La intensidad de la captación intraprostática del PSMA como predictor de cáncer de próstata clínicamente significativo / The intensity of PSMA intraprostatic uptake as a predictor of clinically significant prostate cancer

Resumen Introducción: La tomografía por emisión de positrones (PET) con antígeno de membrana específico de próstata (PSMA) mejora la estadificación del cáncer de próstata. Además, la intensidad de captación intraprostática del PSMA puede predecir resultados oncológicos clínicamente relevantes. Nuestro objetivo fue evaluar si la intensidad de captación de PSMA se asocia con el cáncer de próstata clínicamente significativo y poder conocer qué valor de captación de PSMA discrimina mejor esta relación. Métodos: Se realizó un estudio de cohorte de 40 pacientes con cáncer de próstata comprobado por biopsia previo a la realización de radioterapia externa. Se evaluó correlación entre intensidad de captación del PSMA intraprostático y los resulta dos patológicos adversos en la biopsia prostática. Se estudió qué valor de captación de PSMA discrimina mejor el cáncer de próstata clínicamente significativo utilizando curvas ROC. Resultados: El 40% de los pacientes tuvieron un cáncer de próstata clínicamente significativo, el maximum standardized uptake value (SUV max) tuvo una media de 11.5 (DE ± 7). La muestra arrojó un coeficiente de correlación Spearman de 0.4 (p = 0.007). El área bajo la curva (AUC) fue de 0.73, mostrando el punto de corte un SUV max ≥ 9.5, sensibilidad 0.81 y especificidad 0.71 en la detección de cáncer de próstata clínicamente significativo. Conclusión: la intensidad de captación del PSMA intraprostático puede ser una nueva herramienta diagnóstica en la detección del cáncer de próstata clínicamente significativo. Una intensidad de captación ≥ 9.5 tuvo una buena correlación con el cáncer de próstata clínicamente significativo.

Abstract Introduction: Positron emission tomography (PET) with prostate-specific membrane antigen (PSMA) improves prostate cancer staging. Furthermore, the intensity of intraprostatic uptake of PSMA can predict clinically relevant oncologic outcomes. The objective of this study is to evaluate whether the intensity of PSMA uptake is associated with clinically significant prostate cancer and to determine which value of PSMA uptake best dis criminates this relationship. Methods: A cohort study of 40 patients with biopsy-proven prostate cancer prior to external radiotherapy was conducted. The correlation between intraprostatic PSMA uptake intensity and adverse pathological findings in prostate biopsy was evaluated. Which PSMA uptake value better discriminates clinically significant prostate cancer was assessed using ROC curves. Results: Forty percent of the patients had a clinically significant prostate cancer and the maximum standardized uptake value (SUV max) had a mean of 11.5 (SD ± 7). The sample showed a Spearman correlation coefficient of 0.4 (p = 0.007). The area under the curve (AUC) was 0.73 and a SUV max ≥ 9.5 showed a sensitivity of 0.81 and a specificity of 0.71 in the detection of clinically significant prostate cancer. Conclusion: Intraprostatic PSMA uptake intensity can be a new diagnostic tool in the detection of clinically significant prostate cancer. An uptake intensity equal or greater than 9.5 is correlated with clinically significant prostate cancer.

New perspectives in modified Gleason’s grading for prostatic cancer and its comparison with original Gleason’s

Background: The Gleason score is the most widely accepted histopathological grading system for prostate cancer since decade despite having many deficiency that can potentially impact patient health care. So ISUP agreed on developing a system of prognostic grade groups from I-V. Aim and objective was to study the new perspectives of modified Gleason’s grading and to compare it with original Gleason’s System with focus on the prognostic significance of the modifications.Methods: A retrospective study of 60 patients, who underwent TURP and Sextant biopsy and diagnosed as prostatic carcinoma in our institute were included in this study. Laboratory requisition forms with clinical history, PSA levels and histopathology reports of these patients were reviewed and graded accordingly to the newer gleasons. New Gleason grade includes five distinct Grade Groups based on the modified Gleason score groups. Grade Group 1 = Gleason score ≤6, Grade Group 2 = Gleason score 3 + 4 = 7, Grade Group 3 = Gleason score 4 + 3 = 7, Grade Group 4 = Gleason score 8, Grade Group 5 = Gleason scores 9 and 10 were assigned. The change in the grading system is tabulated and compared separately.Results: Patients age ranged from 55-80 years. The number of cases were 3,12,15,19 and 11 categorized under grade group I, grade group II, grade group III, grade group IV, grade group V cancer respectively according to modified gleason grading.Conclusions: Modified Gleason is a simplified grading system which may reduce over treatment of indolent prostate cancer. New gleasons grading clarifies the clinicians about the dilemma of gleason scores, offering an excellent prognostic stratification of this carcinoma.

Contemporary grading of prostate cancer: 2017 update for pathologists and clinicians / 亚洲男科学杂志(英文版)

The Gleason grading system for prostate cancer (PCA) was developed in the 1960s by DF Gleason. Due to changes in PCA detection and treatment, the application of the Gleason grading system has changed considerably in pathology routine practice. Two consensus conferences were held in 2005 and in 2014 to update PCA Gleason grading. This review provides a summary of the changes in the grading of PCA from the original Gleason grading system to the prognostic grade grouping, as well as a discussion of the clinical significance of the percentage of Gleason patterns 4 and 5.

Gleason scores in prostate needle biopsy and prostatectomy specimens in prostatic adenocarcinoma: A correlation study

@#Introduction: Gleason scoring (GS) categorised prostatic adenocarcinoma into five prognostic grade groups (PGGs); associated with different prognosis and treatment. This study aims to correlate between Gleason scores of needle biopsies with the corresponding total prostatectomy specimens, and to assess the relationship between the percentage of Gleason 4 tumour pattern (GP4) within Gleason score 7 (GS7) needle biopsy groups with the pathological staging. Materials and Methods: Seventy-eight specimens of needle prostate biopsy and its subsequent radical prostatectomy were retrospectively studied. The GSs of the needle biopsy were compared with the corresponding prostatectomy specimens. The percentage of GP4 in GS7 needle biopsy groups was calculated and correlated with the pathological staging. Results: More than half (60%) of GS 6 needle biopsy cases (PGG 1) were upgraded in the prostatectomy specimen, while the majority (80%) of the GS7 needle biopsy groups (PGG 2 and 3) remain unchanged. Cohen’s Kappa shows fair agreement in the Gleason scoring between needle biopsies and prostatectomy specimens, K = 0.324 (95% CI, 6.94 to 7.29), p <0.0005 and in the percentage of GP4 in GS7 needle biopsy groups and their corresponding radical prostatectomy specimens, K = 0.399 (95% CI 34.2 – 49.2), p<0.0005. A significant relationship was seen between the percentage of GP4 in GS7 needle biopsy with the pT and pN stage of its radical prostatectomy (p = 0.008 and p=0.001 respectively). Conclusion: A higher percentage of GP4 in GS7 tumour is associated with worse tumour behaviour, therefore it is crucial for clinicians to realise this in deciding the optimal treatment.

Clinicopathologic Differences Between Prostate Cancers Detected During Initial and Repeat Transrectal Ultrasound-Guided Biopsy in Korea

PURPOSE: The aim of this study was to investigate clinicopathologic differences between prostate cancer (PCa) detected at initial and repeat transrectal ultrasound-guided prostate biopsy in a large Korean cohort. MATERIALS AND METHODS: From 2000 through 2012, a total of 7,001 patients underwent transrectal ultrasound-guided prostate biopsy at 6 centers in Daegu and Gyeongbuk provinces. Of these 7,001 patients, the initial biopsy was positive for PCa in 2,118 patients. Repeat biopsy was performed in 374 of the 4,883 patients with an initial negative finding and a persistently elevated prostate-specific antigen (PSA) level, nodules or asymmetry by digital rectal examination (DRE), high-grade prostatic intraepithelial neoplasia, or atypical small acinar proliferation. Numbers of biopsy cores varied from 6 to 12 according to center and biopsy date. RESULTS: Cancer was diagnosed in 2,118 of the 7,001 patients (30.3%) at initial biopsy and in 86 of the 374 patients (23.0%) at repeat biopsy. The repeat biopsy rate was 5.3%. Mean PSA values were 68.7+/-289.5 ng/mL at initial biopsy and 18.0+/-55.4 ng/mL at repeat biopsy (p<0.001). The mean number of cancer-positive cores per biopsy was 5.5+/-3.5 for initial biopsy and 3.0+/-2.9 for repeat biopsy (p<0.001). Mean Gleason score was 7.5+/-1.4 at initial biopsy and 6.6+/-1.3 at repeat biopsy (p<0.001). For detected cancers, the low-stage rate was higher for repeat biopsy than for initial biopsy (p=0.001). CONCLUSIONS: Cancers detected at repeat biopsy tend to have lower Gleason scores and stages than cancers detected at initial biopsy. The present study shows that repeat biopsy is needed in patients with a persistently high PSA or abnormal DRE findings.

Frequency of Ki-67 (MIB-1) and P53 expressions among patients with prostate cancer.

Context: Prostate cancer is the most common malignant tumor in men. Tumor grade is one of the most important prognostic factors of prostate cancer. P53 and Ki-67 expressions have also been considered to be prognostic factors. Aims: This study was performed to investigate the frequency of these proteins expression and compare the obtained results with Gleason's grading. Settings and Design: In this cross-sectional study, 49 paraffin blocks of prostate cancers were assessed. Tumor grade was determined according to the Gleason's criteria. Materials and Methods: Ki-67 and P53 expressions were determined by immunohistochemical staining. Statistical Analysis: The obtained results were analyzed and evaluated using Spearman's statistical test (SPSS version 15). Results: Three out of 49 (6.1%) cases were well differentiated, 21 (43%) moderately differentiated and 25 (51%) were poorly differentiated. P53 was negative in all well-differentiated cases. Ki-67 was negative in 14 cases (28%) including all well-differentiated tumors. Among moderately and poorly differentiated tumors Ki-67 was negative in eight (38%) and three (12%) of cases, respectively. A statistically significant relation was observed between the increased Ki-67 labeling index (LI) and increased Gleason's grade. Conversely, no statistically significant relation was found between P53 expression and increased Gleason's grade. Conclusions: According to the findings of this study, it seems that Ki-67 can be used as a prognostic factor for prostate cancer. On the other hand, the probable relation between P-53 and prostate cancer prognosis requires further studies.

Accuracy of modified gleason grading on prostatic biopsies.

Objective: The Modified Gleason Grading System was proposed by the 2005 International Society of Urological Pathology (ISUP) Consensus Conference. In Thailand, prostatic biopsies are mostly diagnosed by general pathologists. The accuracy of the Gleason grading on prostatic biopsies is still questioned. We assessed the accuracy of modified Gleason Grading on prostatic biopsies and detected pitfalls in the grading. Methods: Sixty-nine cases of prostatic biopsies which diagnosed adenocarcinoma were re-examined according to the modified Gleason grading system by an experienced pathologist, four general pathologists and two pathology residents. Results: The accuracy of modified Gleason scores on prostatic biopsies ranged from 79.7% to 98.6% with 68.3 to 100 of 95% CI. Most biopsies with more than one score of difference were missed from Gleason pattern 5. Gleason pattern 5 was found in 25 biopsies. Percents of Gleason pattern 5 were classified into <5% (12 biopsies), 5-10% (6 biopsies), 11-50% (5 biopsies), and >50% (3 biopsies) of the tumor volume. The mean of the number of the observers who fail to detect Gleason pattern 5 in each category was 4 (SD 1.2), 3.6 (SD 1.8), 1.3 (SD 0.95), and 0.33 (SD 0.5), respectively. We found a small amount of Gleason pattern 5 was significantly missed (p = 0.01). Conclusion: The accuracy of Gleason grading on prostate biopsies among general pathologists and pathology residents in this study was fairly good. The missed Gleason pattern 5 is the most common pitfall. Pathologists should be aware of Gleason pattern 5 because it might be present in a prostate biopsy of less than 5 % of the tumor volume.

Correlation between Gleason scores of prostatic biopsies and radical prostatectomy specimens.

Objective: The incidence of prostatic adenocarcinoma in Thailand has been increasing since 1989. Increased public awareness may have contributed to early detection of the disease. Findings of abnormal digital examination, elevated serum prostate-specific antigen (PSA) level and abnormal transrectal ultrasonography (TRUS) lead to more multiple core biopsies. The Gleason grading system is the most common histologic grading of prostate carcinoma as approved by the World Health Organization. The Gleason score, one of the prognostic predictors, thus plays an important part in the therapeutic decision. The correlation between Gleason scores in biopsies and subsequent prostatectomy specimens is the main purpose of this study. Associations of Gleason scores with organ confinement, perineural invasion and serum PSA levels before prostatectomy were also studied. Methods: The specimens from 100 patients, who underwent TRUS core biopsy and subsequent prostatectomy between January 2001 and June 2004, were included. Results: Gleason grade concordance was found in 35 cases. In TRUS core biopsy, 35, 9, and 1 cases were 1, 2, and 3 scores undergraded, respectively. Thirteen and 7 cases were 1 and 2 scores overgraded, respectively. Eighty three percent show a difference of not more than 1 score. Conclusion: We concluded that the Gleason scoring in prostatic biopsy remains a good predictor of the final Gleason grading of the radical prostatectomy specimen. However, the urologists and radiotherapists should keep in mind that undergrading and overgrading in TRUS core biopsies are both possible.

Gleason score as predictor of clinicopathologic findings and biochemical (PSA) progression following radical prostatectomy

OBJECTIVE: There is evidence showing that Gleason grading of prostatic adenocarcinoma is one of the most powerful predictors of biological behavior and one of the most influential factors used to determine treatment for prostate cancer. The aim of the current study was to compare the Gleason score for needle biopsy to the Gleason score for the correspondent surgical specimen, find any possible difference in the biochemical (PSA) progression following surgery in upgraded cases, correlate Gleason score in the specimens to several clinicopathologic variables, and compare outcomes between patients with low-grade vs. high-grade Gleason and Gleason scores 3+4 vs. 4+3. MATERIALS AND METHODS: The study population consisted of 200 consecutive patients submitted to radical prostatectomy. Biochemical progression was defined as PSA > 0.2 ng/mL. Time to PSA progression was studied using the Kaplan-Meier product-limit analysis. RESULTS: In 47.1 percent of the cases, there was an exact correlation and 40.6 percent of cases were underestimated in the biopsies. Half of the tumors graded Gleason 6 at biopsy were Gleason score 7 at surgery. These upgraded tumors had outcomes similar to tumors with Gleason score 7 in both biopsy and surgery. There was a positive correlation of high-grade Gleason score in the surgical specimens to higher preoperative PSA, more extensive tumors, positive margins and more advanced pathologic staging. Tumors with a Gleason score > 7 have lower PSA progression-free survival vs. Gleason scores < 7. In this series, there was no significant difference when comparing Gleason scores of 3+4 vs. 4+3. CONCLUSIONS: The findings support the importance of Gleason grading for nomograms, which are used by clinicians to counsel individual patients and help them make important decisions regarding their disease.