Comparison of prostate biopsy pathology and radical prostatectomy pathologies
Yıl: 2019 Cilt: 46 Sayı: 1 Sayfa Aralığı: 133 - 136 Metin Dili: İngilizce DOI: 10.5798/dicletip.534851 İndeks Tarihi: 25-10-2019
Comparison of prostate biopsy pathology and radical prostatectomy pathologies
Öz: Objectives: The rate of prostate cancer has increased with the identification of the prostate-specific antigen; however,data on biopsy pathologies determined by transrectal ultrasonography may be incompatible with the pathologyindicated in radical prostatectomy specimens. This situation puts patients in need of curative treatment at risk whilein some patients they are overtreatment. The aim of this study was to compare Gleason scores in radicalprostatectomy specimens with the Gleason scores determined by transrectal ultrasound-guided biopsy pathologies.Methods: The data of patients who underwent radical prostatectomy in our clinic between January 2007 andNovember 2018 were evaluated retrospectively. Data included preoperative biopsy values, biopsy cores, biopsypercentage, Gleason scores from transrectal ultrasound-guided pre-biopsy biopsy cores, Gleason scores after radicalprostatectomy, tissue cancer rates, surgical margins, and pathological stage. The ISUP-WHO (Society of UrologicalPathology: ISUP-World Health Organization) 2014 classification was used for the pathological classification. Results: A total of 159 patients were evaluated. Transrectal ultrasonography-guided biopsy pathology revealed that82 (75.9%) patients with Gleason scores <7 had radical prostate pathology with Gleason scores of <7. Transrectalultrasonography-guided biopsy pathology revealed a Gleason score of 7 in 10 (38.4%) patients. The Gleason scorewas > 7 in 24 (48.9%) of the patients who had a Gleason score> 7 based on transrectal ultrasonography-guidedpathology. The radical pathology of 109 patients with biopsy pathology was ISUP 1 in 83 (76.1%) patients. The radicalpathology was ISUP 3 in 5 of 16 patients with biopsy pathology ISUP 3 (31.2%). Six patients with biopsy pathologyISUP 4 and 2 patients with ISUP 5 was reported at different stages.Conclusions: Differences occur between the Gleason scores reported in transrectal ultrasonography-guided biopsyand radical prostatectomy pathologies. These differences become more evident as age increases, as PSA levelincreases and as prostate volume decreases.
Anahtar Kelime: Konular:
Prostat biyopsi patolojisi ile radikal prostatektomi patolojilerinin karşılaştırılması
Öz: Amaç: Prostat spesifik antijenin tanımlanmasından sonra prostat kanserinin tanı oranı yükselmiştir. Prostat kanseri tanısı koymak için yapılan transrektal ultrasonografi eşliğinde prostat biyopsisi ile radikal prostatektomi spesimenindeki patolojilerin verileri arasında uyumsuzluk olabilmektedir. Bu durum küratif tedavi ihtiyacı olabilecek hastaları riske atarken, bazı hastalar için aşırı tedavi almasına neden olmaktadır. Bu çalışmada; radikal prostatektomi spesimenlerindeki Gleason skorları ile transrektal ultrasonografi eşliğinde biyopsi patolojilerindeki Gleason skorlarının karşılaştırılması amaçlanmıştır. Yöntemler: Ocak 2007 ile Kasım 2018 tarihleri arasında, kliniğimizde radikal prostatektomi cerrahisi geçirmiş hastaların verileri retrospektif olarak değerlendirildi. Hastaların transrektal ultrasonografi eşliğinde biyopsi öncesi PSA değerleri, biyopsi kor sayıları, kanser pozitif biyopsi kor sayıları, biyopsideki kanser yüzdeleri ve Gleason skorları tespit edilerek, radikal prostatektomi sonrası Gleason skorları, doku kanser oranları, cerrahi sınırlar ve patolojik evre ile karşılaştırıldı. Patolojik sınıflamada ISUP-WHO (Society of Urological Pathology:ISUP-World Health Organization) 2014 sınıflaması kullanılmıştır. Bulgular: Toplam 159 hastanın verileri değerlendirildi. Transrektal ultrasonografi eşliğinde prostat biyopsi patolojisinde, Gleason skoru <7 olan hastaların 82’inde(%75,9), radikal prostatektomi spesimeninde Gleason skoru da <7 olarak tespit edildi. Prostat biyopsi patolojisinde Gleason skoru 7 olan 10 hastada(%38,4) radikal prostatektomi spesimen patolojisi Gleason skoru 7 olarak tespit edildi. Prostat biyopsi patolojisinde Gleason skoru >7 olan 24 hastada(%48,9) radikal prostatektomi spesimeninde Gleason skoru >7 olarak tespit edildi. Biyopsi patolojisi ISUP 1 olan 109 hastanın 83 (%76,1) tanesinde radikal prostatektomi patolojisi ISUP 1 gelirken; biyopsi patoloji ISUP 2 olan 26 hastanın 8'inde(%30,7) radikal patolojisi ISUP 2 geldi. Biyopsi patolojisi ISUP 3 olan 16 hastanın ise 3'ünde(%31,2)radikal patolojisi ISUP 3 olarak rapor edildi. Biyopsi patolojisi ISUP 4 olan 6 hastanın ve ISUP 5 olan 2 hastanın ise radikal patolojisi farklı evrede rapor edildi. Sonuç: Transrektal ultrasonografi eşliğinde biyopsi patolojilerinde bildirilen Gleason skorları ile radikal prostatektomi Gleason skorları arasındaki fark; hastanın yaşı ve PSA değeri artıkça, prostat volümü azaldıkça bu fark daha belirgin olmaktadır.
Anahtar Kelime: Konular:
Belge Türü: Makale Makale Türü: Araştırma Makalesi Erişim Türü: Erişime Açık
- Seaman E, Whang M, Olsson CA, et all. PSA density (PSAD). Role in patient evaluation and management. The Urologic Clinics of North America 1993; 20: 653- 63.
- Bazinet M, Meshref AW, Trudel C, et all. Prospective evaluation of prostate-specific antigen density and systematic biopsies for early detection of prostatic carcinoma. Urology 1994; 43: 44-51.
- Rommel FM, Agusta VE, Breslin JA, et all. The use of prostate specific antigen and prostate specific antigen density in the diagnosis of prostate cancer in a community based urology practice. The Journal of Urology 1994; 151: 88-93.
- Andriole GL, Crawford ED, Grubb III RL, et all. Prostate cancer screening in the randomized Prostate, Lung, Colorectal, and Ovarian Cancer Screening Trial: mortality results after 13 years of follow-up. Journal of the National Cancer Institute 2012; 104: 125-32.
- Fine SW, Epstein JI. A contemporary study correlating prostate needle biopsy and radical prostatectomy Gleason score. The Journal of Urology 2008; 179:1335- 9.
- Epstein JI, Feng Z, Trock BJ, Pierorazio PM. Upgrading and downgrading of prostate cancer from biopsy to radical prostatectomy: incidence and predictive factors using the modified Gleason grading system and factoring in tertiary grades. European Urology 2012; 61: 1019-24.
- Tilki D, Schlenker B, John M, et all. Clinical and pathologic predictors of Gleason sum upgrading in patients after radical prostatectomy: results from a single institution series. Urol Oncol 2011; 29: 508-14. 8. Sarici H, Telli O, Yigitbasi O, et all. Predictors of Gleason score upgrading in patients with prostate biopsy Gleason score≤ 6. Can Urol Assoc J 2014; 8: 342- 6.
- Şahinkanat T, Küçükdurmaz F, Efe E, rt all. Prostat adenokarsinomlarında iğne biyopsileri ve radikal prostatektomi materyallerinin Gleason skoru açısından karşılaştırılması. Kahramanmaraş Sütçü İmam Üniversitesi Tıp Fakültesi Dergisi 2016; 12: 25-30.
- Yazıcı CM, Türker P, Şahin MF, Özcan R. Prostat kanserinde aktif izlem kararı; biyopsi Gleason skoru ne kadar güvenli? Namık Kemal Tıp Dergisi 2017; 5: 58- 62.
- Turley RS, Hamilton RJ, Terris MK, et all. Small transrectal ultrasound volume predicts clinically significant Gleason score upgrading after radical prostatectomy: results from the SEARCH database. The Journal of Urology 2008; 179: 523-8.
- Sebo TJ, Bock BJ, Cheville JC, et all. The percent of cores positive for cancer in prostate needle biopsy specimens is strongly predictive of tumor stage and volume at radical prostatectomy. The Journal of Urology 2000; 163: 174-8.
- Kuroiwa K, Shiraishi T, Naito S. Clinicopathological Research Group for Localized Prostate Cancer Investigators. Gleason score correlation between biopsy and prostatectomy specimens and prediction of high-grade Gleason patterns: significance of central pathologic review. Urology 2011; 77: 407-11.
- Poulos CK, Daggy JK, Cheng L. Prostate needle biopsies: multiple variables are predictive of final tumor volume in radical prostatectomy specimens. Cancer: Interdisciplinary International Journal of the American Cancer Society 2004; 101: 527-32.
- Moon SJ, Park SY, Lee TY. Predictive factors of Gleason score upgrading in localized and locally advanced prostate cancer diagnosed by prostate biopsy. Korean Journal of Urology 2010; 51: 677-82.
- Nayyar R, Singh P, Gupta NP, et all. Upgrading of Gleason score on radical prostatectomy specimen compared to the pre-operative needle core biopsy: An Indian experience. Indian J Urol 2010; 26: 56–9.
- Corcoran NM, Hovens CM, Hong MK, et all. Underestimation of Gleason score at prostate biopsy reflects sampling error in lower volume tumours. BJU Int 2012; 109: 660-4.
- King CR, McNeal JE, Gill H, Presti JC Jr. Extended prostate biopsy scheme improves reliability of Gleason grading: implications for radiotherapy patients. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 2004; 59: 386-91.
- Divrik RT, Eroglu A, Şahin A, Zorlu F, Özen H. Increasing the number of biopsies increases the concordance of Gleason scores of needle biopsies and prostatectomy specimens. Urologic Oncology: Seminars and Original Investigations 2007; 25: 376 -82.
- Moussa AS, Meshref A, Schoenfield L, et all. Importance of additional “extreme” anterior apical needle biopsies in the initial detection of prostate cancer. Urology 2010; 75: 1034-9.
- Abdel-Khalek M, Sheir KZ, El-Baz M, Ibrahiem el-H. Is transition zone biopsy valuable in benign prostatic hyperplasia patients with serum prostate-specific antigen> 10 ng/ml and prior negative peripheral zone biopsy? Scand J Urol Nephrol 2005; 39: 49-55.
- Van Nieuwenhove S, Saussez TP, Thiry S, et all. Prospective comparison of a fast 1.5 T biparametric to the 3.0 T multi‐parametric ESUR magnetic resonance imaging protocol as triage test for men at risk of prostate cancer. BJU Int 2018. doi:10.1111/bju.14538
- Schatten H. Cell & Molecular Biology of Prostate Cancer. Springer 2018; 111-23.
- Capitanio U, Karakiewicz PI, Valiquette L, et all. Biopsy core number represents one of foremost predictors of clinically significant Gleason sum upgrading in patients with low-risk prostate cancer. Urology 2009; 73: 1087-91.
- Ayres BE, Montgomery BS, Barber NJ, et all. The role of transperineal template prostate biopsies in restaging men with prostate cancer managed by active surveillance. BJU Int 2012; 109:1170-6.
- Takashima R, Egawa S, Kuwao S, Baba S. Anterior distribution of Stage T1c nonpalpable tumors in radical prostatectomy specimens. Urology 2002; 59: 692-7.
- Pereira RA, Costa RS, Muglia VF, et all. Gleason score and tumor laterality in radical prostatectomy and transrectal ultrasound-guided biopsy of the prostate: a comparative study. Asian journal of Andrology 2015; 17: 815-20.
- Crawford ED, Rove KO, Barqawi AB, et all. Clinical‐pathologic correlation between transperineal mapping biopsies of the prostate and three‐dimensional reconstruction of prostatectomy specimens. The Prostate 2013; 73: 778-87.
- Krughoff K, Eid K, Phillips J, et all. The accuracy of prostate cancer localization diagnosed on transrectal ultrasound-guided biopsy compared to 3-dimensional transperineal approach. Advances in Urology 2013. Article ID 249080, 5 pages.
- Kim JJ, Byun S-S, Lee SE, et all. A negative multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging finding does not guarantee the absence of significant cancer among biopsy-proven prostate cancer patients: a reallife clinical experience. International urology and nephrology 2018; 50: 1989-97.
- Queiroz MRG FP, Mariotti GC, Lemos GC, et all. Comparison of complications rates between multiparametric magnetic resonance imagingtransrectal ultrasound (TRUS) fusion and systematic TRUS prostatic biopsies. Abdom Radiol 2018; Doi: 10.1007/s00261-018-1782-y
- Schoots IG, Roobol MJ, Nieboer D, et all. Magnetic Resonance Imaging–targeted Biopsy May Enhance the Diagnostic Accuracy of Significant Prostate Cancer Detection Compared to Standard Transrectal Ultrasound-guided Biopsy: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis. European Urology 2015; 68: 438-50.
| APA | ÇAMTOSUN A, gökçe h (2019). Comparison of prostate biopsy pathology and radical prostatectomy pathologies. , 133 - 136. 10.5798/dicletip.534851 |
| Chicago | ÇAMTOSUN Ahmet,gökçe hasan Comparison of prostate biopsy pathology and radical prostatectomy pathologies. (2019): 133 - 136. 10.5798/dicletip.534851 |
| MLA | ÇAMTOSUN Ahmet,gökçe hasan Comparison of prostate biopsy pathology and radical prostatectomy pathologies. , 2019, ss.133 - 136. 10.5798/dicletip.534851 |
| AMA | ÇAMTOSUN A,gökçe h Comparison of prostate biopsy pathology and radical prostatectomy pathologies. . 2019; 133 - 136. 10.5798/dicletip.534851 |
| Vancouver | ÇAMTOSUN A,gökçe h Comparison of prostate biopsy pathology and radical prostatectomy pathologies. . 2019; 133 - 136. 10.5798/dicletip.534851 |
| IEEE | ÇAMTOSUN A,gökçe h "Comparison of prostate biopsy pathology and radical prostatectomy pathologies." , ss.133 - 136, 2019. 10.5798/dicletip.534851 |
| ISNAD | ÇAMTOSUN, Ahmet - gökçe, hasan. "Comparison of prostate biopsy pathology and radical prostatectomy pathologies". (2019), 133-136. https://doi.org/10.5798/dicletip.534851 |
| APA | ÇAMTOSUN A, gökçe h (2019). Comparison of prostate biopsy pathology and radical prostatectomy pathologies. Dicle Tıp Dergisi, 46(1), 133 - 136. 10.5798/dicletip.534851 |
| Chicago | ÇAMTOSUN Ahmet,gökçe hasan Comparison of prostate biopsy pathology and radical prostatectomy pathologies. Dicle Tıp Dergisi 46, no.1 (2019): 133 - 136. 10.5798/dicletip.534851 |
| MLA | ÇAMTOSUN Ahmet,gökçe hasan Comparison of prostate biopsy pathology and radical prostatectomy pathologies. Dicle Tıp Dergisi, vol.46, no.1, 2019, ss.133 - 136. 10.5798/dicletip.534851 |
| AMA | ÇAMTOSUN A,gökçe h Comparison of prostate biopsy pathology and radical prostatectomy pathologies. Dicle Tıp Dergisi. 2019; 46(1): 133 - 136. 10.5798/dicletip.534851 |
| Vancouver | ÇAMTOSUN A,gökçe h Comparison of prostate biopsy pathology and radical prostatectomy pathologies. Dicle Tıp Dergisi. 2019; 46(1): 133 - 136. 10.5798/dicletip.534851 |
| IEEE | ÇAMTOSUN A,gökçe h "Comparison of prostate biopsy pathology and radical prostatectomy pathologies." Dicle Tıp Dergisi, 46, ss.133 - 136, 2019. 10.5798/dicletip.534851 |
| ISNAD | ÇAMTOSUN, Ahmet - gökçe, hasan. "Comparison of prostate biopsy pathology and radical prostatectomy pathologies". Dicle Tıp Dergisi 46/1 (2019), 133-136. https://doi.org/10.5798/dicletip.534851 |
