Gleason skoru 3+4 ve 4+3 prostat kanseri olgularında preoperatif klinikopatolojik ve radyografik bulguların karşılaştırılması

Abstract

Amaç: Bu çalışmada prostat spesifik antijen PSA yüksekliği ve anormal rektal muayene bulgusu nedeniyle transrektal ultrasonografi TRUSG eşliğinde prostat biyopsisi alınan olgularda, biyopsi spesmenindeki gleason skoru 3+4 olan olgularla, 4+3 olan olguların preoperatif klinikopatolojik ve radyografik bulgularını karşılaştırmayı amaçladık. Gereç ve Yöntem: Kliniğimizde 2004-2011 yılları arasında PSA yüksekliği ve anormal rektal muayene bulgusu nedeniyle TRUSG eşliğinde 10 kadran prostat biyopsisi alınan 1135 olgudan, patolojisi prostat adenokarsinomu olarak raporlanan ve gleason skoru 3+4 olan 56 hasta Grup 1 ile gleason skoru 4+3 olan 48 hasta Grup 2 çalışmaya dahil edildi. Her iki gruptaki olgular yaş, total PSA, PSA dansitesi, ortalama prostat volümü, pozitif kor yüzdesi, pozitif kor yüzdesinin ≥ %33 olması, pozitif korlardaki en yüksek tümör yüzdesinin ortalaması, perinöral invazyon, rektal muayene ve tomografik bulgular açısından karşılaştırıldı. Bulgular: Grup 1 ve Grup 2’deki olgular karşılaştırıldığında yaş, ortalama prostat volümü, total PSA, PSA dansitesi, pozitif kor yüzdesi, pozitif kor yüzdesinin ≥ %33 olması, perinöral invazyon, rektal muayene ve tomografik bulgular açısından fark saptanmadı. Pozitif korlardaki en yüksek tümör yüzdesinin ortalaması Grup 1’de %69.60 ± 25.31 ve Grup 2’de %86.55 ±17.68 olarak bulundu ve gleason skoru 4+3 olan grupta istatistiksel olarak anlamlı oranda yüksekti p

Keywords

• Prostat kanseri,Prostat biyopsisi,Gleason Skoru

Comparison of preoperative clinicopathological and radiographical findings between prostate cancer cases with gleason score 3+4 and 4+3

Abstract

Objective: In this study, our objective was to compare the preoperative clinicopathological and radiographical findings of prostate cancer cases with gleason score 3+4 and 4+3 diagnosed by transrectal ultrasonography TRUSG guided biopsy. Materials and Methods: A total of 1135 patients underwent 10-quadrant TRUSG guide prostate biopsy because of high PSA values or abnormal digital rectal examination in our clinic between 2004-2011. Of those patients who had adenocarcinoma were divided into 2 groups of Gleason score 3+4 Group 1, 56 patients and Gleason score 4+3 Group 2, 48 patients . These two groups were compared in terms of age, total PSA, PSA density, mean prostate size, positive core percentage, a positive core value of 33% or more, mean highest positive core tumor percentage, perineural invasion, rectal examination and tomography findings. Results: Both groups are compared clinical, pathological and in terms of tomographical findings preoperatively. In this comparison, there was no difference in terms of age, total PSA, PSA density; mean prostate volume, positive core percentage, a positive core value of 33% or more, perineural invasion, rectal examination and tomography findings. The mean highest positive core tumor percentage was %69.60 ± 25.31 in group 1 and %86.55 ±17.68 in group 2. The mean highest positive core tumor percentage was significantly higher in the group 2 p

Keywords

• Prostate cancer,Prostate biopsy,Gleason score

References

1. Boyle P, Dresler C. Preventing the lung cancer epidemic. Ann Oncol. 2005 Oct; 16(10):1565-6.
2. Jemal A, Siegel R, Ward E, Hao Y, Xu J, Murray T, Thun MJ. Cancer statistics, 2008. CA Cancer J Clin. 2008 Mar- Apr;58(2):71-96.
3. Dinçel Ç. Üroonkoloji, Prostat kanserinde biyopsi. 1.Baskı. İzmir, Meta Basım Matbaacılık, 2007, p 45.
4. Hodge KK, McNeal JE, Terris MK, Stamey TA. Random systematic versus directed ultrasound guided transrectal core biopsies of the prostate. J Urol1989;142(1):71-74; dis- cussion 74-75
5. Gleason DF. Classification of prostatic carcinomas. Cancer Chemother Rep 1966;50:125-8.
6. Epstein JI, Allsbrook WC Jr, Amin MB, Egevad LL.ISUP Grading Committee. The 2005 International Society of Urological Pathology (ISUP) Consensus Conference on Gleason Grading of Prostatic Carcinoma. Am J Surg Pat- hol 2005;29:1228-42.
7. Axel Heidenreich , Gunnar Aus , Michel Bolla , Steven Jo- niau, Vsevolod B. Matveev , Hans Peter Schmid , Filliber- to Zattoni EAU Guidelines on Prostate Cancer 2010 p11.
8. Chan TY, Partin AW, Walsh PC, Epstein JI. Prognos- tic significance of Gleason score 3+4 versus Gleason sco- re 4+3 tumor at radical prostatectomy. Urology. 2000 Nov 1;56(5):823-7

9. Makarov DV, Sanderson H, Partin AW, Epstein JI. Glea- son score 7 prostate cancer on needle biopsy: is the prog- nostic difference in Gleason scores 4 + 3 and 3 + 4 inde- pendent of the number of involved cores? J Urol. 2002 Jun;167(6):2440-42
10. Partin AW, Mangold LA, Lamm DM, Walsh PC, Epstein JI, Pearson JD. Contemporary update of prostate cancer sta- ging nomograms (Partin Tables) for the new millennium. Urology. 2001 Dec;58(6):843-8
11. Nelson CP, Rubin MA, Strawderman M, Montie JE, Sanda MG. Preoperative parameters for predicting early prosta- te cancer recurrence after radical prostatectomy. Urology. 2002;59:740–745.
12. Gretzer MB, Epstein JI, Pound CR, Walsh PC, Partin AW. SubstratiŞcation of Stage T1C prostate cancer based on the probability of biochemical recurrence. Urology. 2002;60:1034–1039.
13. Dall’Era, M.A., et al., Active surveillance for the manage- ment of prostate cancer in a contemporary cohort. Cancer, 2008. 112(12): p. 2664-70.
14. Herman CM, Kattan MW, Ohori M, Scardino PT, Whee- ler TM. Primary Gleason pattern as a predictor of disease progression in gleason score 7 prostate cancer: a multivari- ate analysis of 823 men treated with radical prostatectomy. Am J Surg Pathol. 2001 May;25(5):657-60.
15. Lau WK, Blute ML, Bostwick DG, Weaver AL, Sebo TJ, Zincke H. Prognostic factors for survival of patients with pathological Gleason score 7 prostate cancer: differences in outcome between primary Gleason grades 3 and 4. J Urol. 2001 Nov;166(5):1692-7.
16. Rasiah KK, Stricker PD, Haynes AM, Delprado W, Turner JJ, Golovsky D, Brenner PC, Kooner R, O’Neill GF, Grygi- el JJ, Sutherland RL, Henshall SM. Prognostic significance of Gleason pattern in patients with Gleason score 7 prosta- te carcinoma. Cancer. 2003 Dec 15;98(12):2560-5.
17. Wright JL, Salinas CA, Lin DW, Kolb S, Koopmeiners J, Feng Z, Stanford JL. Prostate cancer specific mortality and Gleason 7 disease differences in prostate cancer out- comes between cases with Gleason 4 + 3 and Gleason 3 + 4 tumors in a population based cohort. J Urol. 2009 Dec;182(6):2702-7.
18. Epstein JI. Gleason score 2-4 adenocarcinoma of the pros- tate on needle biopsy: a diagnosis that should not be made. Am J Surg Pathol. 2000 Apr;24(4):477-8.
19. Stark JR, Perner S, Stampfer MJ, Sinnott JA, Finn S, Eisens- tein AS, Ma J, Fiorentino M, Kurth T, Loda M, Giovan- nucci EL, Rubin MA, Mucci LA. Gleason score and lethal prostate cancer: does 3 + 4 = 4 + 3? J Clin Oncol. 2009 Jul 20;27(21):3459-64.
20. Masieri L, Lanciotti M, Nesi G, Lanzi F, Tosi N, Minervi- ni A, Lapini A, Carini M, Serni S. Prognostic role of pe- rineural invasion in 239 consecutive patients with pat- hologically organ-confined prostate cancer. Urol Int. 2010;85(4):396-400.
21. Loeb S, Epstein JI, Humphreys EB, Walsh PC. Does perine- ural invasion on prostate biopsy predict adverse prostatec- tomy outcomes? BJU Int. 2010 Jun;105(11):1510-3.
22. A. Heidenreich (chairman), M. Bolla, S. Joniau,M.D. Ma- son, V. Matveev, N. Mottet, H-P. Schmid,T.H. van der Kwast, T. Wiegel, F. Zattoni. Guidelines on Prostate Can- cer. European Association of Urology 2011 p.28
23. Stephan C, Klaas M, Müller C, Schnorr D, Loening SA, Jung K Interchangeability of measurements of total and free prostate-specific antigen in serum with 5 frequently used assay combinations: an update. Clin Chem. 2006 Jan;52(1):59-64.
24. Hara R, Jo Y, Fujii T, Kondo N, Yokoyoma T, Miyaji Y, Na- gai A. Optimal approach for prostate cancer detection as initial biopsy: prospective randomized study comparing transperineal versus transrectal systematic 12-core biopsy. Urology. 2008 Feb;71(2):191-5.
25. Takenaka A, Hara R, Ishimura T, Fujii T, Jo Y, Nagai A, Fujisawa M. A prospective randomized comparison of diagnostic efficacy between transperineal and transrec- tal 12-core prostate biopsy. Prostate Cancer Prostatic Dis. 2008;11(2):134-8.
26. Epstein JI, Herawi M. Prostate needle biopsies containing prostatic intraepithelial neoplasia or atypical foci suspicio- us for carcinoma: implications for patient care. J Urol. 2006 Mar;175(3 Pt 1):820-34.