PSA e Gleason: chaves para compreender o estadiamento do câncer de próstata
Barra lateral de artigos
Conteúdo do artigo principal
Resumo
Introdução: O câncer de próstata é a neoplasia mais comum em homens no Brasil, exceto pele não melanoma. O antígeno prostático específico (PSA), embora útil, pode elevar-se em condições benignas. Assim, a biópsia e o escore de Gleason (EG) são fundamentais para diagnóstico, estratificação de risco e compreensão da relação com fatores como índice de massa corpórea.
Objetivo: Avaliar a correlação entre o PSA e o EG, e comparar o EG obtido pela biópsia e o da peça cirúrgica.
Método: Trata-se de estudo epidemiológico, transversal e retrospectivo realizado a partir da coleta dos dados de prontuários de pacientes diagnosticados com câncer de próstata atendidos em hospital terciário, catalogando dados clínicos, exames laboratoriais e anatomopatológicos. A amostra foi composta por 109 homens.
Resultado: A média de idade foi de 67 anos. EG mais observado foi o 7 (70,64%), sendo 40,36% correspondente à soma 3 + 4 e 30,27% a 4 + 3. Ao cruzar as variáveis de idade com o EG, não houve diferença significativa entre os grupos por faixa etária. Ao comparar o EG da biópsia com o da peça cirúrgica, constatou-se que 13,76% foram subestadiados e 30,27% super. Não houve significância estatística na comparação entre os valores de PSA e o EG da peça cirúrgica.
Conclusão: Foi possível observar discrepâncias entre o resultado do EG da biópsia e da peça cirúrgica, demonstrando dificuldade no estadiamento dos pacientes, o que pode impactar na escolha do tratamento e no prognóstico no câncer de próstata.
Detalhes do artigo
Este trabalho está licenciado sob uma licença Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
Referências
Instituto Nacional de Câncer. Estimativa 2023: incidência de câncer no Brasil / José Alencar Gomes da Silva. Rio de Janeiro: INCA; 2022.
Sarris AB, Candido FJLF, Pucci Filho CR, Staichak RL, Torrani ACK, Sobrero BS. Câncer de próstata: uma breve revisão atualizada. Visão Acad. 2018;19(1):137-151 https://doi.org/10.5380/acd.v19i1.57304
Abrate A, Lughezzani G, Gadda GM, Lista G, Kinzikeeva E, Fossati N, et al. Clinical use of [-2] proPSA (p2PSA) and its derivatives (%p2PSA and Prostate Health Index) for the detection of prostate cancer: a review of the literature. Korean J Urol. 2014;55(7):436–45. https://doi.org/10.4111/kju.2014.55.7.436
Simardi LH, Tobias-Machado M, Kappaz GT, Goldenstein PT, Potts JM, Wroclawski ER. Influence of asymptomatic histologic prostatitis on serum prostate-specific antigen: a prospective study. Urology. 2004;64(6):1098–101. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.urology.2004.08.060
Roehrborn CG, Pickens GJ, Carmody T III. Variability of repeated serum prostate-specific antigen (PSA) measurements within less than 90 days in a well-defined patient population. Urology. 1996;47(1):59–66. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0090-4295(99)80383-5
Vukovic I, Djordjevic D, Bojanic N, Babic U, Soldatovic I. Predictive value of [-2]proPSA (p2PSA) and its derivatives for prostate cancer detection in the 2.0–10.0 ng/mL PSA range. Int Braz J Urol. 2017;43(1):48–56. https://doi.org/10.1590/s1677-5538.ibju.2016.0256
Cam K, Yucel S, Turkeri L, Akdas A. Accuracy of transrectal ultrasound guided prostate biopsy: histopathological correlation to matched prostatectomy specimens. Int J Urol. 2002;9(5):257–60. https://doi.org/10.1046/j.1442-2042.2002.00456.x
Epstein JI, Allsbrook WC, Amin MB, Egevad LL. The 2005 International Society of Urological Pathology (ISUP) consensus conference on Gleason grading of prostatic carcinoma. Am J Surg Pathol. 2005;29(9):1228–42. https://doi.org/10.1097/01.pas.0000173646.99337.b1
Srigley JR, Delahunt B, Samaratunga H, Billis A, Cheng L, Clouston D, et al. Controversial issues in Gleason and International Society of Urological Pathology (ISUP) prostate cancer grading: proposed recommendations for international implementation. Pathology. 2019;51(5):463–73. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pathol.2019.05.001
Chavolla-Canal AJ, López-Monroy CG, Vázquez-Pérez D. Concordance of the Gleason score in transrectal prostate biopsy vs radical prostatectomy. Rev Mex Urol. 2021;81(2):e05. https://doi.org/10.48193/revistamexicanadeurologa.v81i2.722
Pereira RA, Costa RS, Muglia VF, Franca Silva F, Lajes JS, dos Reis RB, et al. Gleason score and tumor laterality in radical prostatectomy and transrectal ultrasound-guided biopsy of the prostate: a comparative study. Asian J Androl. 2015;17(5):815–20. https://doi.org/10.4103/1008-682x.146970
Cookson MS, Fleshner NE, Soloway SM, Fair WR. Correlation between Gleason score of needle biopsy and radical prostatectomy specimen: accuracy and clinical implications. J Urol. 1997;157(2):559–62.
Kuroiwa K, Shiraishi T, Naito S. Gleason score correlation between biopsy and prostatectomy specimens and prediction of high-grade Gleason patterns: significance of central pathologic review. Urology. 2011;77(2):407–11. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.urology.2010.05.030
Bashir MN. Epidemiology of prostate cancer. Asian Pac J Cancer Prev. 2015;16(13):5137–41. https://doi.org/10.7314/apjcp.2015.16.13.5137
Pernar CH, Ebot EM, Wilson KM, Mucci LA. The epidemiology of prostate cancer. Cold Spring Harb Perspect Med. 2018;8(12):a030361. https://doi.org/10.1101/cshperspect.a030361
Rawla P. Epidemiology of prostate cancer. World J Oncol. 2019;10(2):63. https://doi.org/10.14740/wjon1191
Herget KA, Patel DP, Hanson HA, Sweeney C, Lowrance WT. Recent decline in prostate cancer incidence in the United States, by age, stage, and Gleason score. Cancer Med. 2016;5(1):136–41. https://doi.org/10.1002/cam4.549
Loeb S, Hernandez DJ, Mangold LA, Humphreys EB, Agro M, Walsh PC, et al. Progression after radical prostatectomy for men in their thirties compared to older men. BJU Int. 2008;101(12):1503–6. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1464-410x.2008.07500.x
Shah N, Ioffe V. Frequency of Gleason score 7 to 10 in 5100 elderly prostate cancer patients. Rev Urol. 2016;18(4):181. https://doi.org/10.3909/riu0732
Sun L, Caire AA, Robertson CN, George DJ, Polascik TJ, Maloney KE, et al. Men older than 70 years have higher risk prostate cancer and poorer survival in the early and late prostate specific antigen eras. J Urol. 2009;182(5):2242–9. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.juro.2009.07.034
Öztürk E, Yıkılmaz TN. Gleason score correlation between prostate biopsy and radical prostatectomy specimens. Bull Urooncology. 2018;17(1):1-4.
Singh V, Sharma K, Singh M, Tripathi SS, Bhirud DP, Jena R, et al. Discrepancies in Gleason score between needle core biopsy and radical prostatectomy specimens with correlation between clinical and pathological staging. Urologia. 2024;91(3):518-524. https://doi.org/10.1177/03915603241244942
Yeldir N, Yildiz E, Dündar G. Gleason score correlation between prostate needle biopsy and radical prostatectomy materials. Trauma. 2019;35(3):185-192. https://doi.org/10.5146/tjpath.2018.01453
King CR. Patterns of prostate cancer biopsy grading: trends and clinical implications. Int J Cancer. 2000;90(6):305–11. https://doi.org/10.1002/1097-0215(20001220)90:6%3C305::aid-ijc1%3E3.0.co;2-u
Gershman B, Dahl DM, Olumi AF, Young RH, McDougal WS, Wu CL. Smaller prostate gland size and older age predict Gleason score upgrading. Urol Oncol. 2013;31(7):1033–7. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.urolonc.2011.11.032
Wang X, Zhang T, Ji Z, Yang P, Tian Y. Old men with prostate cancer have higher risk of Gleason score upgrading and pathological upstaging after initial diagnosis: a systematic review and meta-analysis. World J Surg Oncol. 2021;19(1):18. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12957-021-02127-3
Chen RC, Carpenter WR, Hendrix LH, Bainbridge J, Wang AZ, Nielsen ME, et al. Receipt of guideline-concordant treatment in elderly prostate cancer patients. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2014;88(2):332–8. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijrobp.2013.11.004
Izumi K, Ikeda H, Maolake A, Machioka K, Nohara T, Narimoto K, et al. The relationship between prostate-specific antigen and TNM classification or Gleason score in prostate cancer patients with low prostate-specific antigen levels. Prostate. 2015;75(10):1034–42. https://doi.org/10.1002/pros.22985
Izumi K, Lin WJ, Miyamoto H, Huang CK, Maolake A, Kitagawa Y, et al. Outcomes and predictive factors of prostate cancer patients with extremely high prostate-specific antigen level. J Cancer Res Clin Oncol. 2014;140:1413–9. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00432-014-1681-8