Clinical Significance of a Large Difference (> or = 2 points) between Biopsy and Post-prostatectomy Pathological Gleason Scores in Patients with Prostate Cancer.
10.3346/jkms.2011.26.4.507
- Author:
Changhee YOO
1
;
Cheol Young OH
;
Jin Seon CHO
;
Cheryn SONG
;
Seong Il SEO
;
Hanjong AHN
;
Tae Kon HWANG
;
Jun CHEON
;
Kang Hyun LEE
;
Tae Gyun KWON
;
Tae Young JUNG
;
Moon Kee CHUNG
;
Sang Eun LEE
;
Hyun Moo LEE
;
Eun Sik LEE
;
Young Deuk CHOI
;
Byung Ha CHUNG
;
Hyung Jin KIM
;
Wun Jae KIM
;
Seok Soo BYUN
;
Han Yong CHOI
Author Information
1. Department of Urology, College of Medicine, Hallym University, Chuncheon, Korea.
- Publication Type:Original Article ; Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't
- Keywords:
Prostatic Neoplasms;
Gleason Score;
Prognosis
- MeSH:
Age Factors;
Aged;
Biopsy;
Humans;
Male;
Middle Aged;
Multivariate Analysis;
Neoplasm Staging;
Prognosis;
*Prostatectomy;
Prostatic Neoplasms/*pathology/surgery;
Recurrence;
Severity of Illness Index
- From:Journal of Korean Medical Science
2011;26(4):507-512
- CountryRepublic of Korea
- Language:English
-
Abstract:
We investigated the clinical significance of large difference (> or = 2 points) between biopsy-derived (bGS) and post-prostatectomy Gleason scores (pGS). At 14 medical centers in Korea, 1,582 men who underwent radical prostatectomy for prostate cancer were included. According to the difference between bGS and pGS, the patients were divided into three groups: A (decreased in pGS > or = 2, n = 30), B (changed in pGS < or = 1, n = 1,361; control group), and C (increased in pGS > or = 2, n = 55). We evaluated various clinicopathological factors of prostate cancer and hazards for biochemical failure. Group A showed significantly higher mean maximal percentage of cancer in the positive cores (max%) and pathological T stage than control. In group C, the number of biopsy core was significantly smaller, however, tumor volume and max% were significantly higher and more positive biopsy cores were presented than control. Worse pathological stage and more margin-positive were observed in group A and C than in control. Hazard ratio for biochemical failure was also higher in group A and C (P = 0.001). However, the groups were not independent factors in multivariate analysis. In conclusion, large difference between bGS and pGS shows poor prognosis even in the decreased group. However it is not an independent prognostic factor for biochemical failure.
