The association between prostate size and Gleason score upgrading depends on the number of biopsy cores obtained: results from the Shared Equal Access Regional Cancer Hospital Database.
OBJECTIVE
To test the hypothesis that the association between prostate size and risk of Gleason grade upgrading varies as a function of sampling.


METHODS
We examined the association between pathological prostate weight, prostate biopsy scheme and Gleason upgrading (Gleason > or =7 at radical prostatectomy, RP) among 646 men with biopsy Gleason 2-6 disease treated with RP between 1995 and 2007 within the Shared Equal Access Regional Cancer Hospital Database using logistic regression. In all, 204 and 442 men had a sextant (six or seven cores) or extended-core biopsy (eight or more cores), respectively. Analyses were adjusted for centre, age, surgery, preoperative prostate-specific antigen level, clinical stage, body mass index, race, and percentage of cores positive for cancer.


RESULTS
In all, 281 men (44%) were upgraded; a smaller prostate was positively associated with the risk of upgrading in men who had an extended-core biopsy (P < 0.001), but not among men who had a sextant biopsy (P = 0.22). The interaction between biopsy scheme and prostate size was significant (P interaction = 0.01).


CONCLUSIONS
These data support the hypothesis that the risk of upgrading is a function of two opposing contributions: (i) a more aggressive phenotype in smaller prostates and thus increased risk of upgrading; and (ii) more thorough sampling in smaller prostates and thus decreased risk of upgrading. When sampled more thoroughly, the phenotype association dominates and smaller prostates are linked with an increased risk of upgrading. In less thoroughly sampled prostates, these opposing factors nullify, resulting in no association between prostate size and risk of upgrading. These findings help to explain previously published disparate results of the importance of prostate size as a predictor of Gleason upgrading.
Turley
Ryan S
RS
Division of Urological Surgery, Duke Prostate Center, Duke University School of Medicine, Durham, NC 27710, USA.
Terris
Martha K
MK
Kane
Christopher J
CJ
Aronson
William J
WJ
Presti
Joseph C
JC
Amling
Christopher L
CL
Freedland
Stephen J
SJ
D001707:Biopsy, Needle / Q000379:methods / Q000706:statistics & numerical data; D019992:Databases as Topic; D004812:Epidemiologic Methods; D006801:Humans; D008297:Male; D008875:Middle Aged; D009367:Neoplasm Staging; D009929:Organ Size; D011467:Prostate / Q000473:pathology* / Q000601:surgery; D017430:Prostate-Specific Antigen / Q000378:metabolism; D011468:Prostatectomy / Q000379:methods*; D011471:Prostatic Neoplasms / Q000473:pathology* / Q000601:surgery; D012307:Risk Factors
D017430:Prostate-Specific Antigen
J Urol. 2004 Dec;172(6 Pt 1):2224-6
15538236
J Urol. 2007 Sep;178(3 Pt 1):990-5
17632170
Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2004 Jun 1;59(2):386-91
15145152
J Urol. 1991 Feb;145(2):405-9
1703242
J Clin Oncol. 2005 Oct 20;23(30):7546-54
16234520
J Urol. 1996 Jul;156(1):137-43
8648775
J Urol. 2004 Jul;172(1):98-102
15201746
J Urol. 2006 Feb;175(2):547-51
16406993
J Urol. 1984 Apr;131(4):690-3
6708183
Urol Int. 2001;66(2):66-71
11223746
J Urol. 2008 Feb;179(2):523-7; discussion 527-8
18076952
Am J Med. 1976 Aug;61(2):251-72
181986
J Clin Endocrinol Metab. 1992 Oct;75(4):1022-6
1400866
Am J Epidemiol. 2004 Feb 1;159(3):269-76
14742287
Urology. 1998 Oct;52(4):631-6
9763083
Cancer. 2007 Nov 15;110(10):2202-9
17876838
Urology. 2007 Mar;69(3):495-9
17382152
J Clin Ultrasound. 1996 May;24(4):169-74
8727414
J Urol. 2007 Jul;178(1):111-4
17499289
Eur Urol. 2001 Feb;39(2):151-8
11223674
Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 1999 Nov 1;45(4):841-6
10571187
Urology. 2002 Oct;60(4):670-4
12385931
BJU Int. 2003 Sep;92(4):370-4
12930421
Am J Surg Pathol. 1992 Apr;16(4):315-24
1373577
Dev Biol. 2003 Jan 15;253(2):165-74
12645922
Prostate. 1999 Jun 15;40(1):56-61
10344724
Eur J Cancer. 2007 Dec;43(18):2669-77
17996442
Int J Cancer. 2000 Dec 20;90(6):326-30
11180135
J Urol. 2006 Feb;175(2):505-9
16406982