Clinical significance of a large difference (≥ 2 points) between biopsy and post-prostatectomy pathological Gleason scores in patients with prostate cancer
- PMID: 21468257
- PMCID: PMC3069569
- DOI: 10.3346/jkms.2011.26.4.507
Clinical significance of a large difference (≥ 2 points) between biopsy and post-prostatectomy pathological Gleason scores in patients with prostate cancer
Abstract
We investigated the clinical significance of large difference (≥ 2 points) between biopsy-derived (bGS) and post-prostatectomy Gleason scores (pGS). At 14 medical centers in Korea, 1,582 men who underwent radical prostatectomy for prostate cancer were included. According to the difference between bGS and pGS, the patients were divided into three groups: A (decreased in pGS ≥ 2, n = 30), B (changed in pGS ≤ 1, n = 1,361; control group), and C (increased in pGS ≥ 2, n = 55). We evaluated various clinicopathological factors of prostate cancer and hazards for biochemical failure. Group A showed significantly higher mean maximal percentage of cancer in the positive cores (max%) and pathological T stage than control. In group C, the number of biopsy core was significantly smaller, however, tumor volume and max% were significantly higher and more positive biopsy cores were presented than control. Worse pathological stage and more margin-positive were observed in group A and C than in control. Hazard ratio for biochemical failure was also higher in group A and C (P = 0.001). However, the groups were not independent factors in multivariate analysis. In conclusion, large difference between bGS and pGS shows poor prognosis even in the decreased group. However it is not an independent prognostic factor for biochemical failure.
Keywords: Gleason Score; Prognosis; Prostatic Neoplasms.
Figures
References
-
- Edwards BK, Brown ML, Wingo PA, Howe HL, Ward E, Ries LA, Schrag D, Jamison PM, Jemal A, Wu XC, Friedman C, Harlan L, Warren J, Anderson RN, Pickle LW. Annual report to the nation on the status of cancer, 1975-2002, featuring population-based trends in cancer treatment. J Natl Cancer Inst. 2005;97:1407–1427. - PubMed
-
- Gleason DF, Mellinger GT. Prediction of prognosis for prostatic adenocarcinoma by combined histological grading and clinical staging. J Urol. 1974;111:58–64. - PubMed
-
- Lerner SE, Blute ML, Bergstralh EJ, Bostwick DG, Eickholt JT, Zincke H. Analysis of risk factors for progression in patients with pathologically confined prostate cancers after radical retropubic prostatectomy. J Urol. 1996;156:137–143. - PubMed
-
- Epstein JI, Partin AW, Sauvageot J, Walsh PC. Prediction of progression following radical prostatectomy. A multivariate analysis of 721 men with long-term follow-up. Am J Surg Pathol. 1996;20:286–292. - PubMed
Publication types
MeSH terms
LinkOut - more resources
Full Text Sources
Medical