Volume 82, Issue 16 pp. 1520-1528
ORIGINAL ARTICLE

Prostate cancer grade downgrading at time of prostatectomy provides risk-stratification insight into future tumor behavior after prostatectomy

Shu Wang MD

Shu Wang MD

Department of Surgery, Division of Urology, University of Maryland School of Medicine, Baltimore, Maryland, USA

Search for more papers by this author
J. Ryan Russell MD, MS

J. Ryan Russell MD, MS

Department of Surgery, Division of Urology, University of Maryland School of Medicine, Baltimore, Maryland, USA

Search for more papers by this author
Max Drescher MD

Max Drescher MD

Department of Surgery, Division of Urology, University of Maryland School of Medicine, Baltimore, Maryland, USA

Search for more papers by this author
Ashley Park MD

Ashley Park MD

Department of Surgery, Division of Urology, University of Maryland School of Medicine, Baltimore, Maryland, USA

Search for more papers by this author
Teklu Legesse MD

Teklu Legesse MD

Department of Pathology, University of Maryland School of Medicine, Baltimore, Maryland, USA

Search for more papers by this author
Vikas Kundra MD, PhD

Vikas Kundra MD, PhD

Department of Diagnostic Radiology and Nuclear Medicine, University of Maryland School of Medicine, Baltimore, MD, USA

Search for more papers by this author
Phuoc T. Tran MD, PhD

Phuoc T. Tran MD, PhD

Department of Radiation Oncology, University of Maryland School of Medicine, Baltimore, Maryland, USA

Search for more papers by this author
Michael Phelan MD

Michael Phelan MD

Department of Surgery, Division of Urology, University of Maryland School of Medicine, Baltimore, Maryland, USA

Search for more papers by this author
Michael Naslund MD

Michael Naslund MD

Department of Surgery, Division of Urology, University of Maryland School of Medicine, Baltimore, Maryland, USA

Search for more papers by this author
M. Minhaj Siddiqui MD

Corresponding Author

M. Minhaj Siddiqui MD

Department of Surgery, Division of Urology, University of Maryland School of Medicine, Baltimore, Maryland, USA

Veterans Affairs Maryland Healthcare System, Baltimore, Maryland, USA

Correspondence M. Minhaj Siddiqui, MD, Division of Urology, University of Maryland Medical Center, 29S Greene St Suite 500, Baltimore, MD 21201, USA.

Email: [email protected]

Search for more papers by this author
First published: 03 August 2022
Citations: 3

Abstract

Background

Prostate biopsy (Bx) sampling-based diagnosis of prostate cancer (PCa) has well-described inaccuracy when compared against whole gland analysis upon prostatectomy. Although upgrading of PCa Grade Group (GG) is often described, the occurrence and prognostic implications of downgrading PCa GG at the time of radical prostatectomy (RP) is less understood. Our objective was to evaluate whether downgrading PCa GG at the time of RP was associated with future tumor behavior.

Methods

The SEER database was searched from 2010 to 2017 and patients were included if they were assigned pathological grades on both Bx and RP specimen. Patients were stratified into Bx GG > RP GG and Bx GG ≤ RP GG groups, and tumor behavior after treatment was examined. Cox regression was used for the survival analysis.

Results

Here, 99,835 patients were included in this study. A total of 18,516 (18.5%) patients encountered downgrading from Bx GG to RP GG. A downgrading of 1 grade occurred in 13,969 (75.4%) of these patients and of 2 or more grades occurred in 4547 (24.6%) patients. A history of higher Bx GG compared with RP GG increased the risk of cancer-specific mortality (CSM) for each given RP GG controlling for age, race, preop prostate-specific antigen level, percentage of positive biopsy cores, and pathologic TNM stages. Specifically, a history of high Bx GG conferred a 45% increased risk of CSM for any given RP GG (hazard ratio = 1.45 95% confidence interval = 1.16–1.82, p < 0.001).

Conclusion

A history of higher Bx GG, and hence downgrading at the time of RP, demonstrates some value as a risk-stratification tool for future cancer outcomes after prostatectomy.

CONFLICT OF INTEREST

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

DATA AVAILABILITY STATEMENT

All data generated for this analysis were from the SEER database. The code for the analyses will be made available upon request.

The full text of this article hosted at iucr.org is unavailable due to technical difficulties.