Skip to main content

Thank you for visiting nature.com. You are using a browser version with limited support for CSS. To obtain the best experience, we recommend you use a more up to date browser (or turn off compatibility mode in Internet Explorer). In the meantime, to ensure continued support, we are displaying the site without styles and JavaScript.

  • Paper
  • Published:

Is there a difference in outcome after radical prostatectomy between patients with biopsy Gleason sums 4, 5, and 6? results from the SEARCH database

Prostate Cancer and Prostatic Diseases volume 6, pages 261–265 (2003)Cite this article

Abstract

Purpose: Fewer patients newly diagnosed with prostate cancer today have biopsy Gleason sums <6 compared to several years ago. Several tables and nomograms for predicting disease recurrence after definitive therapy provide little or no discrimination between biopsy Gleason sums 4, 5, and 6. We sought to examine the significance of biopsy Gleason sum for predicting biochemical failure following radical prostatectomy (RP) for men with biopsy Gleason sums of 4, 5, and 6.

Materials and methods: We examined data from 988 men treated with RP between 1988 and 2002 who had biopsy Gleason sums of 4–6. Clinical and pathological variables as well as outcome information were compared between men with biopsy Gleason sums of 4–6. The log-rank and Cox proportional hazards analysis were used to determine whether biopsy Gleason sum provided unique prognostic information for men with low biopsy Gleason sums undergoing RP.

Results: There was statistically significant, but overall weak correlation between biopsy Gleason sum and Gleason sum of the RP specimen (Spearman's r=0.277, P<0.001). As biopsy Gleason sum increased from 4 to 5 to 6, there was a steady rise (HR=1.31 for each one point increase in Gleason sum, Cox's model) in the risk of PSA failure (P=0.025, log-rank). On multivariate analysis comparing biopsy Gleason sum, preoperative PSA, clinical stage, year of surgery, percent of biopsy cores positive, and age for their ability to predict time to biochemical recurrence, only PSA (HR 2.09, CI 1.56–2.80, P<0.001) and biopsy Gleason sum (HR 1.33, CI 1.05–1.70, P=0.019) were significant independent predictors of PSA failure.

Conclusions: Despite weak correlation between biopsy and pathologic Gleason sum among men with biopsy Gleason sum 4–6 tumors, grade was a significant independent predictor of PSA failure following RP. In the range of 4–6, biopsy Gleason sum acted as a continuous variable for predicting PSA failure. The routine use of Gleason sums 4 and 5 to grade prostate needle biopsy specimens should not be abandoned.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution

Access options

Buy this article

  • Purchase on Springer Link
  • Instant access to full article PDF
Buy now

Prices may be subject to local taxes which are calculated during checkout

Figure 1

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. D'Amico AV et al. Biochemical outcome after radical prostatectomy, external beam radiation therapy, or interstitial radiation therapy for clinically localized prostate cancer. JAMA 1998; 280: 969–974.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Kattan MW et al. A preoperative nomogram for disease recurrence following radical prostatectomy for prostate cancer. J Natl Cancer Inst 1998; 90: 766–771.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Gleason DF . Classification of prostatic carcinomas. Cancer Chemother Rep 1966; 50: 125–128.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Soh S et al. Has there been a recent shift in the pathological features and prognosis of patients treated with radical prostatectomy? J Urol 1997; 157: 2212–2218.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Schwartz KL, Grignon DJ, Sakr WA, Wood Jr DP . Prostate cancer histologic trends in the metropolitan Detroit area, 1982 to 1996. Urology 1999; 53: 769–774.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Han M et al. Era specific biochemical recurrence-free survival following radical prostatectomy for clinically localized prostate cancer. J Urol 2001; 166: 416–419.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Freedland SJ et al. Time trends in biochemical recurrence after radical prostatectomy: results of the SEARCH database. Urology 2003; 61: 736–741.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Smith EB et al. Gleason scores of prostate biopsy and radical prostatectomy specimens over the past 10 years: is there evidence for systematic upgrading? Cancer 2002; 94: 2282–2287.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Epstein JI . Gleason score 2-4 adenocarcinoma of the prostate on needle biopsy: a diagnosis that should not be made. Am J Surg Pathol 2000; 24: 477–478.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Nelson CP et al. Preoperative parameters for predicting early prostate cancer recurrence after radical prostatectomy. Urology 2002; 59: 740–745 discussion 745–746.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Partin AW et al. Contemporary update of prostate cancer staging nomograms (Partin Tables) for the new millennium. Urology 2001; 58: 843–848.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Albertsen PC, Hanley JA, Gleason DF, Barry MJ . Competing risk analysis of men aged 55 to 74 years at diagnosis managed conservatively for clinically localized prostate cancer. JAMA 1998; 280: 975–980.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Freedland SJ et al. Race as an outcome predictor after radical prostatectomy: results from the Shared Equal Access Regional Cancer Hospital (SEARCH) database. Urology 2002; 60: 670–674.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Terris MK . Sensitivity and specificity of sextant biopsies in the detection of prostate cancer: preliminary report. Urology 1999; 54: 486–489.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Borirakchanyavat S et al. Systematic sextant biopsies in the prediction of extracapsular extension at radical prostatectomy. Urology 1997; 50: 373–378.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Freedland SJ et al. Race is not an independent predictor of biochemical recurrence after radical prostatectomy in an equal access medical center. Urology 2000; 56: 87–91.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Borboroglu PG, Comer SW, Riffenburgh RH, Amling CL . Extensive repeat transrectal ultrasound guided prostate biopsy in patients with previous benign sextant biopsies. J Urol 2000; 163: 158–162.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Zagars GK, Ayala AG, von Eschenbach AC, Pollack A . The prognostic importance of Gleason grade in prostatic adenocarcinoma: a long-term follow-up study of 648 patients treated with radiation therapy. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 1995; 31: 237–245.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. McNeal JE et al. Histologic differentiation, cancer volume, and pelvic lymph node metastasis in adenocarcinoma of the prostate. Cancer 1990; 66: 1225–1233.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Steinberg DM, Sauvageot J, Piantadosi S, Epstein JI . Correlation of prostate needle biopsy and radical prostatectomy Gleason grade in academic and community settings. Am J Surg Pathol 1997; 21: 566–576.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Allsbrook Jr WC et al. Interobserver reproducibility of Gleason grading of prostatic carcinoma: urologic pathologists. Hum Pathol 2001; 32: 74–80.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Bostwick DG . Grading prostate cancer. Am J Clin Pathol 1994; 102: S38–56.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. Gardner Jr WA et al. A uniform histopathologic grading system for prostate cancer. Subcommittee on Diagnostic Nomenclature, Prostate Cancer Working Group, Organ Systems Program. Hum Pathol 1988; 19: 119–120.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

This work was supported by the Department of Veterans Affairs and a Center for Prostate Disease Research (CPDR) grant from the United States Army Medical Research and Material Command.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Urology, UCLA School of Medicine, Los Angeles, California, USA

    S J Freedland & W J Aronson

  2. Department of Urology, San Diego Naval Hospital, San Diego, California, USA

    C L Amling

  3. Division of Urology, Medical College of Georgia, Augusta, Georgia, USA

    M K Terris

  4. Department of Urology, Stanford University School of Medicine, Palo Alto, California, USA

    J C Presti Jr

  5. Department of Surgery, Veterans Administration Greater Los Angeles Healthcare System, Los Angeles, California, USA

    W J Aronson

  6. Department of Biostatistics, UCLA School of Medicine, Los Angeles, California, USA

    D Elashoff

  7. Department of Surgery, Urology Section, Veterans Administration Medical Center San Francisco, California, USA

    C J Kane

  8. Department of Urology, University of California, San Francisco

    C J Kane

Authors
  1. S J Freedland
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. C L Amling
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. M K Terris
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. J C Presti Jr
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. W J Aronson
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. D Elashoff
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  7. C J Kane
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Consortia

The SEARCH Database Study Group;

Corresponding author

Correspondence to S J Freedland.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

The SEARCH Database Study Group;., Freedland, S., Amling, C. et al. Is there a difference in outcome after radical prostatectomy between patients with biopsy Gleason sums 4, 5, and 6? results from the SEARCH database. Prostate Cancer Prostatic Dis 6, 261–265 (2003). https://doi.org/10.1038/sj.pcan.4500673

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Revised:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/sj.pcan.4500673

Keywords

Search

Advanced search

Quick links