Korean J Urol.  2009 Dec;50(12):1182-1187.

Predictors of Gleason Score Upgrading after Radical Prostatectomy in Low-Risk Prostate Cancer

• Lim T
• Park SC
• Jeong YB
• Kim HJ
• Rim JS

Abstract

PURPOSE
The Gleason score is an important predictor of outcome that is used in conjunction with clinical stage and prostate-specific antigen to guide clinical decision making. The prostate biopsy Gleason grade frequently differs from the radical prostatectomy grade. The aim of this study was to determine the risk factors of Gleason upgrading in patients with low-risk prostate cancer after radical prostatectomy.
MATERIALS AND METHODS
We retrospectively analyzed the medical records of 146 patients who underwent radical prostatectomy between 1998 and 2008 in two hospitals of Jeonbuk province in Korea. Pathological Gleason score upgrading was defined as an increase in the Gleason score from < or =6 to > or =7 between the biopsy and radical prostatectomy specimen. Pretreatment clinical and pathological parameters were used to identify predictors of pathological upgrading.
RESULTS
Of the total 146 patients, 51 (34.9%) were upgraded postoperatively. Small prostate volume (p=0.008), abnormality on the digital rectal examination, and positive surgical margin (p=0.001) were significantly and positively associated with upgrading after radical prostatectomy. A total of 17 of 65 patients with low-risk prostate cancer (26.2%) were upgraded postoperatively. Small prostate volume (<30 ml) was significantly (p=0.026) and positively associated with upgrading after radical prostatectomy in patients with low-risk prostate cancer.
CONCLUSIONS
Overall, 26% of patients with low-risk disease were upgraded postoperatively. Small prostate volume was associated with an increased risk for pathological upgrading after radical prostatectomy. These conclusions should be kept in mind when making treatment decisions for men with low-risk prostate cancer.

Keyword

Prostatic neoplasms; Prostatectomy; Risk factors

MeSH Terms

Biopsy
Decision Making
Digital Rectal Examination
Humans
Korea
Male
Medical Records
Neoplasm Grading
Prostate
Prostate-Specific Antigen
Prostatectomy
Prostatic Neoplasms
Retrospective Studies
Risk Factors
Prostate-Specific Antigen

Reference

1. Hong JH, Lee HM, Choi HY. The predictors of biochemical recurrence and metastasis following radical perineal prostatectomy in clinically localized prostate cancer. Korean J Urol. 2005. 46:1161–1167.

2. 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.

3. Miyake H, Kurahashi T, Takenaka A, Hara I, Fujisawa M. Improved accuracy for predicting the Gleason score of prostate cancer by increasing the number of transrectal biopsy cores. Urol Int. 2007. 79:302–306.

4. 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 (≥12)-core prostate biopsy. World J Urol. 2009. 27:271–276.

5. 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.

6. Kulkarni GS, Lockwood G, Evans A, Toi A, Trachtenberg J, Jewett MA, et al. Clinical predictors of Gleason score upgrading: implications for patients considering watchful waiting, active surveillance, or brachytherapy. Cancer. 2007. 109:2432–2438.

7. Müntener M, Epstein JI, Hernandez DJ, Gonzalgo ML, Mangold L, Humphreys E, et al. Prognostic significance of Gleason sore discrepancies between needle biopsy and radical prostatectomy. Eur Urol. 2008. 53:767–775.

8. Freedland SJ, Kane CJ, Amling CL, Aronson WJ, Terris MK, Prest JC Jr. Upgrading and downgrading of prostate needle biopsy specimens: risk factors and clinical implications. Urology. 2007. 69:495–499.

9. 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.

10. Broorjian SA, Karnes RJ, Rangel LJ, Bergstralh EJ, Blute ML. Mayo Clinic validation of the D'amico risk group classification for predicting survival following radical prostatectomy. J Urol. 2008. 179:1354–1360.

11. Montironi R, Mazzucchelli R, Scarpelli M, Lopez-Beltran A, Mikuz G, Algaba F, et al. Prostate carcinoma II: prognostic factors in prostate needle biopsies. BJU Int. 2006. 97:492–497.

12. Boorjian SA, Karnes RJ, Crispen PL, Rangel LJ, Bergstralh EJ, Sebo TJ, et al. The impact of discordance between biopsy and pathological Gleason scores on survival after radical prostatectomy. J Urol. 2009. 181:95–104.

13. 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 biopsies. J Urol. 2007. 178:111–114.

14. Thompson IM, Tangen CM, Goodman PJ, Lucia MS, Parnes HL, Lippman SM, et al. Finasteride improves the sensitivity of digital rectal examination for prostate cancer detection. J Urol. 2007. 177:1749–1752.

15. Kojima M, Troncoso P, Babaian RJ. Influence of noncancerous prostate tissue volume on prostate-specific antigen. Urology. 1998. 51:293–299.

16. 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.

17. Cho JS, Kim CI, Seong DH, Kim HS, Kim YS, Kim SJ, et al. Cut-off point of large prostate volume for the patients with benign prostatic hyperplasia. Korean J Urol. 2005. 46:1246–1250.