British Journal of Medical & Surgical Urology
Volume 2, Issue 2 , Pages 54-61 , March 2009

Histological upgrading and upstaging in the UK population following radical prostatectomy and their implications for active surveillance

  • T. Page

      Affiliations

    • Department of Urology, Sunderland Royal Hospital, Sunderland, UK
    • Department of Urology, Freeman Hospital, Newcastle upon Tyne, UK
    • Corresponding Author InformationCorresponding author.
    • ,
  • K. Sahadevan

      Affiliations

    • Department of Urology, Sunderland Royal Hospital, Sunderland, UK
    • ,
  • C. Harding

      Affiliations

    • Department of Urology, Freeman Hospital, Newcastle upon Tyne, UK
    • ,
  • S. Wong

      Affiliations

    • Department of Urology, Freeman Hospital, Newcastle upon Tyne, UK
    • ,
  • D. Greene

      Affiliations

    • Department of Urology, Sunderland Royal Hospital, Sunderland, UK

Received 27 August 2008 ,Revised 5 November 2008 ,Accepted 9 November 2008.

References 

  1. Aus G, Abbou CC, Bolla M, Heidenreich A, Schmid HP, van Poppel H, et al. EAU guidelines on prostate cancer. Eur Urol. 2005;48(4):546–551
  2. Albertsen PC, Hanley JA, Gleason DF, Barry MJ. Competing risk analysis of men aged 55 to 74 years at diagnosis managed conservatively for clinically localized prostate cancer. JAMA. 1998;280(11):975–980
  3. Divrik RT, Eroglu A, Sahin A, Zorlu F, Ozen H. Increasing the number of biopsies increases the concordance of Gleason scores of needle biopsies and prostatectomy specimens. Urol Oncol. 2007;25(5):376–382
  4. Chun FK, Steuber T, Erbersdobler A, Currlin E, Walz J, Schlomm T, et al. Development and internal validation of a nomogram predicting the probability of prostate cancer Gleason sum upgrading between biopsy and radical prostatectomy pathology. Eur Urol. 2006;49(5):820–826
  5. Chun FK, Briganti A, Shariat SF, Graefen M, Montorsi F, Erbersdobler A, et al. Significant upgrading affects a third of men diagnosed with prostate cancer: predictive nomogram and internal validation. BJU Int. 2006;98(August (2)):329–334
  6. Turley RS, Hamilton RJ, Terris MK, Kane CJ, Aronson WJ, Presti JC, et al. Small transrectal ultrasound volume predicts clinically significant Gleason score upgrading after radical prostatectomy: results from the SEARCH database. J Urol. 2008;179(February (2)):523–527
  7. Dong F, Jones JS, Stephenson AJ, Magi-Galluzzi C, Reuther AM, Klein EA. Prostate cancer volume at biopsy predicts clinically significant upgrading. J Urol. 2008;179(March (3)):896–900
  8. Richstone L, Bianco FJ, Shah HH, Kattan MW, Eastham JA, Scardino PT, et al. Radical prostatectomy in men aged >or=70 years: effect of age on upgrading, upstaging, and the accuracy of a preoperative nomogram. BJU Int. 2008;101(March (5)):541–546
  9. Freedland SJ, Kane CJ, Amling CL, Aronson WJ, Terris MK, Presti JC. Upgrading and downgrading of prostate needle biopsy specimens: risk factors and clinical implications. Urology. 2007;69(3):495–499
  10. King CR, Patel DA, Terris MK. Prostate biopsy volume indices do not predict for significant Gleason upgrading. Am J Clin Oncol. 2005;28(April (2)):125–129
  11. King CR. Patterns of prostate cancer biopsy grading: trends and clinical implications. Int J Cancer. 2000;90(6):305–311
  12. Gregori A, Vieweg J, Dahm P, Paulson DF. Comparison of ultrasound-guided biopsies and prostatectomy specimens: predictive accuracy of Gleason score and tumor site. Urol Int. 2001;66(2):66–71
  13. D’Amico AV, Renshaw AA, Arsenault L, Schultz D, Richie JP. Clinical predictors of upgrading to Gleason grade 4 or 5 disease at radical prostatectomy: potential implications for patient selection for radiation and androgen suppression therapy. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 1999;45(4):841–846
  14. Kulkarni GS, Lockwood G, Evans A, Toi A, Trachtenberg J, Jewett MA, et al. Clinical predictors of Gleason score upgrading: implications for patients considering watchful waiting, active surveillance, or brachytherapy. Cancer. 2007;109(June (12)):2432–2438
  15. Pinthus JH, Witkos M, Fleshner NE, Sweet J, Evans A, Jewett MA, et al. Prostate cancers scored as Gleason 6 on prostate biopsy are frequently Gleason 7 tumors at radical prostatectomy: implication on outcome. J Urol. 2006;176(September (3)):979–984
  16. Mukouyama H, Niimura K, Ogawa Y. Histologic upgrading of prostate cancer occurs frequently over a short period of time: single hospital experiences of radical prostatectomy. Int J Urol. 2001;8(August (8)):545–549
  17. Tomioka S, Nakatsu H, Suzuki N, Murakami S, Matsuzaki O, Shimazaki J. Comparison of Gleason grade and score between preoperative biopsy and prostatectomy specimens in prostate cancer. Int J Urol. 2006;13(May (5)):555–559
  18. Chodak GW, Thisted RA, Gerber GS, Johansson JE, Adolfsson J, Jones GW, et al. Results of conservative management of clinically localized prostate cancer. N Engl J Med. 1994;330(4):242–248
  19. Pilepich MV, Caplan R, Byhardt RW, Lawton CA, Gallagher MJ, Mesic JB, et al. Phase III trial of androgen suppression using goserelin in unfavorable-prognosis carcinoma of the prostate treated with definitive radiotherapy: report of Radiation Therapy Oncology Group Protocol 85-31. J Clin Oncol. 1997;15(3):1013–1021
  20. 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):566–576
  21. 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):525–529
  22. Montironi R, Mazzuccheli R, Scarpelli M, Lopez-Beltran A, Fellegara G, Algaba F. Gleason grading of prostate cancer in needle biopsies or radical prostatectomy specimens: contemporary approach, current clinical significance and sources of pathology discrepancies. BJU Int. 2005;95(8):1146–1152
  23. Ozdamar SO, Sarikaya S, Yildiz L, Atilla MK, Kandemir B, Yildiz S. Intraobserver and interobserver reproducibility of WHO and Gleason histologic grading systems in prostatic adenocarcinomas. Int Urol Nephrol. 1996;28(1):73–77
  24. Melia J, Moseley R, Ball RY, Griffiths DF, Grigor K, Harnden P, et al. A UK-based investigation of inter- and intra-observer reproducibility of Gleason grading of prostatic biopsies. Histopathology. 2006;48(6):644–654
  25. De la Taille A, Viellefond A, Berger N, Boucher E, De Fromont M, Fondimare A, et al. Evaluation of the interobserver reproducibility of Gleason grading of prostatic adenocarcinoma using tissue microarrays. Hum Pathol. 2003;34(5):444–449
  26. Svanholm H. Evaluation of commercial immunoperoxidase kits for prostatic specific antigen and prostatic specific acid phosphatase. Acta Pathol Microbiol Immunol Scand [A]. 1986;94(1):7–12
  27. Smith EB, Frierson HF, Mills SE, Boyd JC, Theodorescu D. Gleason scores of prostate biopsy and radical prostatectomy specimens over the past 10 years: is there evidence for systematic upgrading?. Cancer. 2002;94(April (8)):2282–2287
  28. Coogan CL, Latchamsetty KC, Greenfield J, Corman JM, Lynch B, Porter CR. Increasing the number of biopsy cores improves the concordance of biopsy Gleason score to prostatectomy Gleason score. BJU Int. 2005;96(3):324–327
  29. Ooi K, Samali R. Discrepancies in Gleason scoring of prostate biopsies and radical prostatectomy specimens and the effects of multiple needle biopsies on scoring accuracy. A regional experience in Tamworth, Australia. ANZ J Surg. 2007;77(5):336–338
  30. San Francisco IF, DeWolf WC, Rosen S, Upton M, Olumi AF. Extended prostate needle biopsy improves concordance of Gleason grading between prostate needle biopsy and radical prostatectomy. J Urol. 2003;169(1):136–140

PII: S1875-9742(08)00121-3

doi: 10.1016/j.bjmsu.2008.11.007

British Journal of Medical & Surgical Urology
Volume 2, Issue 2 , Pages 54-61 , March 2009

Article Tools