Pathological correlation between prostate biopsies and the radical prostatectomy, about 30 cases
Tóm tắt
Since the advent of the massive prostate-specific antigen (PSA) testing, prostate cancer has become a major public health problem. It is currently the most common cancer and the second leading cause of cancer death in men. The diagnosis is based on the histopathological study of prostate biopsies. The aim of our work was to study the correlation of the grade group (GG) using the ISUP 2016 classification between the prostate needle biopsies and radical prostatectomy specimen. This was a retrospective study of 30 patients. We studied the correlation of the grade group (GG) according to the new classification ISUP (2016) between prostate biopsies and radical prostatectomy specimen. The average age of our patients was 65 years, the diagnosis was discovered on an individual screening in 15% of the cases, and 65% of our patients were diagnosed with LUTS due to an associated benign prostatic hyperplasia. The average PSA level in our study was 11 ng/ml. In the biopsies group, the grade 1 and 2 groups were in the majority with 40% of the cases each of them. We noted that GG 3 (Gleason 4 + 3) was represented in 16.66% of cases, while GG4 was only present in 3% of cases. On the prostatectomy specimen group, GG1 was represented in 33.33% of cases, GG2 in 40% of cases and GG3 in 20% of cases. GG4 was represented in 6.66% of cases. Among GG1 patients, identical staging was noted in 75% of cases, and under-staging in 25% of cases. For GG2 patients, over-staging in 8.3% of cases, identical staging in 83.3% of cases and under-staging of 8.3%. Among GG 3 patients, there was an 80% identical staging, while an under-staging was present in 20% of cases. The GG 4 is perfectly correlated. Combining all groups in our study, we noted an exact staging in 80% of the cases, an under-staging in 16.33% of the cases, and an over-staging in 3.33% of the cases. The Kappa concordance index was 0.4. The correlation of the grade group between the prostate biopsies and the radical prostatectomy specimen was imperfect; the more the cancer increases in the grade group, the better was the correlation.
Tài liệu tham khảo
Khoddami M, Khademi KY, Aghdam M, Soltanghoraee H (2016) Correlation between Gleason scores in needle biopsy and corresponding radical prostatectomy specimens. A twelve-year review. Iran J Pathol 11(2):120–126
Qarro A, Ghoundale O, Bazine K, Asseban M, Najoui M, Samir J, Ouhbi Y, Beddouch A, Lezrek M, Alami M (2012) Score de Gleason des biopsies prostatiques et celui des pièces de prostatectomies: Quelle corrélation? Afr J Urol 18(183):188
Boccon-Gibod LM, Dumonceau O, Toublanc M, Ravery V, Boccon-Gibod LA (2005) Micro focal prostate cancer: a comparison of biopsy and radical prostatectomy specimen features. Eur Urol 48:895–899
Kim SC, Jeong I, Song C, Hong JH, Kim CS (2010) Biochemical recurrence-free and cancer-specific survival after radical prostatectomy at a single institution. Korean J Urol 5:836–842
Khiari R, Ghobel J, Dridi M, Maarouf J, Bnerais N (2011) Ghozzis. Résulats carcinilogiques et fonctionnels de 50 prostatectomies radicales consécutives. La tunisie médicale 89:703–708
Peko JF, Odzebe AWS, Nsonde-Mlanda J, Bambara AT, Ngolet A (2011) Cancer de la prostate: corrélation des scores de Gleason entre les biopsies et les pièces opératoires. Prog Urol 21(9):615–618
D’Elia C et al (2014) Upgrading and upstaging in prostate cancer: from prostate biopsy to radical prostatectomy. Mol Clin Oncol 2:1145–1149. https://doi.org/10.3892/mco.2014.370
Dehayni Y, Habibi H et al (2016) Capacité de la biopsie de la prostate à prédire le score réel du cancer de la prostate? Afr J Urol 22:259–263. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.afju.2016.02.002
Dolatkhah S et al (2019) Discrepancies between biopsy Gleason score and radical prostatectomy specimen Gleason score: an Iranian experience. Urol Oncol 16(1):56–61
Awang A, Isa NM et al (2019) Gleason scores in prostate needle biopsy and prostatectomy specimens in prostatic adenocarcinoma: a correlation study. Malays J Pathol 41(3):253–257