Predicting the risk of harboring high-grade disease for patients diagnosed with prostate cancer scored as Gleason ≤ 6 on biopsy cores

World Journal of Urology

Volumn 33, Issue 6, 2015, Pages 787-792

  Seisen, Thomas ^a   Roudot Thoraval, Françoise ^a   Bosset, Pierre Olivier ^a   Beaugerie, Aurélien ^a   Allory, Yves ^a   Vordos, Dimitri ^a   Abbou, Claude Clément ^a   De La Taille, Alexandre ^a   Salomon, Laurent ^a  

^a HENRI MONDOR HOSPITAL   (France)

Author keywords

Biopsy; Humans; Male; Middle aged; Neoplasm grading; Nomograms; Prostatectomy; Prostatic neoplasms

Indexed keywords

KALLIKREIN; KALLIKREIN-RELATED PEPTIDASE 3, HUMAN; PROSTATE SPECIFIC ANTIGEN;

AGE; AGED; BLOOD; CANCER GRADING; CANCER STAGING; COHORT ANALYSIS; HUMAN; LARGE CORE NEEDLE BIOPSY; MALE; MIDDLE AGED; MULTIVARIATE ANALYSIS; ORGAN SIZE; PATHOLOGY; PROGNOSIS; PROSTATE; PROSTATECTOMY; PROSTATIC NEOPLASMS; RECEIVER OPERATING CHARACTERISTIC; RETROSPECTIVE STUDY; RISK FACTOR;

AGE FACTORS; AGED; BIOPSY, LARGE-CORE NEEDLE; COHORT STUDIES; HUMANS; KALLIKREINS; MALE; MIDDLE AGED; MULTIVARIATE ANALYSIS; NEOPLASM GRADING; NEOPLASM STAGING; ORGAN SIZE; PROGNOSIS; PROSTATE; PROSTATE-SPECIFIC ANTIGEN; PROSTATECTOMY; PROSTATIC NEOPLASMS; RETROSPECTIVE STUDIES; RISK FACTORS; ROC CURVE;

EID: 84937635083     PISSN: 07244983     EISSN: 14338726     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1007/s00345-014-1348-8     Document Type: Article

References (30)

1. Rubin MA, Bismar TA, Curtis S, Montie JE (2004) 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 28:946–952
2. Freedland SJ, Kane CJ, Amling CL, Aronson WJ, Terris MK, Presti JC Jr (2007) Upgrading and downgrading of prostate needle biopsy specimens: risk factors and clinical implications. Urology 69:495–499
3. Pinthus JH, Witkos M, Fleshner NE, Fleshner NE, Sweet J, Evans A, Jewett MA, Krahn M, Alibhai S, Trachtenberg J (2006) Prostate cancers scored as Gleason 6 on prostate biopsy are frequently Gleason 7 tumors at radical prostatectomy: implication on outcome. J Urol 176:979–984
4. King CR, McNeal JE, Gill H, Presti JC Jr (2004) Extended prostate biopsy scheme improves reliability of Gleason grading: implications for radiotherapy patients. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 59:386–391
5. Bostwick DG (1994) Grading prostate cancer. Am J Clin Pathol 102:S38
6. Moussa A, Li J, Soriano M, Klein EA, Dong F, Jones JS (2009) Prostate biopsy clinical and pathological variables that predict significant grading changes in patients with intermediate and high grade prostate cancer. BJU Int 103:42–48
7. Kassouf W, Nakanishi H, Ochiai A, Babaian KN, Troncoso P, Babaian RJ (2007) Effect of prostate volume on tumor grade in patients undergoing radical prostatectomy in the era of extended prostate biopsies. J Urol 178:111–114
8. Chun FK, Steuber T, Erbersdobler A, Currlin E, Walz J, Schlomm T, Haese A, Heinzer H, McCormack M, Huland H, Graefen M, Karakiewicz PI (2006) Development and internal validation of a nomogram predicting the probability of prostate cancer Gleason sum upgrading between biopsy and radical prostatectomy pathology. Eur Urol 49:820–826
9. Kulkarni GS, Lockwood G, Evans A, Toi A, Trachtenberg J, Jewett MA, Finelli A, Fleshner NE (2007) Clinical predictors of Gleason score upgrading: implications for patients considering watchful waiting, active surveillance, or brachytherapy. Cancer 109:2432–2438
10. Moussa AS, Kattan MW, Berglund R, Yu C, Fareed K, Jones JS (2010) A nomogram for predicting upgrading in patients with low- and intermediate-grade prostate cancer in the era of extended prostate sampling. BJU Int 105:352–358
11. Capitanio U, Karakiewicz PI, Valiquette L, Perrotte P, Jeldres C, Briganti A, Gallina A, Suardi N, Cestari A, Guazzoni G, Salonia A, Montorsi F (2009) Biopsy core number represents 1 of foremost predictors of clinically significant Gleason sum upgrading in patients with low-risk prostate cancer. Urology 73:1087–1091
12. Stamey TA, McNeal JE, Freiha FS, Redwine E (1988) Morphometric and clinical studies on 68 consecutive radical prostatectomies. J Urol 139:1235–1241
13. Epstein JI, Allsbrook WC Jr, Amin MB, Egevad LL (2005) ISUP Grading Committee. The 2005 International Society of Urological Pathology (ISUP) Consensus Conference on Gleason Grading of Prostatic carcinoma. Am J Surg Pathol 29:1228–42
14. Chun FK, Briganti A, Shariat SF, Graefen M, Montorsi F, Erbersdobler A, Steuber T, Salonia A, Currlin E, Scattoni V, Friedrich MG, Schlomm T, Haese A, Michl U, Colombo R, Heinzer H, Valiquette L, Rigatti P, Roehrborn CG, Huland H, Karakiewicz PI (2006) Significant upgrading affects a third of men diagnosed with prostate cancer: predictive nomogram and internal validation. BJU Int 98:329–334
15. Cohen MS, Hanley RS, Kurteva T, Graefen M, Montorsi F, Erbersdobler A, Steuber T, Salonia A, Currlin E, Scattoni V, Friedrich MG, Schlomm T, Haese A, Michl U, Colombo R, Heinzer H, Valiquette L, Rigatti P, Roehrborn CG, Huland H, Karakiewicz PI (2008) Comparing the Gleason prostate biopsy and Gleason prostatectomy grading system: the Lahey Clinic Medical Center experience and an international meta-analysis. Eur Urol 54:371–381
16. Melia J, Moseley R, Ball RY, Griffiths DF, Grigor K, Harnden P, Jarmulowicz M, McWilliam LJ, Montironi R, Waller M, Moss S, Parkinson MC (2006) A UK-based investigation of inter- and intra-observer reproducibility of Gleason grading of prostatic biopsies. Histopathology 48:644–654
17. Ozdamar SO, Sarikaya S, Yildiz L, Atilla MK, Kandemir B, Yildiz S (1996) Intraobserver and interobserver reproducibility of WHO and Gleason histologic grading systems in prostatic adenocarcinomas. Int Urol Nephrol 28:73–77
18. Cintra ML, Billis A (1991) Histologic grading of prostatic adenocarcinoma: intraobserver reproducibility of the Mostofi, Gleason and Bocking grading systems. Int Urol Nephrol 23:449–454
19. Carlson GD, Calvanese CB, Kahane H, Epstein JI (1998) Accuracy of biopsy Gleason scores from a large uropathology laboratory: use of a diagnostic protocol to minimize observer variability. Urology 51:525–529
20. Richstone L, Bianco FJ, Shah HH, Kattan MW, Eastham JA, Scardino PT, Scherr DS (2008) Radical prostatectomy in men aged ≥ 70 years: effect of age on upgrading, upstaging, and the accuracy of a preoperative nomogram. BJU Int 101:541–546
21. Bright E, Manuel C, Goddard JC, Kahn MA (2010) Incidence and variables predicting Gleason score upgrading between transrectal ultrasound guided prostate biopsies and radical prostatectomy. Urol Int 84:180–184
22. D’Amico AV, Renshaw AA, Arsenault L, Schultz D, Richie JP (1999) Clinical predictors of upgrading to Gleason grade 4 or 5 disease at radical prostatectomy: potential implications for patient selection for radiation and androgen suppression therapy. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 45:841–846
23. Freedland JS, Isaacs WB, Platz EA, Terris MK, Aronson WJ, Amling CL, Presti JC Jr, Kane CJ (2005) Prostate size and risk of high-grade, advanced prostate cancer and biochemical progression after radical prostatectomy: a search database study. J Clin Oncol 23:7546–7554
24. Kulkarni GS, Al-Azab R, Lockwood G, Toi A, Evans A, Trachtenberg J, Jewett MA, Finelli A, Fleshner NE (2006) Evidence for a biopsy derived grade artifact among larger prostate glands. J Urol 175:505–509
25. Miam BM, Lehr DJ, Moore CK (2006) Role of prostate biopsy schemes in accurate prediction of Gleason scores. Urology 67:379–383
26. San Francisco IF, DeWolf WC, Rosen S, Upton M, Olumi AF (2003) Extended prostate needle biopsy improves concordance of Gleason grading between prostate needle biopsy and radical prostatectomy. J Urol 169:136–140
27. Ploussard G, Xylinas E, Salomon L, Allory Y, Vordos D, Hoznek A, Abbou CC, de la Taille A (2009) The role of biopsy core number in selecting prostate cancer patients for active surveillance. Eur Urol 56:891–898
28. Numao N, Kawakami S, Yokoyama M, Yonese J, Arisawa C, Ishikawa Y, Ando M, Fukui I, Kihara K (2007) Improved accuracy in predicting the presence of Gleason pattern 4/5 prostate cancer by three-dimensional 26-core systematic biopsy. Eur Urol 52:1663–1668
29. Steinberg DM, Sauvageot J, Piantadosi S, Epstein JI (1997) Correlation of prostate needle biopsy and radical prostatectomy Gleason grade in academic and community settings. Am J Surg Pathol 21:566–576
30. Iremashvili V, Manoharan M, Pelaez L, Rosenberg DL, Soloway MS (2012) Clinically significant Gleason score sum upgrade: external validation and head to head comparison of the existing nomograms. Cancer 118:378–385