Upgrading in prostatic cancer: Clinical and pathological parameters that predict the Gleason's scores changes

Kaan Karamik, Mustafa Yuksel, Hakan Anil, Mahmut Ekrem Islamoglu, Husnu Tokgoz, Basak Goktas, Murat Savas


Prostate cancer is the most common malignancy in men. Several studies have shown that the difference between biopsy and prostatectomy specimen Gleason score (GS) ranges from 28% to 58%. The aim of this study was to investigate equivalence of GS between biopsy and radical prostatectomy specimen. We also aimed to evaluate the clinical and pathological parameters that predict GS changes. We retrospectively reviewed data from 101 patients who underwent prostatectomy at our hospital. Prostate needle biopsies were performed under ultrasound guidance through the trans-rectal route after quinolone group antibiotic prophylaxis. At least 10 core biopsies were taken. Upgrading was defined as an increase in total GS or increase in initial GS. The mean age of patients was 63.15 and the mean prostate specific antigen (PSA) level was 12.25. The most common needle biopsy GS was 3+3 (79.2%) followed by 3+4 (11.9%). The most frequent pathological GS was 3+3 (52.5%) followed by 3+4 (28.7%). 38.6% of the patients received an upgrading on radical prostatectomy material. We evaluated the correlation s between the patients’ ages, preoperative PSA, biopsy GS, number of tumor cores, number of cores with presence of high grade prostatic intraepithelial and/or atypical small acinar proliferation accompanying tumor, positive surgical margin status and upgrading. When multivariate logistic regression analysis was performed, in patients above the age of 65 (p=0.019) with higher PSA (p=0.024), an increase was observed in GS of prostatectomy material compared to needle biopsy. Patients who were upgraded were more likely to have positive surgical margins (p=0.022). Accurate staging is crucial in prostate cancer for optimal treatment planning. In our study upgrading was found to be correlated with age and PSA. We believe prospective studies involving larger patient series and more parameters will allow us to reach clearer judgments on this topic.



Biopsy, Gleason's score, upgrading, prostate cancer

Full Text:



Miller KD, Siegel RL, Lin CC, Mariotto AB, Kramer JL, Rowland JH, Stein KD, Alteri R, Jemal A. Cancer treatment and survivorship statistics, 2016. CA Cancer J Clin 66:271-289, 2016.

Rubin MA, Bisöar TA, Curtis S, Montie JE. Prostate needle biopsy reporting: how are the surgical members of the Society of Urologic Oncology using pathology reports to guide treatment of prostate cancer patients? Am J Surg Pathol 28:946-952, 2004.

D’Elia C, Cerruto MA, Cioffi A, Novella G, Cavalleri S, Artibani W. Upgrading and upstaging in prostate cancer: From prostate biopsy to radical prostatectomy. Mol Clin Oncol 2:1145-1149, 2014.

Sfoungaristos S, Perimenis P. Clinical and pathological variables that predict changes in tumor grade after radical prostatectomy in patients with prostate cancer. Can Urol Assoc J 7:E93-97, 2013.

Donovan J, Hamdy F, Neal D, et al. ProtecT Study Group. Prostate Testing for Cancer and Treatment (ProtecT) feasibility study. Health Technol Assess 7:1-88, 2003.

Tomioka S, Nakatsu H, Suzuki N, Murakami S, Matsuzaki O, Shimazaki J. Comparison of Gleason grade and score between preoperative biopsy and prostatectomy specimens in prostate cancer. Int J Urol 13:555-559, 2006.

Herman CM, Kattan MW, Ohori M, Scardino PT, Wheeler TM. Primary Gleason pattern as a predictor of disease progression in Gleason score 7 prostate cancer- a multivariate analysis of 823 men treated with radical prostatectomy. Am J Surg Pathol 25:657-660, 2001.

King CR, Long JP. Prostate biopsy grading errors: a sampling problem? Int J Cancer 90:326-330, 2000.

Freedland SJ, Kane CJ, Amling CL, Aronson WJ, Terris MK, Presti JC Jr; SEARCH Database Study Group. Upgrading and downgrading of prostate needle biopsy specimens: risk factors and clinical implications. Urology 69:495-499, 2007.

Moussa AS, Li J, Soriano M, Klein EA, Dong F, Jones JS. Prostate biopsy clinical and pathological variables that predict significant grading changes in patients with intermediate and high grade prostate cancer. BJU Int 103:43-48, 2009.

Epstein JI, Feng Z, Trock BJ, Pierorazio PM. Upgrading and downgrading of prostate cancer from biopsy to radical prostatectomy: incidence and predictive factors using the modified Gleason grading system and factoring in tertiary grades. Eur Urol 61:1019-1024, 2012.

Tomioka S, Nakatsu H, Suzuki N, Murakami S, Matsuzaki O, Shimazaki J. Comparison of Gleason grade and score between preoperative biopsy and prostatectomy specimens in prostate cancer. Int J Urol 13:555-559, 2006.

Capitanio U, Karakiewicz PI, Valiquette L, Perrotte P, Jeldres C, Briganti A, Gallina A, Suardi N, Cestari A, Guazzoni G, Salonia A, Montorsi F. Biopsy core number represents one of foremost predictors of clinically significant gleason sum upgrading in patients with low-risk prostate cancer. Urology 73:1087-1091, 2009.

Richstone L, Bianco FJ, Shah HH, Kattan MW, Eastham JA, Scardino PT, Scherr DS. Radical prostatectomy in men aged >or=70 years: effect of age on upgrading, upstaging, and the accuracy of a preoperative nomogram. BJU Int 101:541-546, 2008.

Serkin FB, Soderdahl DW, Cullen J, Chen Y, Hernandez J. Patient risk stratification using Gleason score concordance and upgrading among men with prostate biopsy Gleason score 6 or 7. Urol Oncol 28:302-307, 2010.

De La Roca RL, Da Cunha IW, Bezerra SM, Da Fonseca FP. Radical prostatectomy and positive surgical margins: relationship with prostate cancer outcome. Int Braz J Urol 40:306-315, 2014.

Vis AN, Schröder FH, van der Kwast TH. The actual value of the surgical margin status as a predictor of disease progression in men with early prostate cancer. Eur Urol 50:258-265, 2006.


  • There are currently no refbacks.