scholarly journals Needle biopsy size and pathological Gleason Score diagnosis: No evidence for a link

2013 ◽  
Vol 7 (9-10) ◽  
pp. 567 ◽  
Author(s):  
Antonio Cicione ◽  
Francesco Cantiello ◽  
Cosimo De Nunzio ◽  
Andrea Tubaro ◽  
Rocco Damiano
Keyword(s):  
Prostate Cancer ◽  
Gleason Score ◽  
Prostate Biopsy ◽  
Specific Antigen ◽  
Kappa Statistic ◽  
Study Groups ◽  
Localized Prostate Cancer ◽  
Needle Size ◽  
Biopsy Needle ◽  
Biopsy Gleason Score

Background: Biopsy Gleason score (GS), in combination with other clinical parameters, is important to take a therapeutic decision for patients with diagnosis of localized prostate cancer. However, preoperative GS is often upgraded after a radical prostatectomy. Increasing the amount of tissue in prostate biopsy may be a way to avoid this issue. We evaluate the influence of a larger biopsy needle size on the concordance between biopsy and pathological GS.Methods: We analyzed paired biopsies and prostatectomy specimens from 104 cases of men with clinically localized prostate cancer. At the time of prostate biopsy, the patients were prospectively randomized into two needle groups (16-Gauge [G] and 18G) using a 1:1 ratio. GS concordance was estimated performing kappa statistic testing, overall concordance rate and risk to under grade biopsy GS=6. A logistic regression analysis was performed to evaluate the patients’ characteristics as possible risk factors.Results: The overall concordance between prostate biopsy and pathological GS was 76.9% and 75.6% (p = 0.875) and the k values were 0.821 and 0.811 (p = 0.424), respectively, for 16G and 18G needle study groups. The risk to undergrade a biopsy GS=6 was 21.1% and 15.4% (p = 0.709) using a 16G and 18G needle, respectively. Age, prostate-specific antigen, prostate volume and needle calibre were not independently associated with a higher risk of GS discordance.Conclusions: Needle size does not affect the concordance between biopsy and pathological GS. Although GS is not the only way to determine treatment, it is still an unresolved urological issue.

scholarly journals Predictors of Gleason score upgrading in patients with prostate biopsy Gleason score ≤6

2014 ◽  
Vol 8 (5-6) ◽  
pp. 342 ◽  
Author(s):  
Hasmet Sarici ◽  
Onur Telli ◽  
Orhan Yigitbasi ◽  
Musa Ekici ◽  
Berat Cem Ozgur ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Gleason Score ◽  
Prostate Biopsy ◽  
Prostate Volume ◽  
Specific Antigen ◽  
Transrectal Ultrasound ◽  
Radical Retropubic Prostatectomy ◽  
Small Sample ◽  
Ultrasound Guided ◽  
Increased Risk ◽  
Biopsy Gleason Score

Introduction: The discrepancy between prostate biopsy and prostatectomy Gleason scores is common. We investigate the predictive value of prostate biopsy features for predicting Gleason score (GS) upgrading in patients with biopsy Gleason scores ≤6 who underwent radical retropubic prostatectomy (RRP). Our aim was to determine predictors of GS upgrading and to offer guidance to clinicians in determining the therapeutic option.Methods: We performed a retrospective study of patients who underwent RRP for clinically localized prostate cancer at 2 major centres between January 2007 and March 2013. All patients with either abnormal digital examination or elevated prostate-specific antigen at screening underwent transrectal ultrasound-guided prostate biopsy. Variables were evaluated among the patients with and without GS upgrading. Our study limitations include its retrospective design, the fact that all subjects were Turkish and the fact that we had a small sample size.Results: In total, 321 men had GS ≤6 on prostate biopsy. Of these, 190 (59.2%) had GS ≤6 concordance and 131 (40.8%) had GS upgrading from ≤6 on biopsy to 7 or higher at the time of the prostatectomy. Independent predictors of pathological upgrading were prostate volume <40 cc (p < 0.001), maximum percent of cancer in any core (p = 0.011), and >1 core positive for cancer (p < 0.001).Conclusions: When obtaining an extended-core biopsy scheme, patients with small prostates (≤40 cc), greater than 1 core positive for cancer, and an increased burden of cancer are associated with increased risk of GS upgrading. Patients with GS ≤6 on biopsy with these pathological parameters should be carefully counselled on treatment decisions.

Advancing age and the risk of adverse pathology at radical prostatectomy in men with biopsy Gleason score 6 prostate cancer.

2020 ◽  
Vol 38 (6_suppl) ◽  
pp. 289-289
Author(s):  
Daniel Kim ◽  
Ming-Hui Chen ◽  
Hartwig Huland ◽  
Markus Graefen ◽  
Derya Tilki ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Prostate Cancer ◽  
Radical Prostatectomy ◽  
Gleason Score ◽  
Specific Antigen ◽  
Cancer Center ◽  
Study Cohort ◽  
Pathologic Features ◽  
Younger Men ◽  
Biopsy Gleason Score ◽  
The Impact

289 Background: We evaluated the impact of age > 65 years versus younger on the odds of finding adverse pathologic features (pT3/T4 and/or R1 and/or Gleason score 8, 9, 10) at radical prostatectomy (RP) among men with biopsy Gleason score 6 prostate cancer (PC). Methods: The study cohort comprised 3191 men with biopsy Gleason score 6 PC treated with a RP between February 28, 1992 and February 15, 2016 at the Martini-Klinik Prostate Cancer Center. Multivariable logistic regression was used to evaluate the impact of age > 65 years versus younger on the adjusted odds ratio (AOR) of finding adverse pathology at RP adjusting for pre-RP prostate specific antigen (PSA), clinical tumor category, year of diagnosis, percent positive biopsies (PPB), and PSA density (PSAd). Results: Men age > 65 years as compared to younger had significantly lower median PPB (16.67% vs 20.0%; p = 0.01) and PSAd (0.13 ng/mL vs 0.15 ng/mL; p < 0.0001). Yet, while both increasing PPB (AOR 1.018, 95% CI 1.013, 1.023; p- < 0.0001) and PSAd (AOR 4.28, 95% CI 1.66, 11.01; p = 0.003) were significantly associated with an increased odds of finding adverse pathology at RP, men age > 65 years versus younger had a higher odds of adverse pathology at RP (AOR 1.28, 95% CI 1.002, 1.62; p = 0.048). Conclusions: Despite a more favorable median PPB and PSAd, men with biopsy Gleason score 6 PC and who are age > 65 years compared to younger men are at higher risk for having adverse pathology at RP and may benefit from a multiparametric MRI and targeted biopsy before proceeding with active surveillance. If higher grade/stage disease is discovered and treatment indicated then this information could guide both the use and duration of supplemental androgen deprivation therapy in men considering radiation therapy.

Does prostate biopsy Gleason score accurately express the biologic features of prostate cancer?

2007 ◽  
Vol 25 (5) ◽  
pp. 383-386 ◽  
Author(s):  
Kobi Stav ◽  
Sandbank Judith ◽  
Herbert Merald ◽  
Dan Leibovici ◽  
Arie Lindner ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Prostate Cancer ◽  
Gleason Score ◽  
Prostate Biopsy ◽  
Biopsy Gleason Score

scholarly journals Active Surveillance for the Management of Localized Prostate Cancer (Cancer Care Ontario Guideline): American Society of Clinical Oncology Clinical Practice Guideline Endorsement

2016 ◽  
Vol 34 (18) ◽  
pp. 2182-2190 ◽  
Author(s):  
Ronald C. Chen ◽  
R. Bryan Rumble ◽  
D. Andrew Loblaw ◽  
Antonio Finelli ◽  
Behfar Ehdaie ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Prostate Cancer ◽  
Clinical Practice ◽  
Clinical Oncology ◽  
Active Surveillance ◽  
Gleason Score ◽  
Cancer Care ◽  
Specific Antigen ◽  
Localized Prostate Cancer ◽  
Risk Category ◽  
American Society

Purpose To endorse Cancer Care Ontario’s guideline on Active Surveillance for the Management of Localized Prostate Cancer. The American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO) has a policy and set of procedures for endorsing clinical practice guidelines developed by other professional organizations. Methods The Active Surveillance for the Management of Localized Prostate Cancer guideline was reviewed for developmental rigor by methodologists. The ASCO Endorsement Panel then reviewed the content and the recommendations. Results The ASCO Endorsement Panel determined that the recommendations from the Active Surveillance for the Management of Localized Prostate Cancer guideline, published in May 2015, are clear, thorough, and based upon the most relevant scientific evidence. ASCO endorsed the Active Surveillance for the Management of Localized Prostate Cancer guideline with added qualifying statements. The Cancer Care Ontario recommendation regarding 5-alpha reductase inhibitors was not endorsed by the ASCO panel. Recommendations For most patients with low-risk (Gleason score ≤ 6) localized prostate cancer, active surveillance is the recommended disease management strategy. Factors including younger age, prostate cancer volume, patient preference, and ethnicity should be taken into account when making management decisions. Select patients with low-volume, intermediate-risk (Gleason 3 + 4 = 7) prostate cancer may be offered active surveillance. Active surveillance protocols should include prostate-specific antigen testing, digital rectal examinations, and serial prostate biopsies. Ancillary radiologic and genomic tests are investigational but may have a role in patients with discordant clinical and/or pathologic findings. Patients who are reclassified to a higher-risk category (Gleason score ≥ 7) or who have significant increases in tumor volume on subsequent biopsies should be offered active therapy.

scholarly journals Physician Recommendations Trump Patient Preferences in Prostate Cancer Treatment Decisions

2016 ◽  
Vol 37 (1) ◽  
pp. 56-69 ◽  
Author(s):  
Karen A. Scherr ◽  
Angela Fagerlin ◽  
Timothy Hofer ◽  
Laura D. Scherer ◽  
Margaret Holmes-Rovner ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Prostate Cancer ◽  
Gleason Score ◽  
Active Treatment ◽  
Patient Preferences ◽  
Initial Treatment ◽  
Specific Antigen ◽  
Treatment Decisions ◽  
Localized Prostate Cancer ◽  
Treatment Preference ◽  
Medical Factors

Objective. To assess the influence of patient preferences and urologist recommendations in treatment decisions for clinically localized prostate cancer. Methods. We enrolled 257 men with clinically localized prostate cancer (prostate-specific antigen <20; Gleason score 6 or 7) seen by urologists (primarily residents and fellows) in 4 Veterans Affairs medical centers. We measured patients’ baseline preferences prior to their urology appointments, including initial treatment preference, cancer-related anxiety, and interest in sex. In longitudinal follow-up, we determined which treatment patients received. We used hierarchical logistic regression to determine the factors that predicted treatment received (active treatment v. active surveillance) and urologist recommendations. We also conducted a directed content analysis of recorded clinical encounters to determine if urologists discussed patients’ interest in sex. Results. Patients’ initial treatment preferences did not predict receipt of active treatment versus surveillance, Δχ2(4) = 3.67, P = 0.45. Instead, receipt of active treatment was predicted primarily by urologists’ recommendations, Δχ2(2) = 32.81, P < 0.001. Urologists’ recommendations, in turn, were influenced heavily by medical factors (age and Gleason score) but were unrelated to patient preferences, Δχ2(6) = 0, P = 1. Urologists rarely discussed patients’ interest in sex (<15% of appointments). Conclusions. Patients’ treatment decisions were based largely on urologists’ recommendations, which, in turn, were based on medical factors (age and Gleason score) and not on patients’ personal views of the relative pros and cons of treatment alternatives.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document