Exploring the Effect of PSA Density and Prostate Size on Concordance of TRUS Biopsy Result with Radical Prostatectomy

Zeyghami, Shahryar; karimi, rokhsare; Ariafar, Ali; Jahanabadi, Zahra

doi:10.30699/jru.4.1.33

Volume 4, Issue 1 (Spring & Summer 2020) J Res Urol 2020, 4(1): 33-38 | Back to browse issues page

‎ 10.30699/jru.4.1.33

Mendeley

Zotero

RefWorks

Zeyghami S, karimi R, Ariafar A, Jahanabadi Z. Exploring the Effect of PSA Density and Prostate Size on Concordance of TRUS Biopsy Result with Radical Prostatectomy. J Res Urol 2020; 4 (1) :33-38
URL: http://urology.umsha.ac.ir/article-1-70-en.html

Exploring the Effect of PSA Density and Prostate Size on Concordance of TRUS Biopsy Result with Radical Prostatectomy

Shahryar Zeyghami¹

, Rokhsare Karimi²

, Ali Ariafar¹

, Zahra Jahanabadi ^*

1- Department of Urology, Shiraz University of Medical Sciences, Shiraz, Iran, Department of Urology, Shiraz University of Medical Sciences, Shiraz, Iran
2- Urologist, Shiraz University of Medical Sciences, Shiraz, Iran, Urologist, Shiraz University of Medical Sciences, Shiraz, Iran
3- Department of Urology, Shiraz University of Medical Sciences, Shiraz, Iran, Department of Urology, Shiraz University of Medical Sciences, Shiraz, Iran , z_jahanabadi@yahoo.com

Abstract: (3238 Views)

Background and Objective: Today’s, the Gleason grading system is well known as the world’s most commonly used histological system for prostate cancer. It provides significant information about the prognosis. This prospective paper assessed the correlation of transrectal ultrasound (TRUS) guided biopsy and radical prostatectomy specimens in terms of Gleason scores. In this matter, the effect of PSA density (PSAD) and prostate size on the Gleason scores were explored.

Methods: This paper is conducted as a prospective study in which the medical records, comprised the pathology reports, of 68 patients with prostate cancer who underwent radical retropubic prostatectomy. Then, the preoperative Gleason score was compared to the Gleason score of the prostatectomy specimen.

Results: Patients age ranged from 59 to 79 years, in which the median was 64 years. The comparison of the Gleason scores from the biopsy and radical prostatectomy specimens revealed that it was only identical in 24 out of 68 (35.3%) cases. On the other hand, the mean Gleason score obtained from the TURS biopsy was 6.4, compared with a mean score of 7.1 on the radical prostatectomy specimens. Meanwhile, there was a significant difference between Gleason scores (P<0.001). The experimental results confirmed that PSAD in 0.195, 0.22, 0.23, 0.25 cut of points had both high specificity and sensitivity for concordance of TRUS biopsy result using the Radical prostatectomy.

Conclusion: This study provides evidence that the Gleason scores of the needle prostate biopsies and those of the radical prostatectomy specimens were concordant in some cut off points of PSAD especially between 0.195 -0.28. Therefore, it has seemed that PSAD can be a proper scale to determine the concordance of TRUS biopsy result using the Radical prostatectomy.

Keywords: Prostate cancer, PSA, Gleason scores, Needle biopsy

Full-Text [PDF 401 kb] (1709 Downloads)

Type of Study: Research | Subject: Urologic oncology
Received: 2020/06/11 | Accepted: 2020/08/20 | Published: 2020/08/31

References

1. Malvezzi M, Arfe A, Bertuccio P, Levi F, La Vecchia C, Negri E. European cancer mortality predictions for the year 2012. Ann Oncol. 2012;23(4):1044-52, [DOI:10.1093/annonc/mds024] [PMID]

2. Gleason DF. Classification of prostatic carcinomas. Cancer Chemother Rep. 1966;50(3):125-8

3. Epstein JI, Allsbrook WC Jr, Amin MB, Egevad LL, ISUP grading committee. The 2005 International Society of Urological Pathology (ISUP) Consensus Conference on Gleason grading of Prostatic Carcinoma. Am J Surg Pathol. 2005;29(9):1228-42. [DOI:10.1097/01.pas.0000173646.99337.b1] [PMID]

4. Montie JE. Current prognostic factors for prostate carcinoma. Cancer.1996;78(2):341-4. https://doi.org/10.1002/(SICI)1097-0142(19960715)78:2<341::AID-CNCR24>3.0.CO;2-V [DOI:10.1002/(SICI)1097-0142(19960715)78:23.0.CO;2-V]

5. Epstein JI, Pizov G, Walsh PC, Giovannucci E, Mucci LA. Correlation pathological findings with progression after radical retropubic prostatectomy. Cancer. 1993;71(11):3582-93. https://doi.org/10.1002/1097-0142(19930601)71:11<3582::AID-CNCR2820711120>3.0.CO;2-Y [DOI:10.1002/1097-0142(19930601)71:113.0.CO;2-Y]

6. Humphrey PA, Frazier HA, Vollmer RT, Paulson DF. Stratification of pathologic features in radical prostatectomy specimens that are predictive of elevated initial postoperative serum prostate specific antigen levels. Cancer. 1993;7:1821-7. https://doi.org/10.1002/1097-0142(19930301)71:5<1821::AID-CNCR2820710517>3.0.CO;2-O [DOI:10.1002/1097-0142(19930301)71:53.0.CO;2-O]

7. Cecchi M, Minervini R, Sepich CA, Ippolito C, Pagni GL, Summonti D, et al. Correlation between Gleason score of needle biopsy and radical prostatectomy tissue. Int Urol Nephrol. 1998;30(5):575-80. [DOI:10.1007/BF02550548] [PMID]

8. 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. Urol. 1998;51(4):525-9. [DOI:10.1016/S0090-4295(98)00002-8]

9. Cookson MS, Fleshner NE, Soloway SM, Fair WR. Correlation between Gleason score of needle biopsy and radical prostatectomy specimen: Accuracy and clinical implications. J Urol. 1997;157(2):559-62. [DOI:10.1016/S0022-5347(01)65201-7]

10. Kojima M, Troncoso P, Babaian RJ. Use of prostate-specific antigen and tumor volume in predicting needle biopsy grading error. Urology 1995-45(5):807-12, [DOI:10.1016/S0090-4295(99)80088-0]

11. Fernandes ET, Sundaram CP, Long R, Soltani M, Ercole CJ. Biopsy Gleason score: how does it correlate with the final pathological diagnosis in prostate cancer? Br J Urol. 1997;79(4):615-7. [DOI:10.1046/j.1464-410X.1997.00126.x] [PMID]

12. Epstein JI. The diagnosis and reporting of adenocarcinoma of the prostate in core needle biopsy specimens. Cancer. 1996;78(2):350-6. https://doi.org/10.1002/(SICI)1097-0142(19960715)78:2<350::AID-CNCR26>3.0.CO;2-U [DOI:10.1002/(SICI)1097-0142(19960715)78:23.0.CO;2-U]

Send email to the article author

Rights and permissions
	This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License.

Designed & Developed by : Yektaweb

Articles Copyright © The Author(s).