Korean J Urol.  2014 Jun;55(6):395-399. 10.4111/kju.2014.55.6.395.

Does the Time From Biopsy to Radical Prostatectomy Affect Gleason Score Upgrading in Patients With Clinical T1c Prostate Cancer?

• Eroglu M
• Doluoglu O
• Sarici H
• Telli O
• Ozgur BC
• Bozkurt S

• KMID: 1885618
• DOI: http://doi.org/10.4111/kju.2014.55.6.395

Abstract

PURPOSE
It is debated whether treatment delay worsens oncologic results in localized prostate cancer (PCa). Few studies have focused on the role of a delay between the time of biopsy and the time of surgery. Thus, we aimed to investigate the effect of the time period between biopsy and surgery on Gleason score upgrading (GSU).
MATERIALS AND METHODS
A total of 290 patients who underwent radical retropubic prostatectomy in Ankara Training and Research Hospital were included in the study. The biopsy Gleason score, age, total prostate-specific antigen (PSA) value, prostate volumes, and PSA density (PSAD) were analyzed in all patients. The patients were divided into two groups: patients with GSU (group 1) and patients without GSU (group 2). Variables having a p-value of < or =0.05 in the univariate analysis were selected and then evaluated by use of multivariate logistic regression models. Results were considered significant at p<0.05.
RESULTS
GSU occurred in 121 of 290 patients (41.7%). The mean age of the patients was 66.0+/-7.2 years in group 1 and 65.05+/-5.60 years in group 2 (p=0.18). The mean PSA values of groups 1 and 2 were 8.6+/-4.1 and 8.8+/-4.3 ng/dL, respectively. The mean prostate volumes of groups 1 and 2 were 43.8+/-14.1 and 59.5+/-29.8 mL, respectively. The PSAD of group 1 was significantly higher than that of group 2 (0.20 vs. 0.17, p=0.003). The mean time to surgery was shorter in group 2 (group 1, 52.2+/-22.6 days; group 2, 45.3+/-15.5 days; p=0.004). According to the logistic regression, time from biopsy to surgery is important in the prediction of GSU.
CONCLUSIONS
We suggest that the time period between biopsy and surgery is a significant factor that affects GSU in patients with clinically localized PCa.

Keyword

Biopsy; Gleason score; Prostate neoplasms; Prostatectomy

MeSH Terms

Biopsy*
Humans
Logistic Models
Neoplasm Grading*
Passive Cutaneous Anaphylaxis
Prostate
Prostate-Specific Antigen
Prostatectomy*
Prostatic Neoplasms*
Prostate-Specific Antigen

Reference

1. van den Bergh RC, Roemeling S, Roobol MJ, Roobol W, Schroder FH, Bangma CH. Prospective validation of active surveillance in prostate cancer: the PRIAS study. Eur Urol. 2007; 52:1560–1563.

2. Mohler J, Bahnson RR, Boston B, Busby JE, D'Amico A, Eastham JA, et al. NCCN clinical practice guidelines in oncology: prostate cancer. J Natl Compr Canc Netw. 2010; 8:162–200.

3. Thompson I, Thrasher JB, Aus G, Burnett AL, Canby-Hagino ED, Cookson MS, et al. Guideline for the management of clinically localized prostate cancer: 2007 update. J Urol. 2007; 177:2106–2131.

4. Jemal A, Siegel R, Ward E, Murray T, Xu J, Thun MJ. Cancer statistics, 2007. CA Cancer J Clin. 2007; 57:43–66.

5. Danziger M, Shevchuk M, Antonescu C, Matthews GJ, Fracchia JA. Predictive accuracy of transrectal ultrasound-guided prostate biopsy: correlations to matched prostatectomy specimens. Urology. 1997; 49:863–867.

6. Nguyen PL, Whittington R, Koo S, Schultz D, Cote KB, Loffredo M, et al. The impact of a delay in initiating radiation therapy on prostate-specific antigen outcome for patients with clinically localized prostate carcinoma. Cancer. 2005; 103:2053–2059.

7. Nam RK, Jewett MA, Krahn MD, Robinette MA, Tsihlias J, Toi A, et al. Delay in surgical therapy for clinically localized prostate cancer and biochemical recurrence after radical prostatectomy. Can J Urol. 2003; 10:1891–1898.

8. Khan MA, Mangold LA, Epstein JI, Boitnott JK, Walsh PC, Partin AW. Impact of surgical delay on long-term cancer control for clinically localized prostate cancer. J Urol. 2004; 172(5 Pt 1):1835–1839.

9. Sved PD, Gomez P, Manoharan M, Kim SS, Soloway MS. Limitations of biopsy Gleason grade: implications for counseling patients with biopsy Gleason score 6 prostate cancer. J Urol. 2004; 172:98–102.

10. Stackhouse DA, Sun L, Schroeck FR, Jayachandran J, Caire AA, Acholo CO, et al. Factors predicting prostatic biopsy Gleason sum under grading. J Urol. 2009; 182:118–122.

11. Turley RS, Hamilton RJ, Terris MK, Kane CJ, Aronson WJ, Presti JC Jr, et al. Small transrectal ultrasound volume predicts clinically significant Gleason score upgrading after radical prostatectomy: results from the SEARCH database. J Urol. 2008; 179:523–527.

12. Turley RS, Terris MK, Kane CJ, Aronson WJ, Presti JC Jr, Amling CL, 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.

13. O'Brien D, Loeb S, Carvalhal GF, McGuire BB, Kan D, Hofer MD, et al. Delay of surgery in men with low risk prostate cancer. J Urol. 2011; 185:2143–2147.

14. Boorjian SA, Bianco FJ Jr, Scardino PT, Eastham JA. Does the time from biopsy to surgery affect biochemical recurrence after radical prostatectomy? BJU Int. 2005; 96:773–776.

15. Vickers AJ, Bianco FJ Jr, Boorjian S, Scardino PT, Eastham JA. Does a delay between diagnosis and radical prostatectomy increase the risk of disease recurrence? Cancer. 2006; 106:576–580.

16. Holmstrom B, Holmberg E, Egevad L, Adolfsson J, Johansson JE, Hugosson J, et al. Outcome of primary versus deferred radical prostatectomy in the National Prostate Cancer Register of Sweden Follow-Up Study. J Urol. 2010; 184:1322–1327.

17. D'Amico AV, Renshaw AA, Arsenault L, Schultz D, Richie JP. 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. 1999; 45:841–846.

18. Chun FK, Steuber T, Erbersdobler A, Currlin E, Walz J, Schlomm T, et al. Development and internal validation of a nomogram predicting the probability of prostate cancer Gleason sum upgrading between biopsy and radical prostatectomy pathology. Eur Urol. 2006; 49:820–826.

19. Fukagai T, Namiki T, Namiki H, Carlile RG, Shimada M, Yoshida H. Discrepancies between Gleason scores of needle biopsy and radical prostatectomy specimens. Pathol Int. 2001; 51:364–370.

20. D'Amico AV, Whittington R, Malkowicz SB, Schultz D, Blank K, Broderick GA, 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.

21. Davies JD, Aghazadeh MA, Phillips S, Salem S, Chang SS, Clark PE, et al. Prostate size as a predictor of Gleason score upgrading in patients with low risk prostate cancer. J Urol. 2011; 186:2221–2227.

22. Kassouf W, Nakanishi H, Ochiai A, Babaian KN, Troncoso P, Babaian RJ. Effect of prostate volume on tumor grade in patients undergoing radical prostatectomy in the era of extended prostatic biopsies. J Urol. 2007; 178:111–114.

23. Freedland SJ, Isaacs WB, Platz EA, Terris MK, Aronson WJ, Amling CL, 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.

24. 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; 28:302–307.

25. Kundu SD, Roehl KA, Yu X, Antenor JA, Suarez BK, Catalona WJ. Prostate specific antigen density correlates with features of prostate cancer aggressiveness. J Urol. 2007; 177:505–509.

26. Hong SK, Han BK, Lee ST, Kim SS, Min KE, Jeong SJ, et al. Prediction of Gleason score upgrading in low-risk prostate cancers diagnosed via multi (> or = 12)-core prostate biopsy. World J Urol. 2009; 27:271–276.

27. Gofrit ON, Zorn KC, Taxy JB, Lin S, Zagaja GP, Steinberg GD, et al. Predicting the risk of patients with biopsy Gleason score 6 to harbor a higher grade cancer. J Urol. 2007; 178:1925–1928.

28. Dong F, Jones JS, Stephenson AJ, Magi-Galluzzi C, Reuther AM, Klein EA. Prostate cancer volume at biopsy predicts clinically significant upgrading. J Urol. 2008; 179:896–900.

29. Richstone L, Bianco FJ, Shah HH, Kattan MW, Eastham JA, Scardino PT, et al. Radical prostatectomy in men aged >or=70 years: effect of age on upgrading, upstaging, and the accuracy of a preoperative nomogram. BJU Int. 2008; 101:541–546.

30. Bright E, Manuel C, Goddard JC, Khan MA. Incidence and variables predicting Gleason score up-grading between trans-rectal ultrasound-guided prostate biopsies and radical prostatectomy. Urol Int. 2010; 84:180–184.