Objective: To evaluate whether upgrading of the biopsy after radical prostatectomy (RP) affects disease outcome in terms of unfavorable pathology and biochemical failure. Patients and Methods: We retrospectively evaluated the records of 174 patients who underwent RP. Prostate biopsy and RP specimen Gleason scores (GSs) and correlative clinical data were recorded, and a multivariate analysis was applied. Results: Overall (138 patients), the disease of 69 men (50.0%) was upgraded, in 19 (13.8%) it was downgraded, and in 50 (36.2%) it had an identical biopsy and pathological GS. Accuracy rates were significantly higher for GS 8–10 compared to low GSs, with a concordance of 50.0 and 12.2%, respectively (p < 0.01). Multivariate analysis revealed the single independent prognostic factor for a non-organ-confined disease as a RP GS 8–10 (p = 0.035). The factors associated with a positive surgical margin were a biopsy GS 8–10 (p < 0.001) and the presence of biopsy score upgrading (p = 0.02). Biopsy GS ≥8 (p < 0.001) and presence of biopsy score upgrading (p = 0.009) were the two independent predictors of relapse after RP. Conclusion: This study demonstrated that biopsy upgrading was present in almost half of the patients who underwent RP and it was significantly related to positive surgical margins and biochemical relapse after RP.

Keywords:
Gleason score, Prostate cancer biopsy, Prostatectomy, Prostate cancer, prognostic factors, Radical prostatectomy
This content is only available via PDF.
© 2009 S. Karger AG, Basel
2009
Copyright / Drug Dosage / Disclaimer
Copyright: All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be translated into other languages, reproduced or utilized in any form or by any means, electronic or mechanical, including photocopying, recording, microcopying, or by any information storage and retrieval system, without permission in writing from the publisher.
Drug Dosage: The authors and the publisher have exerted every effort to ensure that drug selection and dosage set forth in this text are in accord with current recommendations and practice at the time of publication. However, in view of ongoing research, changes in government regulations, and the constant flow of information relating to drug therapy and drug reactions, the reader is urged to check the package insert for each drug for any changes in indications and dosage and for added warnings and precautions. This is particularly important when the recommended agent is a new and/or infrequently employed drug.
Disclaimer: The statements, opinions and data contained in this publication are solely those of the individual authors and contributors and not of the publishers and the editor(s). The appearance of advertisements or/and product references in the publication is not a warranty, endorsement, or approval of the products or services advertised or of their effectiveness, quality or safety. The publisher and the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to persons or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content or advertisements.
You do not currently have access to this content.