MORPHOLOGICAL EVALUATION OF THE GLYSON SUM BEFORE AND AFTER RADICAL PROSTATECTOMY
Abstract
Prostate cancer is one of the most widespread malignant neoplasms in men and today in Russia prostate cancer occurs in 15.1% of all cancers in men. The detection of prostate cancer is based on a pathomorphological assessment of tissues using the Gleason system, which allows to assess the growth and differentiation of the tumor. It is often possible to detect differences between biopsy and radical prostatectomy samples in terms of changes in the amount of points on the Gleason scale.
Material and methods. In this paper, we comparatively analyzed the sum of Gleason scores after a multifocal biopsy and radical prostatectomy in 50 patients of the Bashkir State University Clinic in 2023.
Results. In 59.4% of cases, the results of the examination of prostate biopsy material coincided with the results after prostatectomy according to the sum of points on the Gleason scale, in 13.5% of cases there was a decrease and in 27% of cases there was an increase.
Conclusion. A decrease in the Gleason score after prostatectomy is associated with a more favorable prognosis of survival, in turn, an increase in graduation, in particular, due to the Gleason component 4, in most cases is regarded as a prognostic factor of biochemical recurrence and cancer-specific mortality. In particular, microscopic characteristics reflecting lymphovascular invasion and extraprostatic spread are important, which may affect the staging of prostate cancer.
About the Authors
V. S. Schekin
ФГБОУ ВО «Башкирский государственный медицинский университет» Минздрава России
Russian Federation
Russian Federation
L. M. Kutliyarov
ФГБОУ ВО «Башкирский государственный медицинский университет» Минздрава России
Russian Federation
Russian Federation
I. I. Teregulov
ФГБОУ ВО «Башкирский государственный медицинский университет» Минздрава России
Russian Federation
Russian Federation
A. O. Vlasova
ФГБОУ ВО «Башкирский государственный медицинский университет» Минздрава России
Russian Federation
Russian Federation
References
1. Center MM, Jemal A, Lortet-Tieulent J, Ward E, Ferlay J, Brawley O, Bray F. International variation in prostate cancer incidence and mortality rates. Eur Urol. 2012 Jun;61(6):1079-92. (in Engl) doi: 10.1016/j.eururo.2012.02.054.
2. Chissov V.I., Starinsky V.V., Petrova G.V. Zlokachestvennye novoobrazovanija v Rossii v 2011 godu (zabolevaemost' i smertnost') (Malignant neoplasms in Russia in 2011 (morbidity and mortality)). Moscow: FGBU «MNIOI im. P.A. Gercena» Minzdrava Rossii. 2013: 289. (in Russ)
3. Carlsson SV, Vickers AJ. Screening for Prostate Cancer. Med Clin North Am. 2020 Nov;104(6):1051-1062. (in Engl) doi: 10.1016/j.mcna.2020.08.007.
4. Kaprin A.D., Starinsky V.V., Shakhzadova A.O. Zlokachestvennye novoobrazovanija v Rossii v 2021 godu (zabolevaemost' i smertnost') (Malignant neoplasms in Russia in 2021 (morbidity and mortality)). Moscow: MNIOI im. P.A. Gercena - filial FGBU «NMIC radiologii» Minzdrava Rossii, 2022:252. (in Russ)
5. Thompson I, Thrasher JB, Aus G, Burnett AL, Canby-Hagino ED, Cookson MS, D'Amico AV, Dmochowski RR, Eton DT, Forman JD, Goldenberg SL, Hernandez J, Higano CS, Kraus SR, Moul JW, Tangen CM; AUA Prostate Cancer Clinical Guideline Update Panel. Guideline for the management of clinically localized prostate cancer: 2007 update. J Urol. 2007 Jun;177(6):2106-31. (in Engl) doi: 10.1016/j.juro.2007.03.003.
6. Heidenreich A, Bellmunt J, Bolla M, Joniau S, Mason M, Matveev V, Mottet N, Schmid HP, van der Kwast T, Wiegel T, Zattoni F; European Association of Urology. EAU guidelines on prostate cancer. Part 1: screening, diagnosis, and treatment of clinically localized disease. Eur Urol. 2011 Jan;59(1):61-71. (in Engl) doi: 10.1016/j.eururo.2010.10.039.
7. Alyaev Y.G., Varshavsky V.A., Rapoport L.M., Tsarichenko D.G., Enikeev M.E., Korolev D.O., Fokin I.V. Comparative analysis of histologic data before and after radical prostatectomy in patients with low preoperative oncologic risk. Andrology and Genital Surgery. 2015;16(4):46-50. (in Russ) https://doi.org/10.17650/2070-9781-2015-16-4-46-50
8. Frank G.A., Andreeva Y.Y., Moskvina L.V., Efremov G.D., Samoylova S.I. New WHO classification of prostate tumors. Archives of Pathology. 2016;78(4):32-42. (in Russ) https://doi.org/10.17116/patol201678432-42.
9. Gorban N.A., Kudaibergenova A.G. Trepanobiopsija predstatel'noj zhelezy (Trepanobiopsy of the prostate gland: a morphologist's view). Moscow: ID "ABB-press"; 2017:101-117.
10. Guideline Program Oncology (German Cancer Society, German Cancer Aid, AWMF) Interdisciplinary guideline of quality S3 for early detection, diagnosis and therapy of the different stages of prostate cancer, long version 5.1, Berlin 2019: 352. (in Germany)
11. Schumacher MC, Burkhard FC, Thalmann GN, Fleischmann A, Studer UE. Good outcome for patients with few lymph node metastases after radical retropubic prostatectomy. Eur Urol. 2008;54:344–352. (in Engl) DOI: 10.1016/j.eururo.2008.05.023
12. Fossati N, Willemse PM, Van den Broeck T, van den Bergh RCN, Yuan CY, Briers E, [et al.] The Benefits and Harms of Different Extents of Lymph Node Dissection During Radical Prostatectomy for Prostate Cancer: A Systematic Review. Eur Urol. 2017 Jul;72(1):84-109. (in Engl) doi: 10.1016/j.eururo.2016.12.003.
13. Swindle P, Eastham JA, Ohori M, Kattan MW, Wheeler T, Maru N, [et al.] Do margins matter? The prognostic significance of positive surgical margins in radical prostatectomy specimens. J Urol. 2008 May;179(5 Suppl):S47-51. (in Engl) doi: 10.1016/j.juro.2008.03.137.
14. Knipper S, Ott S, Schlemmer HP, Grimm MO, Graefen M, Wiegel T. Options for Curative Treatment of Localized Prostate Cancer. Dtsch Arztebl Int. 2021 Apr 2;118(Forthcoming):228–36. (in Engl) doi: 10.3238/arztebl.m2021.0026.
15. Veliev E.I., Goncharuk D.A., Sokolov E.A. [et al.] Evaluation of heterogeneity factors of low-grade malignancy prostate cancer in patients before and after radical prostatectomy. Oncourology 2020;16(3):70-9. (in Russ) https://doi.org/10.17650/10.17650/1726-9776-2020-16-3-70-79
16. Tavangar S.M., Raz A., Mashayekhi R. Correlation between prostate needle biopsy and radical prostatectomy Gleason gradings of 111 cases with prostatic adenocarcinoma. Urol J 2004;1(4):246–9. (in Engl)
17. Shen BY, Tsui KH, Chang PL, Chuang CK, Hsieh ML, Huang ST, [et al.] Correlation between the Gleason scores of needle biopsies and radical prostatectomy specimens. Chang Gung Med J. 2003 Dec;26(12):919-24. (in Engl)
18. Henderickx MMEL, Brits T, Muilwijk T, Adams T, Vandeursen H. Localized prostate cancer and robot-assisted laparoscopic radical prostatectomy: a retrospective, comparative study between pre- and post-operative Gleason scores. Acta Chir Belg. 2018 Feb;118(1):15- 20. (in Engl) doi: 10.1080/00015458.2017.1353234.
19. Lavery H.J., Droller M.J. Do Gleason patterns 3 and 4 prostate cancer represent separate disease states? J Urol 2012; 188(5):1667–75. (in Engl) DOI: 10.1016/ j.juro.2012.07.055.
Review
For citations:
Schekin V.S., Kutliyarov L.M., Teregulov I.I., Vlasova A.O. MORPHOLOGICAL EVALUATION OF THE GLYSON SUM BEFORE AND AFTER RADICAL PROSTATECTOMY. Bashkortostan Medical Journal. 2024;19(1):13-17. (In Russ.)
Views:
25
Email this article 
