Value of Prostate-Specific Antigen Density in Predicting an Upgrade in Gleason Score for Initial Prostate Biopsy

陈超,谢立平,郑祥毅,林奕伟,朱翮嘉,汪朔,沈柏华,蔡柏森,尤启汉
DOI: https://doi.org/10.3760/cma.j.issn.1000-6702.2013.10.010
2013-01-01
Abstract:Objective To investigate the performance of PSAD as a predictor of Gleason score upgrade between initial prostate biopsy and radical prostatectomy(RP)in the patients with low or intermediate risk prostate cancers(PCa).Methods This study comprised a retrospective analysis of data from 170 PCa patients(PSA≤20 μg/L,stage≤T2b,Gleason score≤7).The median age was 68 yrs,the median PSA was 10.2 μg/L,the median PSAD was 0.35 mg/L2 and the median prostate volume was 28.4 ml.There were 95 cases in cT1 and 75 cases in cT2.According to biopsy Gleason score,patients were divided into three groups:3+3(91 cases),3+4(42 cases)and 4+3(37 cases).Each group was further stratified into to subgroups according to whether their RP Gleason score was concordant or upgraded.Receiver-operating characteristic(ROC)curves for predictive power of PSAD were generated for each group,and the area under the curve(AUC)was calculated.Results Of the 170 patients,79(46.5%)had an upgrade in Gleason score,51(56.0%)in 3+3 group,17(40.5%)in 3+4 group,11(29.7%)in 4+3 group,respectively.In the 3+3 group,PSAD was significantly higher in subgroup with upgraded Gleason score compared with the subgroup of concordant Gleason score(0.37 mg/L2 versus 0.23 mg/L2,P<0.01).In the other two groups,PSAD were not of significant differences between subgroup with upgraded Gleason score and the subgroup of concordant Gleason score(0.33 mg/L2 versus 0.36 mg/L2,0.49 mg/L2 versus 0.58 mg/L2,P>0.05).ROC analysis showed a decline in AUC with increasing biopsy Gleason score.It was 0.762 for 3+3 group,0.529 for 3+4 group and 0.413 for 4+3 group.The pathologic stage in upgraded cases were more advanced in all the groups(P<0.05).Conclusion PSAD has the ability of predicting Gleason score upgrade after RP in the biopsy Gleason score 3+3 PCa patients whose clinical risk stratification are low or intermediate.
What problem does this paper attempt to address?