head JofIMAB
Journal of IMAB - Annual Proceeding (Scientific Papers)
Publisher: Peytchinski Publishing Ltd.
ISSN: 1312-773X (Online)
Issue: 2022, vol. 28, issue4
Subject Area: Medicine
DOI: 10.5272/jimab.2022284.4720
Published online: 06 December 2022

Original article
J of IMAB. 2022 Oct-Dec;28(4):4720-4723
Boyan LazarovORCID logo Corresponding Autoremail, Tosho GanevORCID logo,
Clinic of urology, MHAT "Sveta Anna-Varna", Varna, Bulgaria.

Introduction: Prostate cancer (PCa) in stages T1 and T2 can be treated either with radical prostatectomy (RP) or with radiotherapy. But in the clinical trials, the survival probability after RP is related to the Gleason score (GS) from the operation and the survival probability after radiotherapy - to the GS from the biopsy. Both GSs often do not coincide.
Objective: To study the connection between biopsy/prostatectomy-GS of a homogeneous group of patients, all treated only with RP, and the biochemical progression-free survival (BPFS) of those patients.
Methods:  The patients available for analysis were 111. All underwent RP (either open or laparoscopic) in our institution. Information about the GSs and the BPFS was collected and analyzed using IBM SPSS version 23. Parametric and non-parametric statistical methods were used.
Results: Time to biochemical progression is shorter for patients with biopsy- and prostatectomy- GS≥ 7 compared with biopsy- and prostatectomy-GS < 7 patients.
Discussion: With this study, we show that both GSs have a similar implication on the BPFS, with prostatectomy-GS giving slightly better accuracy than the biopsy-GS in predicting survival.
Conclusion: Both GSs are comparable and can be used when discussing the survival probabilities of the patient and choosing the treatment options.

Keywords: Prostate cancer, Gleason score, Biochemical progression-free survival,

pdf - Download FULL TEXT /PDF 605 KB/
Please cite this article as: Lazarov B, Ganev T. The impact of Gleason score from the biopsy and from the radical prostatectomy on the biochemical progression-free survival. J of IMAB. 2022 Oct-Dec;28(4):4715-4719. DOI: 10.5272/jimab.2022284.4715

Corresponding AutorCorrespondence to: Boyan Lazarov, Multiprofile Hospital for Active Treatment "Sveta Anna-Varna"- Clinic of urology, Medical University Varna, Department of Surgery; 100, Tzar Osvoboditel Blvd., Varna, 9000, Bulgaria; E-mail: boyanlazarov@yahoo.com

1. Siegel R, Ma J, Zou Z, Jemal A. Cancer statistics, 2014. CA Cancer J Clin. 2014 Jan-Feb;64(1):9-29. [PubMed]
2. Mottet N, van den Bergh RCN, Briers E, Van den Broeck T, Cumberbatch MG, De Santis M, et al. EAU-EANM-ESTRO-ESUR-SIOG Guidelines on Prostate Cancer-2020 Update. Part 1: Screening, Diagnosis, and Local Treatment with Curative Intent. Eur Urol. 2021 Feb;79(2):243-262. [PubMed]
3. Cornford P, van den Bergh RCN, Briers E, Van den Broeck T, Cumberbatch MG, De Santis M, et al. EAU-EANM-ESTRO-ESUR-SIOG Guidelines on Prostate Cancer. Part II-2020 Update: Treatment of Relapsing and Metastatic Prostate Cancer. Eur Urol. 2021 Feb;79(2):263-282. [PubMed]
4. Epstein JI, Egevad L, Amin MB, Delahunt B, Srigley JR, Humphrey PA. 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. 2016 Feb;40(2):244-52. [PubMed]
5. Epstein J, Allsbrook W, Amin M, Egevad L, ISUP Grading Committee. The 2005 International Society of Urological Pathology (ISUP) Consensus Conference on Gleason Grading of Prostatic Carcinoma. Am J Surg Pathol. 2005 Sep;29(9):1228-42. [PubMed]
6. Van der Kwast T, Bubendorf L, Mazerolles C, Raspollini M, Van Leenders G, Pihl C-G, et al. Guidelines on processing and reporting of prostate biopsies: the 2013 update of the pathology committee of the European Randomized Study of Screening for Prostate Cancer (ERSPC). Virchows Arch. 2013 Sep;463(3):367-77. [PubMed]
7. Cooperberg M, Pasta D, Elkin E, Litwin M, Latini D, Du Chane J, et al. The University of California, San Francisco Cancer of the Prostate Risk Assessment score: a straightforward and reliable preoperative predictor of disease recurrence after radical prostatectomy. J Urol. 2005 Jun;173(6):1938-42. [PubMed]
8. Sinnott M, Falzarano S, Hernandez A, Jones J, Klein E, Zhou M, et al. Discrepancy in prostate cancer localization between biopsy and prostatectomy specimens in patients with unilateral positive biopsy: implications for focal therapy. Prostate. 2012 Aug 1;72(11):1179-86. [PubMed]
9. Pereira R, Costa R, Muglia V, Silva F, Lajes J, Dos Reis R, et al. Gleason score and tumor laterality in radical prostatectomy and transrectal ultrasound-guidedbiopsy of the prostate: a comparative study. Asian J Androl. 2015 Sep-Oct;17(5):815-20. [PubMed]
10. Janane A, Hajji F, Dakkak Y, Ghadouane M, Ameur A, Abbar M, et al. Gleason Score Discrepancies Between Needle Biopsies and Radical Prostatectomy Specimens in an African Men: Clinical Implication. Journal of Analytical Oncology, 2013; 2(3):165-170. [Crossref]
11. Yeldir N, Yildiz E, Dündar G. Gleason Score Correlation Between Prostate Needle Biopsy and Radical Prostatectomy Materials. Turk Patoloji Derg. 2019; 35(3):185-192. [PubMed]
12. Camtosun A, Gökçe H. Comparison of prostate biopsy pathology and radical prostatectomy pathologies. Dicle Med J. 2019; 46(1):133-139. [Crossref]
13. Hamdy FC, Donovan JL, Lane JA, Mason M, Metcalfe C, Holding P, et al. 10-Year Outcomes after Monitoring, Surgery, or Radiotherapy for Localized Prostate Cancer. N Engl J Med. 2016 Oct 13;375(15):1415-1424. [PubMed]
14. Mills S, Fowler J. Gleason histologic grading of prostatic carcinoma. Correlations between biopsy and prostatectomy specimens. Cancer. 1986 Jan 15;57(2):346-9.
15. Steinberg DM, Sauvageot J, Piantadosi S, Epstein JI. Correlation of prostate needle biopsy and radical prostatectomy Gleason grade in academic and community settings. Am J Surg Pathol. 1997 May;21(5):566-76. [PubMed].

Received: 08 March 2022
Published online: 06 December 2022

back to Online Journal