Relationship between primary Gleason pattern on needle biopsy and clinicopathologic outcomes among men with Gleason score 7 adenocarcinoma of the prostate - 16/08/11
, Patrick J. Bastian, Leslie A. Mangold, Bruce J. Trock, Jonathan I. Epstein, Patrick C. Walsh, Alan W. PartinAbstract |
Objectives |
To examine the relationship among needle biopsy primary grade, prostatectomy grade, and postprostatectomy biochemical recurrence among men with Gleason score 7 disease.
Methods |
We identified 320 men with Gleason score 7 tumors on prostate biopsy treated with radical prostatectomy between 1991 and 2001 by a single surgeon. None of these patients had received neoadjuvant or adjuvant hormonal therapy or radiotherapy. The chi-square test and Kaplan-Meier method were used to evaluate the correlation among biopsy Gleason score, prostatectomy Gleason score, and biochemical recurrence.
Results |
A total of 252 (79%) and 68 (21%) men had primary Gleason pattern 3 and 4 identified on needle biopsy, respectively. Of the patients with Gleason pattern 3 + 4 tumors on biopsy, 24% were upgraded to primary pattern 4 or more on final pathologic analysis. Of the patients with Gleason pattern 4 + 3 tumors on biopsy, 47% were downgraded to primary pattern 3 or less on final pathologic analysis. The actuarial risk of biochemical prostate-specific antigen recurrence was significantly lower among patients with Gleason pattern 4 + 3 on biopsy, if the prostatectomy Gleason score was downgraded to 3 + 4 or less (P = 0.03).
Conclusions |
Approximately 47% of men with a diagnosis of Gleason pattern 4 + 3 on needle biopsy are downgraded at radical prostatectomy and will have biochemical prostate-specific antigen recurrence-free outcomes similar to patients originally diagnosed with Gleason pattern 3 + 4 adenocarcinoma. This group of patients may benefit from definitive treatment such as radical prostatectomy for management of their disease.
Le texte complet de cet article est disponible en PDF.Plan
| This study was supported by National Institutes of Health/National Cancer Institute SPORE grant P50CA58235. |
Vol 67 - N° 1
P. 115-119 - janvier 2006 Retour au numéroBienvenue sur EM-consulte, la référence des professionnels de santé.
L’accès au texte intégral de cet article nécessite un abonnement.
Déjà abonné à cette revue ?
