Well-differentiated prostate cancer in core biopsy specimens may be associated with extraprostatic disease
Keywords:
Prostate, Prostate cancer, Prostatic neoplasms, Pathology, Pathology, surgicalAbstract
CONTEXT AND OBJECTIVE: Accurate determination of the Gleason score in prostate core biopsy specimens is crucial in selecting the type of prostate cancer treatment, especially for patients with well-differentiated tumors (Gleason score 2 to 4). For such patients, an inaccurate biopsy score may result in a therapeutic intervention that is too conservative. We evaluate the role of Gleason score 2-4 in prostate core-needle biopsies for predicting the fi nal pathological staging following radical prostatectomy. DESIGN AND SETTING: Retrospective study at Hospital das Clínicas, Faculdade de Medicina da Universidade de São Paulo. METHODS: We analyzed the medical records of 120 consecutive patients who underwent radical retropubic prostatectomy to treat clinical localized prostate cancer at our institution between December 2001 and July 2006. Thirty-two of these patients presented well-differentiated tumors (Gleason score 2 to 4) in biopsy specimens and were included in the study. The Gleason scores of the core-needle biopsies were compared with the pathological staging of the surgical specimens. RESULTS: Sixteen of the 32 patients (50%) presented moderately differentiated tumors (Gleason score 5 to 7) in surgical specimens. Eighteen patients (56%) had tumors with involvement of the prostate capsule and ten (31%) had involvement of adjacent organs. Evaluating the 16 patients that maintained Gleason scores of 2 to 4 in the pathological staging of the surgical specimens, 11 (68.7%) had focal invasion of the prostate capsule and fi ve (31.25%) had organ-confi ned disease. CONCLUSION: Well-differentiated tumors (Gleason score 2 to 4) seen in biopsies are not predictive of organ-confi ned disease.
Downloads
References
Murphy GP, Whitmore WF Jr. A report of the workshops on the current status of the histologic grading of prostate cancer. Cancer. 1979;44(4):1490-4.
Murphy GP, Busch C, Abrahamsson PA, et al. Histopathology of localized prostate cancer. Consensus Conference on Diag- nosis and Prognostic Parameters in Localized Prostate Cancer. Stockholm, Sweden, May 12-13, 1993. Scand J Urol Nephrol Suppl. 1994;162:7-42; discussion 115-27.
D’Amico AV, Desjardin A, Chung A, et al. Assessment of outcome prediction models for patients with localized prostate carcinoma managed with radical prostatectomy or external beam radiation therapy. Cancer. 1998;82(10):1887-96.
Olumi AF, Richie JP, Schultz DJ, D’Amico AV. Calculated volume of prostate cancer identifies patients with clinical stage T1C disease at high risk biochemical recurrence after radical prostatectomy: a preliminary study. Urology. 2000;56(2):273-7.
Egevad L, Norlén BJ, Norberg M. The value of multiple core biopsies for predicting the Gleason score of prostate cancer. BJU Int. 2001;88(7):716-21
Fleshner NE, Cookson MS, Soloway SM, Fair WR. Repeat tran- srectal ultrasound-guided prostate biopsy: a strategy to improve the reliability of needle biopsy grading in patients with well-dif- ferentiated prostate cancer. Urology. 1998;52(4):659-62.
Epstein JI. Gleason score 2-4 adenocarcinoma of the prostate on needle biopsy: a diagnosis that should not be made. Am J Surg Pathol. 2000;24(4):477-8.
Cury J, Srougi M, Leite KRM, Lopes LHC, Carneiro PC. Cor- relação entre a graduação histológica de biópsias e do espécimen cirúrgico em câncer da próstata. [Correlation between histologic biopsy grading and radical prostatectomy specimen in prostate cancer]. Rev Col Bras Cir. 1999;26(1):21-5.
Thickman D, Speers WC, Philpott PJ, Shapiro H. Effect of the number of core biopsies of the prostate on predicting Gleason score of prostate cancer. J Urol. 1996;156(1):110-3.
Garnett JE, Oyasu R, Grayhack JT. The accuracy of diagnostic biopsy specimens in predicting tumor grades by Gleason’s classification of radical prostatectomy specimens. J Urol. 1984;131(4):690-3.
Cookson MS, Fleshner NE, Soloway SM, Fair WR. Cor- relation between Gleason score of needle biopsy and radical prostatectomy specimen: accuracy and clinical implications. J Urol. 1997;157(2):559-62.
Bostwick DG. Gleason grading of prostatic needle biopsies. Correlation with grade in 316 matched prostatectomies. Am J Surg Pathol. 1994;18(8):796-803.
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(6):863-7.
Paulson DF. Impact of radical prostatectomy in the management of clinical localized disease. J Urol. 1994;152(5 Pt 2):1826-30.
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(5):364-70.
Mills SE, Fowler JE Jr. Gleason histologic grading of prostatic carcinoma. Correlations between biopsy and prostatectomy specimens. Cancer. 1986;57(2):346-9.
Spires SE, Cibull ML, Wood DP Jr, Miller S, Spires SM, Banks ER. Gleason histologic grading in prostatic carcinoma. Correla- tion of 18-gauge core biopsy with prostatectomy. Arch Pathol Lab Med. 1994;118(7):705-8.
Steinberg DM, Sauvageot J, Piantadosi S, Epstein JI. Correlation of prostate needle biopsy and radical prostatectomy Gleason grade in academic and community settings. Am J Surg Pathol. 1997;21(5):566-76.
Carlson GD, Calvanese CB, Kahane H, Epstein JI. Accuracy of biopsy Gleason scores from a large uropathology laboratory: use of a diagnostic protocol to minimize observer variability. Urology. 1998;51(4):525-9.
Eble JN, Sauter G, Epstein JI, Sesterhenn IA. WHO Classification of tumours: pathology and genetics of tumours of the urinary system and male genital organs. Lyon: IARC Press; 2004.
Poulos CK, Daggy JK, Cheng L. Preoperative prediction of Gleason grade in radical prostatectomy specimens: the influence of different Gleason grades from multiple positive biopsy sites. Mod Pathol. 2005;18(2):228-34.
Allsbrook WC Jr, Mangold KA, Johnson MH, Lane RB, Lane CG, Epstein JI. Interobserver reproducibility of Gleason grad- ing of prostatic carcinoma: general pathologist. Hum Pathol. 2001;32(1):81-8.
de las Morenas A, Siroky MB, Merriam J, Stilmant MM. Prostatic adenocarcinoma: reproducibility and correlation with clinical stages of four grading systems. Hum Pathol. 1988;19(5):595-7.
Ruijter E, van Leenders G, Miller G, Debruyne F, van de Kaa C. Errors in histological grading by prostatic needle bi- opsy specimens: frequency and predisposing factors. J Pathol. 2000;192(2):229-33.
di Loreto C, Fitzpatrick B, Underhill S, et al. Correlation between visual clues, objective architectural features, and interobserver agreement in prostate cancer. Am J Clin Pathol. 1991;96(1):70-5.
McLean M, Srigley J, Banerjee D, Warde P, Hao Y. Interobserver variation in prostate cancer Gleason scoring: are there implica- tions for the design of clinical trials and treatment strategies? Clin Oncol (R Coll Radiol). 1997;9(4):222-5.
Kronz JD, Silberman MA, Allsbrook WC, Epstein JI. A web- based tutorial improves practicing pathologists’ Gleason grading of images of prostate carcinoma specimens obtained by needle biopsy: validation of a new medical education paradigm. Cancer. 2000;89(8):1818-23.
Partin AW, Kattan MW, Subong EN, 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(18):1445-51.
Kattan MW, Eastham JA, Stapleton AM, Wheeler TM, Scardino PT. A preoperative nomogram for disease recurrence following radical prostatectomy for prostate cancer. J Natl Cancer Inst. 1998;90(10):766-71.
San Francisco IF, Regan MM, Olumi AF, DeWolf WC. Percent of cores positive for cancer is a better preoperative predictor of cancer recurrence after radical prostatectomy than prostate specific antigen. J Urol. 2004;171(4):1492-9.
