Urology
Volume 69, Issue 3 , Pages 495-499 , March 2007

Upgrading and Downgrading of Prostate Needle Biopsy Specimens: Risk Factors and Clinical Implications

  • Stephen J. Freedland

      Affiliations

    • Department of Surgery, Durham Veterans Affairs Medical Center, Durham, North Carolina
    • Division of Urologic Surgery, Departments of Surgery and Pathology and Duke Prostate Center, Duke University School of Medicine, Durham, North Carolina
    • Corresponding Author InformationReprint requests: Stephen J. Freedland, M.D., Division of Urology, Box 3850 DUMC, Duke University School of Medicine, Durham, NC 27710.
    • ,
  • Christopher J. Kane

      Affiliations

    • Urology Section, Department of Surgery, San Francisco Veterans Affairs Medical Center, San Francisco, California
    • Department of Urology, University of California, San Francisco, School of Medicine, San Francisco, California
    • ,
  • Christopher L. Amling

      Affiliations

    • Department of Urology, University of Alabama at Birmingham, Birmingham, Alabama
    • Department of Urology, San Diego Naval Hospital, San Diego, California
    • ,
  • William J. Aronson

      Affiliations

    • Urology Section, Department of Surgery, Veterans Affairs Greater Los Angeles Healthcare System, Los Angeles, California
    • Department of Urology, University of California, Los Angeles, School of Medicine, Los Angeles, California
    • ,
  • Martha K. Terris

      Affiliations

    • Department of Surgery, Augusta Veterans Affairs Medical Center, Augusta, Georgia
    • Section of Urology, Medical College of Georgia, Augusta, Georgia
    • ,
  • Joseph C. Presti Jr

      Affiliations

    • Department of Urology, Stanford University School of Medicine, Palo Alto, California
    • Urology Section, Department of Surgery, Veterans Affairs Palo Alto Healthcare System, Palo Alto, California
    • ,
  • SEARCH Database Study Group

Received 19 May 2006 ,Accepted 24 October 2006.

References 

  1. Bostwick DG. Gleason grading of prostatic needle biopsies: correlation with grade in 316 matched prostatectomies. Am J Surg Pathol. 1994;18:796–803
  2. Steinberg DM, Sauvageot J, Piantadosi S, et al. Correlation of prostate needle biopsy and radical prostatectomy Gleason grade in academic and community settings. Am J Surg Pathol. 1997;21:566–576
  3. King CR, McNeal JE, Gill H, et al. Extended prostate biopsy scheme improves reliability of Gleason grading: implications for radiotherapy patients. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2004;59:386–391
  4. Ozdamar SO, Sarikaya S, Yildiz L, et al. Intraobserver and interobserver reproducibility of WHO and Gleason histologic grading systems in prostatic adenocarcinomas. Int Urol Nephrol. 1996;28:73–77
  5. Freedland SJ, Amling CL, Dorey F, et al. Race as an outcome predictor after radical prostatectomy: results from the Shared Equal Access Regional Cancer Hospital (SEARCH) database. Urology. 2002;60:670–674
  6. Hall GS, Kramer CE, Epstein JI. Evaluation of radical prostatectomy specimens: a comparative analysis of sampling methods. Am J Surg Pathol. 1992;16:315–324
  7. King CR. Patterns of prostate cancer biopsy grading: trends and clinical implications. Int J Cancer. 2000;90:305–311
  8. Sved PD, Gomez P, Manoharan M, et al. Limitations of biopsy Gleason grade: implications for counseling patients with biopsy Gleason score 6 prostate cancer. J Urol. 2004;172:98–102
  9. Fukagai T, Namiki T, Namiki H, et al. Discrepancies between Gleason scores of needle biopsy and radical prostatectomy specimens. Pathol Int. 2001;51:364–370
  10. Carlson GD, Calvanese CB, Kahane H, et al. Accuracy of biopsy Gleason scores from a large uropathology laboratory: use of a diagnostic protocol to minimize observer variability. Urology. 1998;51:525–529
  11. Presti JC, Chang JJ, Bhargava V, et al. The optimal systematic prostate biopsy scheme should include 8 rather than 6 biopsies: results of a prospective clinical trial. J Urol. 2000;163:163–166
  12. Makhlouf AA, Krupski TL, Kunkle D, et al. The effect of sampling more cores on the predictive accuracy of pathological grade and tumour distribution in the prostate biopsy. BJU Int. 2004;93:271–274
  13. Coogan CL, Latchamsetty KC, Greenfield J, et al. Increasing the number of biopsy cores improves the concordance of biopsy Gleason score to prostatectomy Gleason score. BJU Int. 2005;96:324–327
  14. Freedland SJ, Aronson WJ, Kane CJ, et al. Impact of obesity on biochemical control after radical prostatectomy for clinically localized prostate cancer: a report by the Shared Equal Access Regional Cancer Hospital database study group. J Clin Oncol. 2004;22:446–453
  15. Amling CL, Riffenburgh RH, Sun L, et al. Pathologic variables and recurrence rates as related to obesity and race in men with prostate cancer undergoing radical prostatectomy. J Clin Oncol. 2004;22:439–445
  16. Rodriguez C, Patel AV, Calle EE, et al. Body mass index, height, and prostate cancer mortality in two large cohorts of adult men in the United States. Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev. 2001;10:345–353
  17. Freedland SJ, Platz EA, Presti JC, et al. Obesity, serum prostate specific antigen and prostate size: implications for prostate cancer detection. J Urol. 2006;175:500–504
  18. Albertsen PC, Hanley JA, Barrows GH, et al. Prostate cancer and the Will Rogers phenomenon. J Natl Cancer Inst. 2005;97:1248–1253
  19. D’Amico AV, Moul JW, Carroll PR, et al. Surrogate end point for prostate cancer-specific mortality after radical prostatectomy or radiotherapy. J Natl Cancer Inst. 2003;95:1376–1383

 This study was supported by the Department of Veterans Affairs, National Institutes of Health grant R01CA100938 (W.J. Aronson), National Institutes of Health Specialized Programs of Research Excellence grant P50 CA92131-01A1 (W. J. Aronson), the Georgia Cancer Coalition (M. K. Terris), Department of Defense, Prostate Cancer Research Program (S. J. Freedland), and the American Urological Association Foundation/Astellas Rising Star in Urology Award (S. J. Freedland).

 The views and opinions of, and endorsements by the authors do not reflect those of the U.S. Army or the U.S. Department of Defense.

PII: S0090-4295(06)02450-2

doi: 10.1016/j.urology.2006.10.036

Urology
Volume 69, Issue 3 , Pages 495-499 , March 2007

Article Tools

* Image Usage & Resolution