INTRODUCTION: We review a subset of men who had discordant prostate biopsy sums and were treated with radical prostatectomy.
FREE DAILY AND WEEKLY NEWSLETTERS OFFERED BY CONTENT OF INTEREST
Did you find this article relevant? Subscribe to UroToday-GUOncToday!
The fields of GU Oncology and Urology are advancing rapidly including new treatments, enrolling clinical trials, screening and surveillance recommendations along with updated guidelines. Join us as one of our subscribers who rely on UroToday as their must-read source for the latest news and data on drugs. Sign up today for blogs, video conversations, conference highlights and abstracts from peer-review publications by disease and condition delivered to your inbox and read on the go.
METHODS: Consecutive patients treated with radical prostatectomy at The Ottawa Hospital between 2000 and 2012 were reviewed. Those with at least 1 prostate biopsy core of Gleason sum ≥8 and at least 1 prostate biopsy core of Gleason sum ≤ 7 cancer were included.
RESULTS: Of the 764 radical prostatectomies, 661 (87%) were eligible for the study and 35 (5%) met inclusion criteria. Of these, only 16 (46%) had prostatectomy Gleason sum of ≥8. When the highest biopsy core was Gleason sum 8 (n = 24), only 7 (29%) had a prostatectomy Gleason sum ≥8. When the highest biopsy core was Gleason 9 (n = 11), 9 (82%) had a prostatectomy Gleason sum ≥8 (relative risk [RR] 2.8; p = 0.004). Patients with clinical T3 tumours were at higher risk of Gleason sum ≥8 compared to cT1 patients (RR 3.7; p = 0.008). Patient age (p = 0.89), preoperative prostate-specific antigen (p = 0.34), prostate volume (p = 0.86), number of biopsy cores (p = 0.18), and proportion of biopsy cores with cancer (p = 0.96) were not strongly associated with risk of prostatectomy Gleason sum ≥8.
CONCLUSION: These data should be considered when assigning patients into prognostic risk categories based on prostate biopsy information. Further study to verify our findings using larger samples is warranted.
Heimrath OP, Kos Z, Belanger EC, Cagiannos I, Morash C, Gerridzen RG, Lavallée LT, Preston MA, Witiuk K, Breau RH. Are you the author?
University of Ottawa, Ottawa, ON; Division of Urology, Department of Surgery, McGill University, Montreal, QC; University of Ottawa, Ottawa, ON; Division of Anatomical Pathology, Department of Pathology and Laboratory Medicine, The Ottawa Hospital, Ottawa, ON; University of Ottawa, Ottawa, ON; ; Division of Urology, Department of Surgery, The Ottawa Hospital, Ottawa, ON; Department of Urology, Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, MA; Ottawa Hospital Research Institute, Ottawa, ON; University of Ottawa, Ottawa, ON; Division of Urology, Department of Surgery, The Ottawa Hospital, Ottawa, ON; Ottawa Hospital Research Institute, Ottawa, ON.
Reference: Can Urol Assoc J. 2014 Jul;8(7-8):E476-80.