Home
Abstract
My Abstract(s)
Login
ePosters
Back
Final Presentation Format
Podium Abstract
Eposter Presentation
Eposter in PDF Format
Accept format: PDF. The file size should not be more than 5MB
Eposter in Image Format
Accept format: PNG/JPG/WEBP. The file size should not be more than 2MB
Presentation Date / Time
Submission Status
Submitted
Abstract
Abstract Title
Index and Composite Biopsy ISUP Grade Group: Implications for Prediction of Radical Prostatectomy Outcomes and Biochemical Recurrence in Localised Prostate Cancer
Presentation Type
Podium Abstract
Manuscript Type
Clinical Research
Abstract Category *
Oncology: Prostate
Author's Information
Number of Authors (including submitting/presenting author) *
10
No more than 10 authors can be listed (as per the Good Publication Practice (GPP) Guidelines).
Please ensure the authors are listed in the right order.
Country
Australia
Co-author 1
Gerald Mak gerald@live.com.au University of New South Wales School of Clinical Medicine Sydney Australia * St George Hospital Department of Urology Kogarah Australia Garvan Institute Kinghorn Cancer Centre Darlinghurst Australia
Co-author 2
Ashan Canagasingham ashan_213@hotmail.com Garvan Institute Kinghorn Cancer Centre Darlinghurst Australia - St George Hospital Department of Urology Kogarah Australia
Co-author 3
Kenneth Chew kenneth.ky.chew@gmail.com St George Hospital Department of Urology Kogarah Australia - UNSW Faculty of Medicine Kensington Australia
Co-author 4
Hui Ming Lin biostat.analyst.hm@gmail.com Garvan Institute Kinghorn Cancer Centre Darlinghurst Australia -
Co-author 5
Phillip Stricker office@stricker.com.au Garvan Institute Kinghorn Cancer Centre Darlinghurst Australia - St Vincent's Prostate Cancer Centre Darlinghurst Australia UNSW Faculty of Medicine Kensington Australia
Co-author 6
Carlo Yuen info@carloyuen.com.au St Vincent's Prostate Cancer Centre Darlinghurst Australia -
Co-author 7
Warick Delprado wdelprado@dhm.com.au Sonic Healthcare Douglas Hanly Moir Pathology St Leonards Australia -
Co-author 8
Anne-Maree Haynes a.haynes@garvan.org.au Garvan Institute Kinghorn Cancer Centre Darlinghurst Australia -
Co-author 9
Oliver Best oliver.vandenbroekbest@health.nsw.gov.au Garvan Institute Kinghorn Cancer Centre Darlinghurst Australia - St George Hospital Department of Urology Kogarah Australia
Co-author 10
James Thompson drjethompson@gmail.com Garvan Institute Kinghorn Cancer Centre Darlinghurst Australia - St George Hospital Department of Urology Kogarah Australia UNSW Faculty of Medicine Kensington Australia
Co-author 11
Co-author 12
Co-author 13
Co-author 14
Co-author 15
Co-author 16
Co-author 17
Co-author 18
Co-author 19
Co-author 20
Abstract Content
Introduction
The International Society of Urological Pathology (ISUP) grade group (GG) is a classification system derived from the Gleason score. This system stratifies prostate cancer risk based on pathological patterns on histology and plays a key role in treatment planning. However, the often multifocal nature of prostate cancer contributes to discrepancies between biopsy and final radical prostatectomy (RP) histology and limits accuracy of outcome prediction. While both index (highest-grade) and composite (combined ISUP grade of all positive cores) grading approaches are used in clinical practice, it remains unclear which approach better predicts final pathology and patient outcomes. This study aims to evaluate concordance, upgrading, and downgrading rates of index versus composite GG at biopsy (iGG, cGG) in predicting RP histology and biochemical recurrence (BCR) in clinically localised prostate cancer.
Materials and Methods
We performed a retrospective analysis of a prospective cohort of patients who underwent RP for clinically localised prostate cancer (cT1–T3, N0, M0) between 2009 and 2021 at a single institution. Biopsy specimens were assigned both index and composite GG. Concordance with index RP GG, rates of upgrading/downgrading, and BCR were compared between iGG and cGG. Subgroup analyses evaluated predictive value of MRI parameters and biopsy-derived parameters. BCR was defined as PSA >0.2 ng/mL confirmed on repeat testing.
Results
2084 patients met inclusion criteria. iGG and cGG were concordant in 85% (n=1780) and discordant in 15% (n=304). In biopsy-concordant cases, biopsy GG predicted RP histology with 69.5% concordance; 22.1% were upgraded and 8.4% downgraded. In biopsy-discordant cases, iGG concordance with RP histology was 39.1%, with 10.9% upgraded and 50.5% downgraded. Using cGG in biopsy-discordant cases yielded 41.8% concordance with RP histology, with significantly higher rates of upgrading (53.3%) and fewer downgrades (4.9%). In patients with cGG 2, discordance with iGG was associated with increased BCR risk (HR 2.06, 95% CI 1.09–3.87; p=0.022). We evaluated patients with pre-operative MRIs: PIRADS ≥4, maximum cancer core length ≥6.7 mm, and ≥4 cores sampled from the index lesion region independently predicted iGG concordance with final histology (p<0.01 for all). iGG in patients meeting all three criteria had significantly higher concordance (79.2% vs 41.3%, p<0.01).
Conclusions
Biopsy GG only achieves moderate concordance with RP histology even in biopsy-concordant cases. Concordance with RP lowers in biopsy-discordant cases. cGG may underestimate final pathology and BCR risk. iGG may overestimate disease severity. iGG better reflects pathology in patients with PIRADS ≥4 lesions, longer cancer core length, and sufficient lesion-targeted sampling. Incorporating radiological and histological features can improve biopsy interpretation and guide optimal management in localised prostate cancer.
Keywords
prostate cancer, grade group, gleason score, index lesion, radical prostatectomy, histology, tumour grading
Figure 1
Figure 1 Caption
Figure 2
Figure 2 Caption
Figure 3
Figure 3 Caption
Figure 4
Figure 4 Caption
Figure 5
Figure 5 Caption
Character Count
2913
Vimeo Link
Presentation Details
Session
Free Paper Podium(17): Oncology Prostate (E)
Date
Aug. 16 (Sat.)
Time
15:42 - 15:48
Presentation Order
3