Ces Urol 2007, 11(3):82-86 | DOI: 10.48095/cccu2007017

Predictive nomogram for Gleason score up-grading after prostate biopsy

M. Král, V. Študent, A. Vidlář, M. Hrabec, D. Marek
Urologická klinika LF UP a FN, Olomouc

Introduction: The aim of our study was to compare Gleason score in biopsy and after radical prostatectomy to form a mathematical model for more accurate prediction of carcinoma grading after prostatectomy already from initial biopsy.

Material and methods: our group included 159 patients after radical prostatectomy at our institution. We perform reevaluation of bioptic and postoperative specimens according to new recommendation of pathologists.

Results: in biopsies there were 46,4% specimens included into intermediate grade and 53,5% specimens included into high grade cancers while after prostatectomy there were only 21,3% intermediate grade and 78,6% high grade cancers. From these Gleason scores shifts afterward we formed a predictive table.

Conclusion: we approved quite evident histologie evaluation improvement and higher correlation between bioptic and postoperative findings. Thus we can predict expectable Gleason score already from biopsy and incorporate this finding into decision making algorithm in prostate cancer therapy.

Keywords: prostate cancer, Gleason score, correlation, nomogram, biopsy, radical prostatectomy

Published: June 1, 2007 


References

  1. Študent V, Fiala R. První výsledky studie Kapros v Olomouckém kraji. Čes Urol 2006; 1: 19-22.
  2. Parkin DM, Pisani P, Ferlay J. Global cancer statistics. CA Cancer J Clin, 2005; 55: 74- 108. Go to original source... Go to PubMed...
  3. Jemal A, Thomas A et al. Cancer statistics, 2002. Ca Cancer J Clin, 2002; 52, 23-47. Go to original source... Go to PubMed...
  4. Stamey TA, McNeal JE. Adenocarcinoma of the prostate. In Campbell´s Urology - Walsh, Retic, Vaughan; New York - Elsevier, 2002.
  5. Stamey TA, Freiha FS, McNeal JE et al. Localized prostate cancer. Relationship of tumour volume to clinical significance for treatment of prostate cancer. Cancer 1993, suppl., 71: 933-938. Go to original source... Go to PubMed...
  6. Epstein JI, Chan DW, Sokoll LJ et al. Nonpalpable stage T1c prostate cancer: prediction of insignificant disease using free/total prostate specific antigen levels and needle biopsy findings. J Urol. 1998; 160(6 Pt 2): 2407-2411. Go to original source... Go to PubMed...
  7. Bastian PJ, Mangold LA, Epstein JI et al. Characteristics of insignificant clinical T1c prostate tumors. A contemporary analysis. Cancer. 2004 Nov 1; 101(9): 2001-2005. Go to original source... Go to PubMed...
  8. Gleason DF, Mellinger GT. The Veterans Administration Cooperative Urological Research Group: prediction of prognosis for prostatic carcinoma by combined histological grading and clinical staging. J Urol 1974; 111 : 58-64 Go to original source... Go to PubMed...
  9. Epstein JI, Allsbrook WCJ, Amin MB, Egevad LL, and The ISUP Grading Committee (2005a) Consensus Conference on Gleason grading of prostatic carcinoma. Am J Surg Pathol 2005; 29: 1228-1242. Go to original source... Go to PubMed...
  10. Král M, Študent V, Soukeníková D et al. GS v biopsii a po RP ve světle změn ISUP 2005 - význam pro urologa. Urolog. pro Praxi, 2007; 4: 173-178.
  11. Bonkhoff H. Gleason grading: diagnostic criteria and clinical implications. Pathologe 26: 422-432. Go to PubMed...
  12. Cecchi M. Minervini R, Sepich CA et al. Correlation between Gleason score of needle biopsy and radical prostatectomy tissue. Int Urol Nephrol 1998; 30: 575-580 Go to original source... Go to PubMed...
  13. Grossfeld GD, Chang JJ, Broering JM et al. Under staging and under grading in a contemporary series of patients undergoing radical prostatectomy: Results from the Cancer Of The Prostate Strategic Urologic Research Endeavor Database. J Urol 2001; 165 : 851- 856. Go to original source... Go to PubMed...
  14. Lattouf JB, Saad F. Gleason score on biopsy: is it reliable for predicting the final grade on pathology? BJU International (2002); 90, 694-699. Go to original source... Go to PubMed...
  15. Montironi R, Navarrete RV, Lopez-Beltran A et al. Histopathology reporting of prostate needle biopsies. 2005 update; Virchows Arch (2006) 449: 1-13. Go to original source... Go to PubMed...
  16. Oyama et al. A Comparison of Interobserver Reproducibility of Gleason Grading of Prostatic Carcinoma in Japan and the United States - Arch Pathol Lab Med. 2005; 129: 1004-1010. Go to original source... Go to PubMed...
  17. Helpap B, Egevad L. The significance of modified Gleason grading of prostatic carcinoma in biopsy and radical prostatectomy specimen. Virchows Arch (2006) 449: 622-627. Go to original source... Go to PubMed...
  18. 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: 477- 478. Go to original source... Go to PubMed...
  19. Klotz LH, Nam RK. Active surveillance with selective delayed intervention for favorable risk prostate cancer: clinical experience and a 'number needed to treat' analysis. Can J Urol. 2006 Feb;13 Suppl 1: 48-55. Review. Go to original source...
  20. Remzi M, Fong YK et al. The Vienna nomogram: validation of a novel biopsy strategy defining the optimal number of cores based on patient age and total prostate volume. J Urol Oct; 174(4 Pt 1): 1256-1260. Go to original source... Go to PubMed...
  21. Chun FK, Briganti A, Shariat SF et al. Significant upgrading affects a third of men diagnosed with prostate cancer: predictive nomogram and internal validation. BJU Int. 2006 Aug; 98(2): 329-334. Go to original source... Go to PubMed...





Web časopisu Česká urologie je určen pouze pro lékaře a odborníky
z oblasti medicíny nebo farmacie.



Beru na vědomí, že informace zveřejněné na těchto stránkách
nejsou určeny pro laickou veřejnost.



Odejít Vstoupit