Smaller prostate gland size and older age predict Gleason score upgrading

Urologic Oncology: Seminars and Original Investigations

Volumn 31, Issue 7, 2013, Pages 1033-1037

  Gershman, Boris ^a   Dahl, Douglas M ^a   Olumi, Aria F ^a   Young, Robert H ^a   McDougal, W Scott ^a   Wu, Chin Lee ^a  

^a MASSACHUSETTS GENERAL HOSPITAL   (United States)

Author keywords

Age; Gleason score; Prostate cancer; Size; Upgrading

Indexed keywords

ADULT; AGE; ARTICLE; CANCER RISK; GLEASON SCORE; HUMAN; MAJOR CLINICAL STUDY; MALE; PREOPERATIVE PERIOD; PRIORITY JOURNAL; PROSTATE BIOPSY; PROSTATE CANCER; PROSTATE SIZE; PROSTATE WEIGHT; PROSTATECTOMY; RETROSPECTIVE STUDY;

AGE; GLEASON SCORE; PROSTATE CANCER; SIZE; UPGRADING;

ADULT; AGE FACTORS; AGED; BIOPSY; HUMANS; LOGISTIC MODELS; MALE; MIDDLE AGED; NEOPLASM GRADING; ORGAN SIZE; PROGNOSIS; PROSTATE; PROSTATE-SPECIFIC ANTIGEN; PROSTATECTOMY; PROSTATIC NEOPLASMS; RETROSPECTIVE STUDIES; RISK FACTORS;

EID: 84884672590     PISSN: 10781439     EISSN: 18732496     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.urolonc.2011.11.032     Document Type: Article

References (30)

1. Oesterling J.E., Brendler C.B., Epstein J.I., et al. Correlation of clinical stage, serum prostatic acid phosphatase, and preoperative Gleason grade with final pathological stage in 275 patients with clinically localized adenocarcinoma of the prostate. J Urol 1987, 138:92-98.
2. Partin A.W., Kattan M.W., Subong E.N., et al. Combination of prostate-specific antigen, clinical stage, and Gleason score to predict pathological stage of localized prostate cancer. A multi-institutional update. JAMA 1997, 277:1445-1451.
3. Eggener S.E., Scardino P.T., Walsh P.C., et al. Predicting 15-year prostate cancer-specific mortality after radical prostatectomy. J Urol 2011, 185:869-875.
4. Tollefson M.K., Leibovich B.C., Slezak J.M., et al. Long-term prognostic significance of primary Gleason pattern in patients with Gleason score 7 prostate cancer: Impact on prostate cancer specific survival. J Urol 2006, 175:547-551.
5. D'Amico A.V., Whittington R., Malkowicz S.B., et al. Biochemical outcome after radical prostatectomy, external beam radiation therapy, or interstitial radiation therapy for clinically localized prostate cancer. JAMA 1998, 280:969-974.
6. Epstein J.I., Partin A.W., Sauvageot J., et al. Prediction of progression following radical prostatectomy. A multivariate analysis of 721 men with long-term follow-up. Am J Surg Pathol 1996, 20:286-292.
7. Rubin M.A., Bismar T.A., Curtis S., et al. 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, 28:946-952.
8. Sved P.D., Gomez P., Manoharan M., et al. Limitations of biopsy Gleason grade: Implications for counseling patients with biopsy Gleason score 6 prostate cancer. J Urol 2004, 172:98-102.
9. Chun F.K., Briganti A., Shariat S.F., et al. Significant upgrading affects a third of men diagnosed with prostate cancer: Predictive nomogram and internal validation. BJU Int 2006, 98:329-334.
10. Grossfeld G.D., Chang J.J., Broering J.M., et al. Understaging and undergrading in a contemporary series of patients undergoing radical prostatectomy: Results from the Cancer of the Prostate Strategic Urologic Research Endeavor database. J Urol 2001, 165:851-856.
11. Bostwick D.G. Gleason grading of prostatic needle biopsies. Correlation with grade in 316 matched prostatectomies. Am J Surg Pathol 1994, 18:796-803.
12. Bostwick D.G. Grading prostate cancer. Am J Clin Pathol 1994, 102:S38-S56.
13. Kulkarni G.S., Al-Azab R., Lockwood G., et al. Evidence for a biopsy derived grade artifact among larger prostate glands. J Urol 2006, 175:505-509.
14. Uzzo R.G., Wei J.T., Waldbaum R.S., et al. The influence of prostate size on cancer detection. Urol 1995, 46:831-836.
15. Capitanio U., Karakiewicz P.I., Valiquette L., et al. Biopsy core number represents one of foremost predictors of clinically significant Gleason sum upgrading in patients with low-risk prostate cancer. Urology 2009, 73:1087-1091.
16. Dong F., Jones J.S., Stephenson A.J., et al. Prostate cancer volume at biopsy predicts clinically significant upgrading. J Urol 2008, 179:896-900. Discussion 900.
17. Montironi R., Mazzuccheli R., Scarpelli M., et al. Gleason grading of prostate cancer in needle biopsies or radical prostatectomy specimens: Contemporary approach, current clinical significance, and sources of pathology discrepancies. BJU Int 2005, 95:1146-1152.
18. Moussa A.S., Li J., Soriano M., et al. Prostate biopsy clinical and pathological variables that predict significant grading changes in patients with intermediate and high grade prostate cancer. BJU Int 2009, 103:43-48.
19. Stackhouse D.A., Sun L., Schroeck F.R., et al. Factors predicting prostatic biopsy Gleason sum under grading. J Urol 2009, 182:118-122. Discussion 123-4.
20. Turley R.S., Hamilton R.J., Terris M.K., et al. Small transrectal ultrasound volume predicts clinically significant Gleason score upgrading after radical prostatectomy: Results from the SEARCH database. J Urol 2008, 179:523-528.
21. Turley R.S., Terris M.K., Kane C.J., et al. The association between prostate size and Gleason score upgrading depends on the number of biopsy cores obtained: Results from the Shared Equal Access Regional Cancer Hospital Database. BJU Int 2008, 102:1074-1079.
22. Kulkarni G.S., Lockwood G., Evans A., et al. Clinical predictors of Gleason score upgrading: Implications for patients considering watchful waiting, active surveillance, or brachytherapy. Cancer 2007, 109:2432-2438.
23. Richstone L., Bianco F.J., Shah H.H., et al. Radical prostatectomy in men aged ≥70 years: Effect of age on upgrading, upstaging, and the accuracy of a preoperative nomogram. BJU Int 2008, 101:541-546.
24. Bright E., Manuel C., Goddard J.C., et al. Incidence and variables predicting Gleason score upgrading between transrectal ultrasound-guided prostate biopsies and radical prostatectomy. Urol Int 2010, 84:180-184.
25. Sun L., Caire A.A., Robertson C.N., et al. Men older than 70 years have higher risk prostate cancer and poorer survival in the early and late prostate specific antigen eras. J Urol 2009, 182:2242-2249.
26. Pierorazio P.M., Kinnaman M.D., Wosnitzer M.S., et al. Prostate volume and pathologic prostate cancer outcomes after radical prostatectomy. Urol 2007, 70:696-701.
27. Freedland S.J., Isaacs W.B., Platz E.A., et al. Prostate size and risk of high-grade, advanced prostate cancer and biochemical progression after radical prostatectomy: A search database study. J Clin Oncol 2005, 23:7546-7554.
28. 3 predicts for a favorable outcome after radical prostatectomy for localized prostate cancer. Urol 1998, 52:631-636.
29. Hong S.K., Yu J.H., Han B.K., et al. Association of prostate size and tumor grade in Korean men with clinically localized prostate cancer. Urol 2007, 70:91-95.
30. Davidson D.D., Koch M.O., Lin H., et al. Does the size matter?. Prostate weight does not predict PSA recurrence after radical prostatectomy. Am J Clin Pathol 2010, 133:662-668.