Grade Group accuracy is improved by extensive prostate biopsy sampling, but unrelated to prostatectomy specimen sampling or use of immunohistochemistry

Assessing the accurate Grade Group of a prostate needle biopsy specimen is essential for choosing the adequate therapeutic modality for prostate cancer patients. However, it is well-known that biopsy Grade Group tends to up- or downgrade significantly at radical prostatectomy. We aimed to investigate the correlation between accuracy and biopsy core number, performed immunohistochemical staining (IHC) or prostatectomy specimen sampling, with the latest also being correlated with higher detection rates of adverse pathological features, e.g., positive surgical margins, higher pathological stage or presence of perineural invasion (PnI status). The study cohort consisted of 315 consecutive patients diagnosed with prostate adenocarcinoma via transrectal ultrasound-guided needle biopsy who later underwent radical prostatectomy. We grouped and compared patients based on Grade Group accuracy, presence of IHC on biopsy, margin status, pathological stage, and PnI status. Inter-observer reproducibility was also calculated. Statistical analyzes included ANOVA, Tukey's multiple comparisons post hoc test, Chi-squared test, and Fleiss kappa statistics. Undergraded cases harboured a significantly lower number of biopsy cores (p < 0.05), than accurately graded cases. Using IHC did not affect grading accuracy significantly, nor did the number of slides from prostatectomy specimens. The mean number of slides was virtually identical when margin status, pathological stage and PnI status of prostatectomy specimens were compared. Inter-observer reproducibility at our institute was calculated as fair (overall kappa = 0.29). Grade Group accuracy is significantly improved by obtaining more cores at biopsy but is unrelated to performed IHC. The extent of sampling prostatectomy specimens, however, did not affect accuracy and failed to significantly improve detection of adverse pathological features.

Prediction models for prostate cancer to be used in the primary care setting: a systematic review

OBJECTIVE

To identify risk prediction models for prostate cancer (PCa) that can be used in the primary care and community health settings.

DESIGN

Systematic review.

DATA SOURCES

MEDLINE and Embase databases combined from inception and up to the end of January 2019.

ELIGIBILITY

Studies were included based on satisfying all the following criteria: (i) presenting an evaluation of PCa risk at initial biopsy in patients with no history of PCa, (ii) studies not incorporating an invasive clinical assessment or expensive biomarker/genetic tests, (iii) inclusion of at least two variables with prostate-specific antigen (PSA) being one of them, and (iv) studies reporting a measure of predictive performance. The quality of the studies and risk of bias was assessed by using the Prediction model Risk Of Bias ASsessment Tool (PROBAST).

DATA EXTRACTION AND SYNTHESIS

Relevant information extracted for each model included: the year of publication, source of data, type of model, number of patients, country, age, PSA range, mean/median PSA, other variables included in the model, number of biopsy cores to assess outcomes, study endpoint(s), cancer detection, model validation and model performance.

RESULTS

An initial search yielded 109 potential studies, of which five met the set criteria. Four studies were cohort-based and one was a case-control study. PCa detection rate was between 20.6% and 55.8%. Area under the curve (AUC) was reported in four studies and ranged from 0.65 to 0.75. All models showed significant improvement in predicting PCa compared with being based on PSA alone. The difference in AUC between extended models and PSA alone was between 0.06 and 0.21.

CONCLUSION

Only a few PCa risk prediction models have the potential to be readily used in the primary healthcare or community health setting. Further studies are needed to investigate other potential variables that could be integrated into models to improve their clinical utility for PCa testing in a community setting.

The use of prostate MR for targeting prostate biopsies

Management of prostate cancer relies heavily on accurate risk stratification obtained through biopsies, which are conventionally performed under transrectal ultrasound (TRUS) guidance. Yet, multiparametric MRI has grown to become an integral part of the care of males with known or suspected prostate cancer. This article will discuss in detail the different MRI-targeted biopsy techniques, their advantages and disadvantages, and the impact they have on patient management.

Upgrading and upstaging of low-risk prostate cancer among Korean patients: a multicenter study

Only 54% of prostate cancer cases in Korea are localized compared with 82% of cases in the US. Furthermore, half of Korean patients are upgraded after radical prostatectomy (41.6%–50.6%). We investigated the risk factors for upgrading and/or upstaging of low-risk prostate cancer after radical prostatectomy. We retrospectively reviewed the medical records of 1159 patients who underwent radical prostatectomy at five hospitals in Honam Province. Preoperative data on standard clinicopathological parameters were collected. The radical prostatectomy specimens were graded and staged and we defined a “worsening prognosis” as a Gleason score ≥ 7 or upstaging to ≥ pT3. Multivariate logistic regression models were used to assess factors associated with postoperative pathological upstaging. Among the 1159 patients, 324 were classified into the clinically low-risk group, and 154 (47.5%) patients were either upgraded or upstaged. The multivariable analysis revealed that the preoperative serum prostate-specific antigen level (odds ratio [OR], 1.131; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.007–1.271; P= 0.037), percent positive biopsy core (OR: 1.018; 95% CI: 1.002–1.035; P= 0.032), and small prostate volume (≤30 ml) (OR: 2.280; 95% CI: 1.351–3.848; P= 0.002) were predictive of a worsening prognosis. Overall, 47.5% of patients with low-risk disease were upstaged postoperatively. The current risk stratification criteria may be too relaxed for our study cohort.

Preoperative low serum testosterone is associated with high-grade prostate cancer and an increased Gleason score upgrading

BACKGROUND

To compare histological feature of prostate cancer (PCa) according androgenic status in patients who underwent radical prostatectomy (RP).

METHODS

Between March 2007 and September 2013, we prospectively analysed 937 patients who were referred to our centre for RP. Clinical, pathological and biological data have been prospectively collected. Preoperative total testosterone (TT) and bioavailable testosterone (BT) serum determinations were carried out. The threshold for low serum testosterone was set at TT<3 ng/ml. Preoperative PSA value was registered. Gleason score (GS) and predominant Gleason pattern were determined in prostate biopsies and in prostate tissue specimens, crosschecked by two uro-pathologists.

RESULTS

Nine hundred and thirty-seven consecutive patients were included. In all, 14.9% patients had low TT in the population. An exact match between biopsy and prostate specimens in GS grading was observed for 50.6% patients (n=474). Also, 40.9% of all patients were upgraded (n=383): 45.3% (n=63) in low serum testosterone patients and 40.1% (n=320) in normal serum testosterone patients. For prostate specimens, the proportion of patients with predominant Gleason pattern 4 was higher in patients with low TT compared with normal TT (41.7% vs 29.1%, P=0.0029). In all, 20.1% were upgraded from predominant Gleason pattern 3 on biopsies specimen to predominant Gleason 4 pattern on the prostate specimen in patients with low TT, whereas 11.6% were upgraded for normal TT patients (P=0.002).

CONCLUSIONS

Low serum testosterone is an independent risk factor for predominant Gleason pattern 4 on prostate specimen after RP and for upgrading from low- to high-grade cancer between prostate needle biopsies and RP specimen. This observation should be taken into account in localised PCa management, especially for active surveillance or when a nerve-sparing approach is considered.

Improving the Gleason grading accuracy of transrectal ultrasound-guided biopsy

BACKGROUND

Transrectal ultrasound (TRUS)-guided prostate biopsy is the technique of choice for the assessment of clinical suspicion of prostate cancer (PC) based on abnormal digital rectal examination (DRE) and/or elevated or rising levels of prostate-specific antigen (PSA).

PURPOSE

To identify factors involved in TRUS-guided prostate biopsy, which can be modified by radiologists in order to improve Gleason score (GS) accuracy, and to assess the influence of clinical variables.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

We carried out a retrospective review of the records of 185 patients with PC treated surgically at our hospital between 2005 and 2008. Biopsy schemes were classified according to the number of cores (≤7, 8-9, 10-11, 12-15) and the needle length (11, 16, 20 mm). Clinical characteristics - age, family history of PC, DRE, PSA levels, and sonographic data - and prostatectomy GS (pGS) were collected.

RESULTS

Non-random concordance between biopsy Gleason score (bGS) and pGS was obtained for 36% of patients (P < 0.001). Under- and over-staging were 30% and 4%, respectively. Concordance was correlated with the core number (45% for ≤7, 54% for 8-9, 85% for 10-11, and 80% for 12-15; P < 0.001), but not with the needle length. The concordance rate showed a seven-fold increase when 10-11 cores were obtained (95% CI, 2-18; P < 0.001) compared to those cases in which the core number obtained was ≤7. Among clinical variables, only PSA correlated with concordance, showing an inverse relationship.

CONCLUSION

The Gleason correlation values were not improved when 12 or more cores were collected. These values reached a plateau beyond that number of samples. Therefore, when determining treatment strategies, physicians must consider the biopsy scheme used since it has proven to be a predictor of the accuracy of the PC grading system.

Differences in Upgrading of Prostate Cancer in Prostatectomies between Community and Academic Practices

Objective. To determine whether initial biopsy performed by community or academic urologists affected rates of Gleason upgrading at a tertiary referral center. Gleason upgrading from biopsy to radical prostatectomy (RP) is an important event as treatment decisions are made based on the biopsy score. Materials and Methods. We identified men undergoing RP for Gleason 3 + 3 or 3 + 4 disease at a tertiary care academic center. Biopsy performed in the community was centrally reviewed at the academic center. Multivariate logistic regression was used to determine factors associated with Gleason upgrading. Results. We reviewed 1,348 men. There was no difference in upgrading whether the biopsy was performed at academic or community sites (OR 0.9, 95% CI 0.7-1.2). Increased risk of upgrading was seen in those with >1 positive core, older men, and those with higher PSAs. Secondary pattern 4 and larger prostate size were associated with a reduction in risk of upgrading. Compared to the smallest quartile of prostate size (<35 g), those in the highest quartile (>56 g) had a 49% reduction in risk of upgrading (OR 0.51, 95% CI 0.3-0.7). Conclusion. There was no difference in upgrading between where the biopsy was performed and community and academic urologists.

Is small prostate volume a predictor of Gleason score upgrading after radical prostatectomy?

PURPOSE

We aimed to analyze the relationship between prostate volume and Gleason score (GS) upgrading [higher GS category in the radical prostatectomy (RP) specimen than in the prostate biopsy] in Korean men.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

We retrospectively analyzed the medical records of 247 men who underwent RP between May 2006 and April 2011 at our institution. Transrectal ultrasound (TRUS) volume was categorized as 25 cm³ or less (n=61), 25 to 40 cm³ (n=121) and greater than 40 cm³ (n=65). GS was examined as a categorical variable of 6 or less, 3+4 and 4+3 or greater. The relationship between TRUS volume and upgrading of GS was analyzed using multivariate logistic regression.

RESULTS

Overall, 87 patients (35.2%) were upgraded, 20 (8.1%) were downgraded, and 140 (56.7%) had identical biopsy and pathological Gleason sum groups. Smaller TRUS volume was significantly associated with increased likelihood of upgrading (p trend=0.022). Men with prostates 25 cm³ or less had more than 2.7 times the risk of disease being upgraded relative to men with TRUS volumes more than 40 cm³ (OR 2.718, 95% CI 1.403-8.126).

CONCLUSION

In our study, smaller prostate volumes were at increased risk for GS upgrading after RP. This finding should be kept in mind when making treatment decisions for men with prostate cancer that appears to be of a low grade on biopsy, especially in Asian urologic fields.

Clinical and pathological variables that predict changes in tumour grade after radical prostatectomy in patients with prostate cancer

INTRODUCTION

Preoperative Gleason score is crucial, in combination with other preoperative parameters, in selecting the appropriate treatment for patients with clinically localized prostate cancer. The aim of the present study is to determine the clinical and pathological variables that can predict differences in Gleason score between biopsy and radical prostatectomy.

METHODS

We retrospectively analyzed the medical records of 302 patients who had a radical prostatectomy between January 2005 and September 2010. The association between grade changes and preoperative Gleason score, age, prostate volume, prostate-specific antigen (PSA), PSA density, number of biopsy cores, presence of prostatitis and high-grade prostatic intraepithelial neoplasia was analyzed. We also conducted a secondary analysis of the factors that influence upgrading in patients with preoperative Gleason score ≤6 (group 1) and downgrading in patients with Gleason score ≤7 (group 2).

RESULTS

No difference in Gleason score was noted in 44.3% of patients, while a downgrade was noted in 13.7% and upgrade in 42.1%. About 2/3 of patients with a Gleason score of ≤6 upgraded after radical prostatectomy. PSA density (p = 0.008) and prostate volume (p = 0.032) were significantly correlated with upgrade. No significant predictors were found for patients with Gleason score ≤7 who downgraded postoperatively.

CONCLUSION

Smaller prostate volume and higher values of PSA density are predictors for upgrade in patients with biopsy Gleason score ≤6 and this should be considered when deferred treatment modalities are planned.

A Calculator for Prostate Cancer Risk 4 Years After an Initially Negative Screen: Findings from ERSPC Rotterdam

BACKGROUND

Inconclusive test results often occur after prostate-specific antigen (PSA)-based screening for prostate cancer (PCa), leading to uncertainty on whether, how, and when to repeat testing.

OBJECTIVE

To develop and validate a prediction tool for the risk of PCa 4 yr after an initially negative screen.

DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS

We analyzed data from 15 791 screen-negative men aged 55-70 yr at the initial screening round of the Rotterdam section of the European Randomized Study of Screening for Prostate Cancer.

OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS AND STATISTICAL ANALYSIS

Follow-up and repeat screening at 4 yr showed either no PCa, low-risk PCa, or potentially high-risk PCa (defined as clinical stage >T2b and/or biopsy Gleason score ≥ 7 and/or PSA ≥ 10.0 ng/ml). A multinomial logistic regression analysis included initial screening data on age, PSA, digital rectal examination (DRE), family history, prostate volume, and having had a previous negative biopsy. The 4-yr risk predictions were validated with additional follow-up data up to 8 yr after initial screening.

RESULTS AND LIMITATIONS

Positive family history and, especially, PSA level predicted PCa, whereas a previous negative biopsy or a large prostate volume reduced the likelihood of future PCa. The risk of having PCa 4 yr after an initially negative screen was 3.6% (interquartile range: 1.0-4.7%). Additional 8-yr follow-up data confirmed these predictions. Although data were based on sextant biopsies and a strict protocol-based biopsy indication, we suggest that men with a low predicted 4-yr risk (eg, ≤ 1.0%) could be rescreened at longer intervals or not at all, depending on competing risks, while men with an elevated 4-yr risk (eg, ≥ 5%) might benefit from immediate retesting. These findings need to be validated externally.

CONCLUSIONS

This 4-yr future risk calculator, based on age, PSA, DRE, family history, prostate volume, and previous biopsy status, may be a promising tool for reducing uncertainty, unnecessary testing, and overdiagnosis of PCa.

Prediction of prostate cancer risk: the role of prostate volume and digital rectal examination in the ERSPC risk calculators

BACKGROUND

The European Randomized Study of Screening for Prostate Cancer (ERSPC) risk calculators (RCs) are validated tools for prostate cancer (PCa) risk assessment and include prostate volume (PV) data from transrectal ultrasound (TRUS).

OBJECTIVE

Develop and validate an RC based on digital rectal examination (DRE) that circumvents the need for TRUS but still includes information on PV.

DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS

For development of the DRE-based RC, we studied the original ERSPC Rotterdam RC population including 3624 men (885 PCa cases) and 2896 men (547 PCa cases) detected at first and repeat screening 4 yr later, respectively. A validation cohort consisted of 322 men, screened in 2010-2011 as participants in ERSPC Rotterdam.

MEASUREMENTS

Data on TRUS-assessed PV in the development cohorts were re-coded into three categories (25, 40, and 60 cm3) to assess the loss of information by categorization of volume information. New RCs including PSA, DRE, and PV categories (DRE-based RC) were developed for men with and without a previous negative biopsy to predict overall and clinically significant PCa (high-grade [HG] PCa) defined as T stage>T2b and/or Gleason score≥7. Predictive accuracy was quantified by the area under the receiver operating curve. We compared performance with the Prostate Cancer Prevention Trial (PCPT) RC in the validation study.

RESULTS AND LIMITATIONS

Areas under the curve (AUC) of prostate-specific antigen (PSA) alone, PSA and DRE, the DRE-based RC, and the original ERSPC RC to predict PCa at initial biopsy were 0.69, 0.73, 0.77, and 0.79, respectively. The corresponding AUCs for predicting HG PCa were higher (0.74, 0.82, 0.85, and 0.86). Similar results were seen in men previously biopsied and in the validation cohort. The DRE-based RC outperformed the PCPT RC (AUC 0.69 vs 0.59; p=0.0001) and a model based on PSA and DRE only (AUC 0.69 vs 0.63; p=0.0075) in the relatively small validation cohort. Further validation is required.

CONCLUSIONS

An RC should contain volume estimates based either on TRUS or DRE. Replacing TRUS measurements by DRE estimates may enhance implementation in the daily practice of urologists and general practitioners.

Upgrading of Gleason score on radical prostatectomy specimen compared to the pre-operative needle core biopsy: an Indian experience

Objectives:

To assess the accuracy of Gleason grading/scoring on preoperative needle core biopsy (NCB) compared to the radical prostatectomy (RP) specimen.

Materials and Methods:

Data of NCB and RP specimens was analyzed in 193 cases. Gleason grade/scoring was done on both NCB and RP specimens. Sixteen cases were excluded for various reasons. The Gleason scores of the two sets of matched specimens were compared and also correlated with the PSA, age, and number of needle biopsy cores. The overall change was also correlated with the initial score on NCB.

Results:

The mean age and PSA were 63.3±2(5.27) years and 18.48±2(28.42) ng/ml, respectively. The average Gleason score increased from 5.51 ± 2(1.52) to 6.2 ± 2(1.42) (P<0.02). The primary grade increased in 57 (32.2%) cases. Overall, 97 (54.8%) cases had an increase in Gleason score. Five other cases had a change from 3 + 4 = 7 to 4 + 3 = 7. Change in Gleason score was significantly more if the score on NCB was ≤6 or number of needle cores was ≤6. Besides, 28 cases had perineural invasion, 16 had capsular invasion (pT3_a), and 4 had vascular invasion on RP specimen.

Conclusions:

There is a significant upgrading of Gleason score on RP specimens when compared with NCB. This trend may be correlated positively with lower initial Gleason score on preoperative biopsy and the lower number of cores taken.

Predictive factors of Gleason score upgrading in localized and locally advanced prostate cancer diagnosed by prostate biopsy

Purpose

The Gleason score (GS) is an important factor that is considered when making decisions about prostate cancer and its prognosis. However, upgrading of the GS can occur between transrectal ultrasonography (TRUS) biopsy and radical prostatectomy. This study analyzed the clinical factors predictive of upgrading of the GS after radical prostatectomy compared with that at the time of TRUS biopsy.

Materials and Methods

We analyzed the medical records of 107 patients who had undergone radical prostatectomy. Patients were divided into two groups. Group 1 consisted of patients in whom the GS was not upgraded, and group 2 consisted of patients in whom the GS was upgraded. Associations between preoperative clinical factors and upgrading of the GS were analyzed. Preoperative clinical factors included age, prostate-specific antigen (PSA), prostate volume, PSA density, GS of TRUS biopsy, maximum core percentage of cancer, percentage of positive cores, number of biopsies, location of positive core with maximum GS, high-grade prostatic intraepithelial neplasia (HGPIN), inflammation on biopsy, and clinical stage.

Results

Among 85 patients, 42 (49%) patients had an upgraded GS after operation. TRUS biopsy core number of 12 or fewer (p=0.029) and prostate volume of 36.5 ml or less (p<0.001) were associated with upgrading of the GS. Preoperative clinical factors associated with nonupgrading of the GS were the detection of positive cores with a maximum GS at the apex (p=0.002) or in a hypoechoic lesion (p=0.002) in TRUS.

Conclusions

If the positive cores with maximum GS are located at the apex or in a hypoechoic lesion in TRUS, we can expect that the GS will not be upgraded. In patients with the clinical predictive factors of a prostate volume of 36.5 ml or less and TRUS biopsy core number of less than 12, we can expect upgrading of the GS after radical prostatectomy, and more aggressive treatment may be needed.

Techniques and predictive models to improve prostate cancer detection

The use of prostate-specific antigen (PSA) as a screening test remains controversial. There have been several attempts to refine PSA measurements to improve its predictive value. These modifications, including PSA density, PSA kinetics, and the measurement of PSA isoforms, have met with limited success. Therefore, complex statistical and computational models have been created to assess an individual's risk of prostate cancer more accurately. In this review, the authors examined the methods used to modify PSA as well as various predictive models used in prostate cancer detection. They described the mathematical underpinnings of these techniques along with their intrinsic strengths and weaknesses, and they assessed the accuracy of these methods, which have been shown to be better than physicians' judgment at predicting a man's risk of cancer. Without understanding the design and limitations of these methods, they can be applied inappropriately, leading to incorrect conclusions. These models are important components in counseling patients on their risk of prostate cancer and also help in the design of clinical trials by stratifying patients into different risk categories. Thus, it is incumbent on both clinicians and researchers to become familiar with these tools. Cancer 2009;115(13 suppl):3085-99. (c) 2009 American Cancer Society.

Upgrading the Gleason score in extended prostate biopsy: implications for treatment choice

PURPOSE

To determine the incidence of overestimation of Gleason score (GS) in extended prostate biopsy, and consequently circumventing unnecessary aggressive treatment.

METHODS AND MATERIALS

This is a retrospective study of 464 patients who underwent prostate biopsy and radical prostatectomy between January 2001 and November 2007. The GS from biopsy and radical prostatectomy were compared. The incidence of overestimation of GS in biopsies and tumor volume were studied. Multivariate analysis was applied to find parameters that predict upgrading the GS in prostate biopsy.

RESULTS

The exact agreement of GS between prostate biopsy and radical prostatectomy occurred in 56.9% of cases. In 29.1% cases it was underestimated, and it was overestimated in 14%. One hundred and six (22.8%) patients received a diagnosis of high GS (8, 9, or 10) in a prostate biopsy. In 29.2% of cases, the definitive Gleason Score was 7 or lower. In cases in which GS was overestimated in the biopsy, tumors were significantly smaller. In multivariate analysis, the total percentage of tumor was the only independent factor in overestimation of GS. Tumors occupying less than 33% of cores had a 5.6-fold greater chance of being overestimated.

CONCLUSION

In the extended biopsy era and after the International Society of Urological Pathology consensus on GS, almost one third of tumors considered to have high GS at the biopsy may be intermediate-risk cancers. In that condition, tumors are smaller in biopsy. This should be remembered by professionals involved with prostate cancer to avoid overtreatment and undesirable side effects.

[Active surveillance of localized prostate cancer. Significance of prostate core needle biopsies]

Today, more than 80% of men diagnosed with prostate cancer (PCA) by PSA screening do not die from the sequelae of their disease. About 70% present with early, organ-confined cancer and almost half of them are small (<5 cm(3)) without evidence of progression over years (insignificant PCA). It is assumed that screening brings the diagnosis of PCA forward by about 9 years and that in almost one third of these cases immediate radical prostatectomy or radiotherapy would result in overtreatment. Thus, the treatment strategy of "active surveillance" with selective but delayed intervention for patients with organ-confined PCA could be an attractive alternative to the known curative therapy options. However, a prerequisite of such a therapeutic approach would be a precise identification of patients at high risk for cancer progression. Careful work-up of prostate core needle biopsies including improved pre-embedding preparation and detailed interpretation are of the utmost importance. A Gleason score < or =6 and tumor in only one or two cores are considered predictive of organ-confined cancer. Pathologists should concentrate on correct Gleason scoring in core needle biopsies and identification of lesions that exclude a patient from active surveillance.