Skip to main content

Gleason underestimation is predicted by prostate biopsy core length

Abstract

Purpose

To evaluate whether core length impacts biopsy accuracy and Gleason score underestimation compared to radical prostatectomy (RP) specimens.

Methods

From 2010 to 2011, 8,928 cores were trans-rectal obtained from 744 consecutive patients (178 RP, 24 %), 557 by an experienced performer (>250/year) and 187 (25 %) by in-training urology residents. Prospectively analyzed variables were core length, age, prostate volume, free and total prostate-specific antigen (PSA), PSA density and free/total PSA ratio.

Results

Mean core length for Gleason upgrading on RP (42.7 %, n = 76) was 11.61 (±2.5, median 11.40) compared to 13.52 (±3.2, median 13.70), p < 0.001 for perfect biopsy-RP Gleason agreement (57.3 %, n = 102). In multivariate analysis, for each unit of core length increment in millimeter, the Gleason upgrading risk decreased 89.9 %, p = 0.049 [odds ratio (OR) 0.10, 95 % confidence interval (CI) 0.01–0.99]. Biopsy positivity between experienced (35.5 %) and in-training performer (30.1 %) was not significantly different (p = 0.20), with comparable mean patient age (65.1 vs. 64.1), prostate volume (52.3 vs. 50.7) and median PSA (5.2 vs. 5.1), respectively. Denoting wider variability in terms of core length, in-training performers obtained significantly larger cores for positive biopsies (11.33 ± 3.42 vs. 10.83 ± 3.68), p = 0.043, compared to experienced performer (11.39 ± 3.36 vs. 11.37 ± 3.64), p = 0.30. In multivariate analysis, PSA density (OR 1.14, 95 % CI 1.02–1.28) and age (OR 1.04, 95 % CI 1.01–1.07) were significantly associated with biopsy positivity, p = 0.021 and p = 0.011, respectively.

Conclusion

While core length on trans-rectal biopsy independently affects Gleason upgrading on RP specimens, performer experience has minor impact on Gleason discordance or biopsy positivity due to a sharp learning curve.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution.

Fig. 1

Abbreviations

RP:

Radical prostatectomy

PV:

Prostate volume

PSA:

Prostate-specific antigen

AUA:

American urological association

EAU:

European association of urology

ISUP:

International society of urological pathology

ERSPC:

European randomized study of screening for prostate cancer

DRE:

Digital rectal examination

OR:

Odds ratio

CI:

Confidence interval

References

  1. 1.

    Bjurlin MA, Carter HB, Schellhammer P et al (2013) Optimization of initial prostate biopsy in clinical practice: sampling, labeling, and specimen processing. J Urol 189(6):2039–2046

    PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. 2.

    Reis LO, Reinato JA, Silva DC et al (2010) The impact of core biopsy fragmentation in prostate cancer. Int Urol Nephrol 42(4):965–969

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. 3.

    Ukimura O, Coleman JA, de la Taille A et al (2013) Contemporary role of systematic prostate biopsies: indications, techniques, and implications for patient care. Eur Urol 63(2):214–230

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. 4.

    Van der Kwast T, Bubendorf L, Mazerolles C et al (2013) 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 463(3):367–377

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. 5.

    Billis A, Quintal MM, Meirelles L et al (2014) The value of the 2005 international society of urological pathology (ISUP) modified Gleason grading system as a predictor of biochemical recurrence after radical prostatectomy. Int Urol Nephrol 46(5):935–940

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. 6.

    Ficarra V, Martignoni G, Novella G et al (2006) Needle core length is a quality indicator of systematic transperineal prostate biopsy. Eur Urol 50(2):266–271

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. 7.

    Cormio L, Scattoni V, Lorusso F et al (2014) Prostate cancer detection rates in different biopsy schemes. Which cores for which patients? World J Urol 32(2):341–346

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. 8.

    Durmus T, Goldmann U, Baur AD et al (2013) MR-guided biopsy of the prostate: comparison of diagnostic specimen quality with 18 G and 16 G biopsy needles. Eur J Radiol 82(12):e749–e754

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. 9.

    Reis LO, Zani EL, Freitas LL et al (2013) Higher prostate weight is inversely associated with Gleason score upgrading in radical prostatectomy specimens. Adv Urol. 2013:710421

    PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. 10.

    Colleselli D, Pelzer AE, Steiner E et al (2010) Upgrading of Gleason score 6 prostate cancers on biopsy after prostatectomy in the low and intermediate PSA range. Prostate Cancer Prostatic Dis. 13(2):182–185

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. 11.

    Helpap B, Köllermann J (2012) Combined histoarchitectural and cytological biopsy grading improves grading accuracy in low-grade prostate cancer. Int J Urol 19(2):126–133

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. 12.

    Descazeaud A, Rubin MA, Allory Y et al (2005) What information are urologists extracting from prostate needle biopsy reports and what do they need for clinical management of prostate cancer? Eur Urol 48(6):911–915

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. 13.

    Berney DM, Algaba F, Camparo P et al (2014) Variation in reporting of cancer extent and benign histology in prostate biopsies among European pathologists. Virchows Arch 464(5):583–587

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. 14.

    Kanao K, Eastham JA, Scardino PT et al (2013) Can transrectal needle biopsy be optimised to detect nearly all prostate cancer with a volume of ≥0.5 mL? A three-dimensional analysis. BJU Int. 112(7):898–904

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. 15.

    Lawrentschuk N, Toi A, Lockwood GA et al (2009) Operator is an independent predictor of detecting prostate cancer at transrectal ultrasound guided prostate biopsy. J Urol 182(6):2659–2663

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. 16.

    Hori S, Fuge O, Trabucchi K et al (2013) Can a trained non-physician provider perform transrectal ultrasound-guided prostatic biopsies as effectively as an experienced urologist? BJU Int. 111(5):739–744

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. 17.

    Benchikh El Fegoun A, El Atat R, Choudat L et al (2013) The learning curve of transrectal ultrasound guided prostate biopsies implications for training programs. Urology 81(1):12–15

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. 18.

    Han M, Chang D, Kim C et al (2012) Geometric evaluation of systematic transrectal ultrasound guided prostate biopsy. J Urol 188(6):2404–2409

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. 19.

    Bostwick DG, Qian J, Drewnowska K et al (2010) Prostate needle biopsy quality in reduction by dutasteride of prostate cancer events study: worldwide comparison of improvement with investigator training and centralized laboratory processing. Urology. 75(6):1406–1410

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. 20.

    Öbek C, Doğanca T, Erdal S et al (2012) Core length in prostate biopsy: size matters. J Urol 187(6):2051–2055

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. 21.

    Fiset PO, Aprikian A, Brimo F (2013) Length of prostate biopsy cores: does it impact cancer detection? Can J Urol. 20(4):6848–6853

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. 22.

    Siadat F, Sykes J, Van der Kwast TH (2013) Length matters in prostate cancer. Can J Urol. 20(4):6854

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. 23.

    Iczkowski KA, Casella G, Seppala RJ et al (2002) Needle core length in sextant biopsy influences prostate cancer detection rate. Urology 59(5):698–703

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

We would like to thank Wagner França for help with data collection.

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Ethical standard

Performed in accordance with the institutional ethical guidelines ethical standards laid down in the 1964 Declaration of Helsinki its later amendments.

Author information

Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Leonardo O. Reis.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Reis, L.O., Sanches, B.C.F., de Mendonça, G.B. et al. Gleason underestimation is predicted by prostate biopsy core length. World J Urol 33, 821–826 (2015). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00345-014-1371-9

Download citation

Keywords

  • Prostate
  • Trans-rectal biopsy
  • Technique optimization
  • Cancer
  • Staging
  • Diagnosis
  • Gleason
  • Pathology report
  • Radical prostatectomy
  • Needle
  • Learning curve
  • Upgrading
  • Downgrading