COMPARISON OF GLEASON GRADUATION BETWEEN BIOPSIES AND SURGICAL PIECE IN PATIENTS WITH PROSTATE CANCER

Authors

  • João Pedro Schiavini Muhlbeier Hospital Universitário Evangélico Mackenzie
  • Maria Laura Schiavini Muhlbeier Uniplac
  • Aline Ribeiro Caminha Uniplac
  • Luiz Martins Collaço Hospital Universitário Evangélico Mackenzie

Keywords:

Biopsy, Prostate, Urology, Gleason, Medicine, Men's Health

Abstract

Prostate cancer is the most prevalent in men, excluding non-melanoma skin cancer. The Gleason score is most often the main indicator of aggressiveness in prostate cancer, so the results obtained in the biopsy and in the anatomopathological examination of the surgical specimen should be the same. However, for several reasons this often does not happen. The national literature is scarce in discussing the comparison of Gleason grading between biopsies and definitive results of surgical specimens in cases of prostate cancer. Objectives: To compare the Gleason score of pre -surgical biopsies and radical prostatectomy specimens, in patients with prostate cancer, to identify possible factors that influence the discrepancy between the results. Methods: Retrospective, observational, cross-sectional study where the medical records of patients who underwent prostate biopsy diagnosed with Usual Acinar Adenocarcinoma and who later underwent radical prostatectomy in a private teaching hospital, of a philanthropic nature, located in the city of Curitiba/ Paraná/ Brazil were analyzed. , between January 2014 and December 2018. Gleason scores were obtained from the biopsies and compared to the surgical specimens. The following parameters were also analyzed: 1) blood level of prostate-specific antigen (PSA), 2) Patient's age 3) Prostate size of the surgical specimen 4) Presence of a nodule on digital examination of the prostate. The findings were statistically treated by the one test methods way ANOVA, Kruskal - Wallis test and Mann Whitney test with admission of significance for p< 0.05. Results: In the 115 patients evaluated, a mean age of 65.5 years was found, ranging from 47 to 83. Comparing the data, it was possible to identify 27 cases in which the Gleason score increased in the surgical specimen (23.47%), 13 cases decreased (11.30%) and 75 cases remained the same (65.21%). The mean prostate size was 38.4cc, ranging from 5.3 to 178. The mean prostate-specific antigen (PSA) was 10.63 ng /ml, ranging from 0.67 to 43.59, with a median of 8. Nodules were detected on digital examination of the prostate in 70 patients. patients (60.89%) In the study of variables according to changes in the Gleason score, age presented p=0.54, PSA p=0.75, prostate size p=0.01 and presence of prostatic nodules p = 0.49. Conclusion: In the present study, the concordance of the Gleason score of the pre -surgical prostate biopsy with the prostatectomy was exact in 65.21% of the cases and the factors analyzed that significantly influenced the variation of the score was the size of the prostate.

Author Biographies

João Pedro Schiavini Muhlbeier, Hospital Universitário Evangélico Mackenzie

Médico. Hospital Universitário Evangélico Mackenzie. E-mail: joao_pedro_muhl@hotmail.com

Maria Laura Schiavini Muhlbeier, Uniplac

Acadêmica de Medicina. Universidade do Planalto Catarinense (Uniplac). Autora Correspondente. Endereço Uniplac Av. Mal. Castelo Branco, 170 - Universitário, Lages - SC, 88509-900 – Curso de Medicina. E-mail: mariaschiavini@hotmail.com

Aline Ribeiro Caminha, Uniplac

Acadêmica de Medicina. Universidade do Planalto Catarinense. E-mail: caminhaaline@gmail.com

Luiz Martins Collaço, Hospital Universitário Evangélico Mackenzie

Doutorado em Medicina Interna pela Universidade Federal do Paraná. Coordenador do Curso de Medicina da Faculdade Evangélica Mackenzie do Paraná. Curitiba/Paraná/Brasil.  Professor Orientador. Link Lattes: http://lattes.cnpq.br/9665949474686201 E-mail: lmcollaco@uol.com.br 

References

(1) Ferlay J, Soerjomataram I, Dikshit R, Eser S, Mathers C, Rebelo M. Cancer incidence and mortality worldwide: sources, methods and major patterns in GLOBOCAN 2012. International Journal of Cancer. 2015;136(5):E359-86. [citado em 2021 Nov 6]. Disponível em: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25220842

(2) Araujo FAGR, Oliveira Jr U, Araujo FAGR, Oliveira Jr U. Current guidelines for prostate cancer screening: A systematic review and minimal core proposal. Revista da Associação Médica Brasileira. 2018;64(3):290–296. [citado em 2021 Nov 7]. Disponível em: http://www.scielo.br/scielo.php?script=sci_arttext&pid=S0104-42302018000300290&lng=en&tlng=en

(3) Sivaramana AR, Sanchez-Salasa M, Castro-Marinb, Barreta C, Guillot-Tantaya, Prapotnicha D, Cathelineaua X. Evolución de las técnicas de biopsia prostática. Mirando hacia atrás en un viaje significativo. Actas Urológicas Españolas. 2016;40(8):492–498. [citado em 2021 Nov 11]. Disponível em: http://linkinghub.elsevier.com/retrieve/pii/S0210480616300572

(4) Alchin DR, Murphy D, Lawrentschuk N. Risk factors for Gleason Score upgrading following radical prostatectomy. Minerva urologica e nefrologica = The Italian Journal of Urology and Nephrology. 2017;69(5):459–465. [citado em 2021 Nov 7]. Disponível em: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/28008754

(5) Arellano HL, Castillo CO, Metrebián BE. Concordancia diagnóstica del puntaje de Gleason en biopsia por punción y prostatectomía radical y sus consecuencias clínicas. Revista Médica de Chile. 2004;132(8). [citado em 2021 Nov 15]. Disponível em: http://www.scielo.cl/scielo.php?script=sci_arttext&pid=S0034-98872004000800009&lng=en&nrm=iso&tlng=en

(6) Çamur E, Coşkun A, Kavukoğlu Ö, Can U, Kara Ö, Çamur AD, Sarıca K, Narter KF. Prostate volume effect on Gleason score upgrading in active surveillance appropriate patients. Archivio italiano di urologia, andrologia : organo ufficiale [di] Societa Italiana di Ecografia Urologica e Nefrologica. 2019;91(2). [citado em 2018 Nov 15]. Disponível em: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/31266273

(7) Kvåle R, Møller B, Wahlqvist R, Fosså SD, Berner A, Busch C, et al. Concordance between Gleason scores of needle biopsies and radical prostatectomy specimens: A population-based study. BJU International. 2009;103(12):1647–1654. [citado em 2021 Nov 15] Disponível em: https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1464-410X.2008.08255.x

(8) Turan T, Güçlüer B, Efiloğlu Ö, Şendoğan F, Atış RG, Çaşkurlu T, et al. The factors predicting upgrading of prostate cancer by using International Society for Urological Pathology (ISUP) 2014 Gleason grading system. Turkish Journal of urology. 2018. [citado em 2021 Out 3]. Disponível em: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/30485787

(9) Tomio D. Prata RR, Reges RMD, Saboia ALJ. Comparação da Patologia entre Biópsia e Peça Cirúrgica em Pacientes com Câncer de Próstata - UrominasUrominas. 2017. Disponível em: http://urominas.com/comparacao-da-patologia-entre-biopsia-e-peca-cirurgica-em-pacientes-com-cancer-de-prostata/

(10) Pereira RC, Reckziegel JCL, Agostinetto L. Ambiente, cuidados e descuidados: desenvolvendo ações de educação relacionadas à saúde do homem. RIES [Internet]. 2019; 8(1):136-150. [citado em 10 Set 2022]; Disponível em: https://doi.org/10.33362/ries.v8i1.1478

(11) Patrão R, Nunes P, Eufrásio P, Roseiro A, Bastos C, Mota A. Score de Gleason na Biópsia vs Prostatectomia Radical – Resultados de uma série contemporânea. Acta Urológica 2009;26:2-21. [citado em 2021 Out 3]. Disponível em: https://www.apurologia.pt/acta/2-2009/co01.pdf

(12) Corcoran NM, Hong MKH, Casey RG, Hurtado-Coll A, Peters J, Harewood L, et al. Upgrade in Gleason score between prostate biopsies and pathology following radical prostatectomy significantly impacts upon the risk of biochemical recurrence. BJU International. 2011;108(8b):E202–E210. [citado em 2021 Nov 7]. Disponível em: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21443656

(13) Arsov C, Becker N, Rabenalt R, Hiester A, Quentin M, Dietzel F, et al. The use of targeted MR-guided prostate biopsy reduces the risk of Gleason upgrading on radical prostatectomy. Journal of Cancer Research and Clinical Oncology. 2015;141(11):2061–8. [citado em 2021 Out 8]. Disponível em: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26013424

(14) Alchin DR, Murphy D, Lawrentschuk N. What Are the Predictive Factors for Gleason Score Upgrade following RP? Urologia Internationalis. 2015;96(1):1-4. [citado em 2021 Nov 7]. Disponível em: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26314299

Published

2022-09-27

How to Cite

Muhlbeier, J. P. S., Muhlbeier, M. L. S., Caminha, A. R., & Collaço, L. M. (2022). COMPARISON OF GLEASON GRADUATION BETWEEN BIOPSIES AND SURGICAL PIECE IN PATIENTS WITH PROSTATE CANCER. Revista Saúde E Comportamento, 1(1), 11–22. Retrieved from https://revistasaudecomportamento.emnuvens.com.br/rsc/article/view/3