Precision of preoperative assessment of malignancy degree and prostate cancer stage

Cover Page

Cite item

Full Text

Abstract

Introduction. Despite the continuous improvement of preoperative examination methods, changes in the requirements for interpretation of the results of pathomorphological examination, the frequency of the difference in staging and evaluation of the degree of differentiation of prostate cancer before and after radical prostatectomy remains high. Materials and methods. A retrospective clinical study included 563 patients (mean age 61.3 years) with histologically verified localized and locally advanced prostate cancer. All patients underwent transrectal multifocal biopsy of the prostate under ultrasound guidance and then, during the period from January 2012 to March 2014, robot-assisted (n=490) or retropubic (n=73) radical prostatectomy in the urology clinic of A.I.Evdokimov Moscow State University. The percentage of tumor malignancy and disease stage difference before and after radical prostatectomy was calculated using a joint allocation table. Results. The frequency of Gleason scores before and after surgery was: for the sum of points (3+3) 6 - 55.0% (out of 285 only in 194 cases), (3+4) 7 - 39.6%, (4+3) 7 - 45.6%, 8 - 32.0%, 9 - 57.1%, respectively. The overall frequency of the Gleason score before the operation and the Gleason score after the operation was 48.7% (in 253 cases). Reduction in Gleason score was recorded in 12.9% of patients, increase in 38.2%. The stages of the disease - the T2c coincidence was less than 50%. In almost 40% of cases, a higher stage of the disease, pT3a, was diagnosed. In 1/4 of patients, the clinical stage of T3a was pT3b. The coincidence of the clinical and pathomorphological stage of the disease was recorded in only 1/4 of the patients participating in the study. Conclusions. The formation of the clinical stage of prostate cancer and the determination of the degree of malignancy of the disease in the preoperative period do not correspond to postoperative in about 50% of cases. It is necessary to take this fact into account when forming therapeutic tactics and to work on further improving the methods of preoperative examination of patients with prostate cancer.

About the authors

P. I Rasner

A.I.Evdokimov Moscow State University of Medicine and Dentistry of the Ministry of Health of the Russian Federation

Email: dr.rasner@gmail.com
д-р мед. наук, проф. каф. урологии ФГБОУ ВО «МГМСУ им. А.И.Евдокимова» 127473, Russian Federation, Moscow, ul. Delegatskaia, d. 20, str. 1

D. V Kotenko

A.I.Evdokimov Moscow State University of Medicine and Dentistry of the Ministry of Health of the Russian Federation

канд. мед. наук, ассистент каф. урологии ФГБОУ ВО «МГМСУ им. А.И.Евдокимова» 127473, Russian Federation, Moscow, ul. Delegatskaia, d. 20, str. 1

K. B Kolontarev

A.I.Evdokimov Moscow State University of Medicine and Dentistry of the Ministry of Health of the Russian Federation

д-р мед. наук, доц. каф. урологии ФГБОУ ВО «МГМСУ им. А.И.Евдокимова» 127473, Russian Federation, Moscow, ul. Delegatskaia, d. 20, str. 1

D. Yu Pushkar

A.I.Evdokimov Moscow State University of Medicine and Dentistry of the Ministry of Health of the Russian Federation

чл.-кор. РАН, д-р мед. наук, проф., зав. каф. урологии ФГБОУ ВО «МГМСУ им. А.И.Евдокимова» 127473, Russian Federation, Moscow, ul. Delegatskaia, d. 20, str. 1

References

  1. Mottet N, Bellmunt J, Bolla M et al. Guidelines on Prostate Cancer 2017. European Association of Urology.
  2. Epstein J.I et al. 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 2015.
  3. Spigelman S.S et al. Rectal examination in volume determination of carcinoma of the prostate: clinical and anatomical correlations. J Urol 1986; 136: 1228.
  4. De Rooij M et al. Accuracy of Magnetic Resonance Imaging for Local Staging of Prostate Cancer: A Diagnostic Meta - analysis. Eur Urol 2016; 70: 233.
  5. Cornud F et al. Extraprostatic spread of clinically localized prostate cancer: factors predictive of pT3 tumor and of positive endorectal MR imaging examination results. Radiology 2002; 224: 203.
  6. Wang L et al. Prostate cancer: incremental value of endorectal MR imaging findings for prediction of extracapsular extension. Radiology 2004; 232: 133.
  7. Futterer J.J, Briganti A, De Visschere P et al. Can Clinically Significant Prostate Cancer Be Detected with Multiparametric Magnetic Resonance Imaging? A Systematic Review of the Literature. Eur Urol 2015; 68: 1045-53.
  8. De Lima N.G et al. Importance of prostate - specific antigen (PSA) as a predictive factor for concordance between the Gleason scores of prostate biopsies and radical prostatectomy specimens. Clinics (Sao Paulo) 2013; 68 (6): 820-4.
  9. Tapia O, Bellolio E, Roa J.C et al. Concordance between Gleason scores of trans rectal biopsies and the surgical piece of radical prostatectomy. Rev Med Chil 2011; 39 (2): 171-6.
  10. Partin A.W et al. Prostate specific antigen in the staging of localized prostate cancer: influence of tumor differentiation, tumor volume and benign hyperplasia. J Urol 1990; 143: 747.
  11. Partin A.W et al. Contemporary update of prostate cancer staging nomograms (Partin Tables) for the new millennium. Urology 2001; 58: 843.
  12. Eifler J.B et al. An updated prostate cancer staging nomogram (Partin tables) based on cases from 2006 to 2011. BJU Int 2013; 111: 22.

Copyright (c) 2017 Consilium Medicum

Creative Commons License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International License.

This website uses cookies

You consent to our cookies if you continue to use our website.

About Cookies