Impact of Pathology Review for Decision Therapy in Localized Prostate Cancer

Overview

Journal Clin Med Insights Pathol

Publisher Sage Publications

Specialty Pathology

Date 2017 Nov 18

PMID 29147082

Citations 2

Authors

Pedro Luiz Serrano Uson Junior

Ricardo Silvestre E Silva Macarenco

Fernando Nunes Oliveira

Oren Smaletz

Affiliations

Soon will be listed here.

Abstract

Background: The Gleason score is an essential tool in the decision to treat localized prostate cancer. However, experienced pathologists can classify Gleason score differently than do low-volume pathologists, and this may affect the treatment decision. This study sought to assess the impact of pathology review of external biopsy specimens from 23 men with a recent diagnosis of localized prostate cancer.

Methods: All external biopsy specimens were reviewed at our pathology department. Data were retrospectively collected from scanned charts.

Results: The median patient age was 63 years (range: 46-74 years). All patients had a Karnofsky performance score of 90% to 100%. The median prostate-specific antigen level was 23.6 ng/dL (range: 1.04-13.6 ng/dL). Among the 23 reviews, the Gleason score changed for 8 (35%) patients: 7 upgraded and 1 downgraded. The new Gleason score affected the treatment decision in 5 of 8 cases (62.5%).

Conclusions: This study demonstrates the need for pathology review in patients with localized prostate cancer before treatment because Gleason score can change in more than one-third of patients and can affect treatment decision in almost two-thirds of recategorized patients.

Citing Articles

Factors predicting pathological upgrading after prostatectomy in patients with Gleason grade group 1 prostate cancer based on opinion-matched biopsy specimens.

Maruyama Y, Sadahira T, Araki M, Mitsui Y, Wada K, Herik Rodrigo A Mol Clin Oncol. 2020; 12(4):384-389.

PMID: 32190323 PMC: 7057918. DOI: 10.3892/mco.2020.1996.

Are /ENT1, and miR-21 Reliable Prognostic Biomarkers in Patients with Resected Pancreatic Adenocarcinoma Treated with Adjuvant Gemcitabine Monotherapy?.

Jiraskova L, Ryska A, Duintjer Tebbens E, Hornychova H, cecka F, Staud F Cancers (Basel). 2019; 11(11).

PMID: 31652721 PMC: 6893654. DOI: 10.3390/cancers11111621.

References

Epstein J, Egevad L, Amin M, Delahunt B, Srigley J, Humphrey P . The 2014 International Society of Urological Pathology (ISUP) Consensus Conference on Gleason Grading of Prostatic Carcinoma: Definition of Grading Patterns and Proposal for a New Grading System. Am J Surg Pathol. 2015; 40(2):244-52. DOI: 10.1097/PAS.0000000000000530. View

Kattan M, Eastham J, Stapleton A, Wheeler T, Scardino P . A preoperative nomogram for disease recurrence following radical prostatectomy for prostate cancer. J Natl Cancer Inst. 1998; 90(10):766-71. DOI: 10.1093/jnci/90.10.766. View

Chan T, Partin A, Walsh P, Epstein J . Prognostic significance of Gleason score 3+4 versus Gleason score 4+3 tumor at radical prostatectomy. Urology. 2000; 56(5):823-7. DOI: 10.1016/s0090-4295(00)00753-6. View

Mohler J, Bahnson R, Boston B, Busby J, DAmico A, Eastham J . NCCN clinical practice guidelines in oncology: prostate cancer. J Natl Compr Canc Netw. 2010; 8(2):162-200. DOI: 10.6004/jnccn.2010.0012. View

Thompson I, Thrasher J, Aus G, Burnett A, Canby-Hagino E, Cookson M . Guideline for the management of clinically localized prostate cancer: 2007 update. J Urol. 2007; 177(6):2106-31. DOI: 10.1016/j.juro.2007.03.003. View

Epstein J, Zelefsky M, Sjoberg D, Nelson J, Egevad L, Magi-Galluzzi C . A Contemporary Prostate Cancer Grading System: A Validated Alternative to the Gleason Score. Eur Urol. 2015; 69(3):428-35. PMC: 5002992. DOI: 10.1016/j.eururo.2015.06.046. View

Fajardo D, Miyamoto H, Miller J, Lee T, Epstein J . Identification of Gleason pattern 5 on prostatic needle core biopsy: frequency of underdiagnosis and relation to morphology. Am J Surg Pathol. 2011; 35(11):1706-11. DOI: 10.1097/PAS.0b013e318228571d. View

Rodrigues G, Warde P, Pickles T, Crook J, Brundage M, Souhami L . Pre-treatment risk stratification of prostate cancer patients: A critical review. Can Urol Assoc J. 2012; 6(2):121-7. PMC: 3328553. DOI: 10.5489/cuaj.11085. View

Graham J, Baker M, Macbeth F, Titshall V . Diagnosis and treatment of prostate cancer: summary of NICE guidance. BMJ. 2008; 336(7644):610-2. PMC: 2267985. DOI: 10.1136/bmj.39498.525706.AD. View

10.

Epstein J, Allsbrook Jr W, Amin M, Egevad L . 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. View

11.

Klotz L . Active surveillance for prostate cancer: for whom?. J Clin Oncol. 2005; 23(32):8165-9. DOI: 10.1200/JCO.2005.03.3134. View

12.

Steyerberg E, Roobol M, Kattan M, van der Kwast T, de Koning H, Schroder F . Prediction of indolent prostate cancer: validation and updating of a prognostic nomogram. J Urol. 2006; 177(1):107-12. DOI: 10.1016/j.juro.2006.08.068. View

13.

Cooperberg M, Lubeck D, Meng M, Mehta S, Carroll P . The changing face of low-risk prostate cancer: trends in clinical presentation and primary management. J Clin Oncol. 2004; 22(11):2141-9. PMC: 2997214. DOI: 10.1200/JCO.2004.10.062. View

14.

Heidenreich A, Aus G, Bolla M, Joniau S, Matveev V, Schmid H . EAU guidelines on prostate cancer. Eur Urol. 2007; 53(1):68-80. DOI: 10.1016/j.eururo.2007.09.002. View

15.

Fleshner N, Cookson M, Soloway S, Fair W . Repeat transrectal ultrasound-guided prostate biopsy: a strategy to improve the reliability of needle biopsy grading in patients with well-differentiated prostate cancer. Urology. 1998; 52(4):659-62. DOI: 10.1016/s0090-4295(98)00226-x. View

16.

Townsend N, Ruth K, Al-Saleem T, Horwitz E, Sobczak M, Uzzo R . Gleason scoring at a comprehensive cancer center: what's the difference?. J Natl Compr Canc Netw. 2013; 11(7):812-9. PMC: 3894783. DOI: 10.6004/jnccn.2013.0102. View

17.

Partin A, Kattan M, Subong E, Walsh P, Wojno K, Oesterling J . Combination of prostate-specific antigen, clinical stage, and Gleason score to predict pathological stage of localized prostate cancer. A multi-institutional update. JAMA. 1997; 277(18):1445-51. View

18.

Dong F, Wang C, Farris A, Wu S, Lee H, Olumi A . Impact on the clinical outcome of prostate cancer by the 2005 international society of urological pathology modified Gleason grading system. Am J Surg Pathol. 2012; 36(6):838-43. DOI: 10.1097/PAS.0b013e3182486faf. View

19.

Sved P, Gomez P, Manoharan M, Kim S, Soloway M . Limitations of biopsy Gleason grade: implications for counseling patients with biopsy Gleason score 6 prostate cancer. J Urol. 2004; 172(1):98-102. DOI: 10.1097/01.ju.0000132135.18093.d6. View

20.

Horwich A, Parker C, de Reijke T, Kataja V . Prostate cancer: ESMO Clinical Practice Guidelines for diagnosis, treatment and follow-up. Ann Oncol. 2013; 24 Suppl 6:vi106-14. DOI: 10.1093/annonc/mdt208. View