOURNAL; PROSTATE BIOPSY; PROSTATE CANCER; PROSTATECTOMY; RECURRENCE RISK; RISK ASSESSMENT;

ADULT; AGED; HUMANS; MALE; MIDDLE AGED; NEOPLASM GRADING; NEOPLASM RECURRENCE, LOCAL; PROSTATE-SPECIFIC ANTIGEN; PROSTATECTOMY; PROSTATIC NEOPLASMS; RETROSPECTIVE STUDIES; RISK;

EID: 80054044949     PISSN: 14644096     EISSN: 1464410X     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1111/j.1464-410X.2011.10119.x     Document Type: Article

References (18)

1. Albertsen PC, Hanley JA, Fine J,. 20-year outcomes following conservative management of clinically localized prostate cancer. JAMA 2005; 293: 2095-101 (Pubitemid 40617061)
2. D'Amico AV, Desjardin A, Chung A, et al,. Assessment of outcome prediction models for patients with localized prostate carcinoma managed with radical prostatectomy or external beam radiation therapy. Cancer 1998; 82: 1887-96 (Pubitemid 28208644)
3. Philip J, Dutta Roy S, Ballal M, Foster CS, Javle P,. Is a digital rectal examination necessary in the diagnosis and clinical staging of early prostate cancer? BJU Int 2005; 95: 969-71 (Pubitemid 40655689)
4. Stamey TA, Caldwell M, McNeal JE, Nolley R, Hemenez M, Downs J,. 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 (Pubitemid 39249701)
5. Obek C, Louis P, Civantos F, Soloway MS,. Comparison of digital rectal examination and biopsy results with the radical prostatectomy specimen. J Urol 1999; 161: 494-9
6. 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: 371-81
7. Magheli A, Hinz S, Hege C, et al,. Prostate specific antigen density to predict prostate cancer upgrading in a contemporary radical prostatectomy series: a single center experience. J Urol 2010; 183: 126-31
8. Moussa AS, Li J, Soriano M, Klein EA, Dong F, Jones JS,. Prostate biopsy clinical and pathological variables that predict significant grading changes in patients with intermediate and high grade prostate cancer. BJU Int 2009; 103: 43-8
9. Gofrit ON, Zorn KC, Taxy JB, et al,. Predicting the risk of patients with biopsy Gleason score 6 to harbor a higher grade cancer. J Urol 2007; 178: 1925-8 (Pubitemid 47538623)
10. Krane LS, Menon M, Kaul SA, et al,. Role of PSA velocity in predicting pathologic upgrade for Gleason 6 prostate cancer. Urol Oncol 2009; doi:10.1016/j.urolonc. 2009.04.018
11. 11, Tilki D, Schlenker B, John M, et al,. Clinical and pathologic predictors of Gleason sum upgrading in patients after radical prostatectomy: results from a single institution series. Urol Oncol 2009; doi:10.1016/j. urolonc.2009.07.003
12. Muntener M, Epstein JI, Hernandez DJ, et al,. Prognostic significance of Gleason score discrepancies between needle biopsy and radical prostatectomy. Eur Urol 2008; 53: 767-76
13. Serkin FB, Soderdahl DW, Cullen J, Chen Y, Hernandez J,. Patient risk stratification using Gleason score concordance and upgrading among men with prostate biopsy Gleason score 6 or 7. Urol Oncol 2010; 28: 302-7
14. Pinthus JH, Witkos M, Fleshner NE, et al,. Prostate cancers scored as Gleason 6 on prostate biopsy are frequently Gleason 7 tumors at radical prostatectomy: implication on outcome. J Urol 2006; 176: 979-84 (Pubitemid 44142613)
15. Makarov DV, Trock BJ, Humphreys EB, et al,. Updated nomogram to predict pathologic stage of prostate cancer given prostate-specific antigen level, clinical stage, and biopsy Gleason score (Partin tables) based on cases from 2000 to 2005. Urology 2007; 69: 1095-101 (Pubitemid 46891611)
16. D'Amico AV, Moul JW, Carroll PR, Sun L, Lubeck D, Chen MH,. Surrogate end point for prostate cancer-specific mortality after radical prostatectomy or radiation therapy. J Natl Cancer Inst 2003; 95: 1376-83 (Pubitemid 37220457)
17. Freedland SJ, Humphreys EB, Mangold LA, et al,. Risk of prostate cancer-specific mortality following biochemical recurrence after radical prostatectomy. JAMA 2005; 294: 433-9 (Pubitemid 41124175)
18. Pound CR, Partin AW, Eisenberger MA, Chan DW, Pearson JD, Walsh PC,. Natural history of progression after PSA elevation following radical prostatectomy. JAMA 1999; 281: 1591-7 (Pubitemid 29211767)