Journal of Peking University (Health Sciences) ›› 2024, Vol. 56 ›› Issue (5): 896-901. doi: 10.19723/j.issn.1671-167X.2024.05.022

Previous Articles     Next Articles

Risk factors analysis and nomogram model construction of postoperative pathological upgrade of prostate cancer patients with single core positive biopsy

Zhicun LI, Tianyu WU, Lei LIANG, Yu FAN, Yisen MENG*(), Qian ZHANG*()   

  1. Department of Urology, Peking University First Hospital; Institution of Urology, Peking University; Beijing Key Laboratory of Urogenital Diseases (Male) Molecular Diagnosis and Treatment Center; National Urological Cancer Center, Beijing 100034, China
  • Received:2022-12-31 Online:2024-10-18 Published:2024-10-16
  • Contact: Yisen MENG, Qian ZHANG E-mail:mgyss@qq.com; zhangqianbjmu@126.com;zhangqianbjmu@126.com
  • Supported by:
    Supported by National Key Research and Development Program of China(2022YFC3602902)

RICH HTML

  

Abstract:

Objective: To analyze the risk factors for postoperative pathological upgrade of prostate cancer patients with single core positive biopsy, and to attempt to build a mathematical model for predicting postoperative pathological upgrade in these cancer patients with single core positive biopsy. Methods: A retrospective analysis was conducted on 1 349 patients diagnosed with prostate cancer and undergoing radical prostatectomy at Peking University First Hospital from January 2015 to August 2020. The patients' age, body mass index, clinical stage, prostate imaging reporting and data system (PI-RADS) scores, prostate volume in magnetic resonance imaging (MRI), Gleason score of biopsy, serum prostate specific antigen (PSA) before biopsy and operation, surgical method and pathological stage were inclu-ded in the analysis. The variables with P < 0.1 in univariate analysis were included to construct multi-variate Logistic regression and the nomogram was drawn. The model was evaluated using the receiver operating curve. Results: A total of 71 patients were included in this research, with 34 patients in the upgraded group and 37 patients in the non-upgraded group. There were no significant differences in the patients' age (P=0.585), body mass index (P=0.165), operation method (P=0.08), prostate volume in MRI (P=0.067), clinical stage (P=0.678), PI-RADS score (P=0.203), difference of PSA density (P=0.063), Gleason score in biopsy (P=0.068), PSA before puncture (P=0.359) and operation (P= 0.739) between the two groups. However, there were significant differences in the proportion of tumor tissue (P=0.007), postoperative pathological stage (P < 0.001) and postoperative Gleason score (P < 0.001) between the two groups. The preoperative variables with a P value of less than 0.1 (prostate volume in MRI, difference of PSA density, proportion of tumor tissue and Gleason score in biopsy) in univariate analysis were included in the Logistic regression, and the nomogram was drawn. Only the prostate volume in MRI had a P value of less than 0.05. The area under the curve of the model was 0.773. Conclusion: In patients with single core positive biopsy, if the prostate volume is small or the proportion of tumor in positive core is small, clinicians should be alert to the possibility of postoperative pathology upgrading, preoperative risk stratification should be carefully considered for patients with possible pathological upgrading. This model can be used to predict the pathological upgrade of patients with single core positive biopsy.

Key words: Prostatic neoplasms, Biopsy, needle, Risk factors, Nomograms, Single core positive

CLC Number: 

  • R737.25

Table 1

Clinicopathological data and risk factors of patients in upgrade group and non-upgrade group"

Items Non-upgrade group (n=37) Upgrade group (n=34) P
Age/years 65.38±5.95 66.21±6.73 0.585
BMI/(kg/m2) 24.47±2.83 25.40±2.74 0.165
Operation 0.080
  Laparoscopic 25 (67.6) 29 (85.3)
  Robotic 12 (32.4) 5 (14.7)
Prostate volume in MRI 0.067
  ≤30 mL 7 (18.9) 13 (38.2)
  >30 mL 30 (81.7) 21 (61.8)
cT stage 0.678
  1 13 (35.1) 9 (26.5)
  2 22 (59.5) 25 (73.5)
  3 2 (5.4) 0 (0)
PI-RADS 0.203
  ≤3 15 (40.5) 9 (26.5)
  ≥4 22 (59.5) 25 (73.5)
PSA/(ng/mL)
  Before biopsy 9.56±5.40 10.83±5.98 0.359
  Preoperative 9.62±5.12 10.04±5.31 0.739
Difference of PSA density 0.063
  ≤0 ng/mL2 16 (43.2) 22 (64.7)
  >0 ng/mL2 21 (56.8) 12 (35.3)
Proportion of tumor tissue 0.007
  ≤25% 20 (54.1) 28 (82.4)
  >25% 17 (45.9) 6 (17.6)
Gleason score in biopsy 0.068
  6 21 (56.8) 25 (73.5)
  3+4 6 (16.2) 6 (17.6)
  4+3 5 (13.5) 2 (5.9)
  ≥8 5 (13.5) 1 (3.0)
pT stage <0.001
  2 31 (83.8) 16 (47.1)
  3 6 (16.2) 18 (52.9)
Pathological Gleason score <0.001
  6 22 (59.5) 0 (0)
  3+4 8 (21.6) 18 (52.9)
  4+3 4 (10.8) 10 (29.5)
  ≥8 3 (8.1) 6 (17.6)

Table 2

Multivariate Logistic regression analysis results on the influencing factors of postoperative pathological upgrade of patients with single core positive biopsy"

Items OR 95%CI P
Gleason score in biopsy
  6 1
  3+4 0.725 0.160-3.329 0.134
  4+3 0.127 0.118-1.363 0.735
  ≥8 0.076 0.004-1.339 0.078
Prostate volume in MRI
  ≤30 mL 7.612 1.358-42.675 0.021
  >30 mL 1
Difference of PSA density
  ≤0 ng/mL2 1
  >0 ng/mL2 0.342 0.112-1.048 0.074
Proportion of tumor tissue
  ≤25% 1
  >25% 0.328 0.096-1.115 0.060

Figure 1

Nomogram for predicting postoperative pathological upgrade of patients with single core positive biopsy"

Figure 2

Calibration curve of nomogram model"

Figure 3

Evaluation of nomogram model by receiver operating characteristic curve AUC, area under the curve."

1 郑荣寿, 陈茹, 韩冰峰, 等. 2022年中国恶性肿瘤流行情况分析[J]. 中华肿瘤杂志, 2024, 46 (3): 221- 231.
2 Siegel RL , Miller KD , Jemal A . Cancer statistics, 2020[J]. CA Cancer J Clin, 2020, 70 (1): 7- 30.
doi: 10.3322/caac.21590
3 徐毅, 毛祺琦, 刘犇, 等. 穿刺单针阳性前列腺癌的术后病理特征分析[J]. 中华泌尿外科杂志, 2018, 39 (10): 757- 760.
4 陈小豹, 张潮鸿, 江玮, 等. 前列腺穿刺单针阳性的临床特点[J]. 中国男科学杂志, 2019, 33 (3): 30- 33.
5 唐超来, 唐贤富, 郑兴明. 前列腺穿刺活检单针阳性患者行前列腺根治性切除术后的病理特征[J]. 国际泌尿系统杂志, 2020, 40 (4): 587- 590.
6 Goldstein NS , Bégin LR , Grody WW , et al. Minimal or no cancer in radical prostatectomy specimens. Report of 13 cases of the "vanishing cancer phenomenon"[J]. Am J Surg Pathol, 1995, 19 (9): 1002- 1009.
doi: 10.1097/00000478-199509000-00003
7 Ricardo Kupka da S , Dall'Oglio MF , Sant'Ana AC , et al. Can single positive core prostate cancer at biopsy be considered a low-risk disease after radical prostatectomy?[J]. Int Braz J Urol, 2013, 39 (6): 800- 807.
doi: 10.1590/S1677-5538.IBJU.2013.06.05
8 刘希高, 谌诚, 李健, 等. 前列腺穿刺活检单针阳性患者前列腺内癌灶分布特点[J]. 中华男科学杂志, 2012, 18 (2): 155- 159.
9 杜少静, 贺慧颖. 穿刺单针阳性前列腺癌患者根治术后62例临床病理分析[J]. 中华病理学杂志, 2016, 45 (7): 446- 450.
10 郝一昌, 颜野, 张帆, 等. 穿刺活检单针阳性的前列腺癌手术策略选择及经验总结[J]. 北京大学学报(医学版), 2020, 52 (4): 625- 631.
doi: 10.19723/j.issn.1671-167X.2020.04.005
11 Dong F , Jones JS , Stephenson AJ , et al. Prostate cancer volume at biopsy predicts clinically significant upgrading[J]. J Urol, 2008, 179 (3): 896- 900.
12 Hwang I , Lim D , Jeong YB , et al. Upgrading and upstaging of low-risk prostate cancer among Korean patients: A multicenter study[J]. Asian J Androl, 2015, 17 (5): 811- 814.
[1] Yuanmei LIU, Yicheng FU, Jingxin HAO, Fuchun ZHANG, Huilin LIU. Construction and validation of a nomogram for predicting in-hospital postoperative heart failure in elderly patients with hip fracture [J]. Journal of Peking University (Health Sciences), 2024, 56(5): 874-883.
[2] Yuxuan TIAN,Mingjian RUAN,Yi LIU,Derun LI,Jingyun WU,Qi SHEN,Yu FAN,Jie JIN. Predictive effect of the dual-parametric MRI modified maximum diameter of the lesions with PI-RADS 4 and 5 on the clinically significant prostate cancer [J]. Journal of Peking University (Health Sciences), 2024, 56(4): 567-574.
[3] Kaifeng YAO,Mingjian RUAN,Derun LI,Yuxuan TIAN,Yuke CHEN,Yu FAN,Yi LIU. Diagnostic efficacy of targeted biopsy combined with regional systematic biopsy in prostate cancer in patients with PI-RADS 4-5 [J]. Journal of Peking University (Health Sciences), 2024, 56(4): 575-581.
[4] Junyong OU,Kunming NI,Lulin MA,Guoliang WANG,Ye YAN,Bin YANG,Gengwu LI,Haodong SONG,Min LU,Jianfei YE,Shudong ZHANG. Prognostic factors of patients with muscle invasive bladder cancer with intermediate-to-high risk prostate cancer [J]. Journal of Peking University (Health Sciences), 2024, 56(4): 582-588.
[5] Ye YAN,Xiaolong LI,Haizhui XIA,Xuehua ZHU,Yuting ZHANG,Fan ZHANG,Ke LIU,Cheng LIU,Lulin MA. Analysis of risk factors for long-term overactive bladder after radical prostatectomy [J]. Journal of Peking University (Health Sciences), 2024, 56(4): 589-593.
[6] Zezhen ZHOU,Shaohui DENG,Ye YAN,Fan ZHANG,Yichang HAO,Liyuan GE,Hongxian ZHANG,Guoliang WANG,Shudong ZHANG. Predicting the 3-year tumor-specific survival in patients with T3a non-metastatic renal cell carcinoma [J]. Journal of Peking University (Health Sciences), 2024, 56(4): 673-679.
[7] Yan CHEN,Kuangmeng LI,Kai HONG,Shudong ZHANG,Jianxing CHENG,Zhongjie ZHENG,Wenhao TANG,Lianming ZHAO,Haitao ZHANG,Hui JIANG,Haocheng LIN. Retrospective study on the impact of penile corpus cavernosum injection test on penile vascular function [J]. Journal of Peking University (Health Sciences), 2024, 56(4): 680-686.
[8] Bo PANG,Tongjun GUO,Xi CHEN,Huaqi GUO,Jiazhang SHI,Juan CHEN,Xinmei WANG,Yaoyan LI,Anqi SHAN,Hengyi YU,Jing HUANG,Naijun TANG,Yan WANG,Xinbiao GUO,Guoxing LI,Shaowei WU. Personal nitrogen oxides exposure levels and related influencing factors in adults over 35 years old in Tianjin and Shanghai [J]. Journal of Peking University (Health Sciences), 2024, 56(4): 700-707.
[9] Jing HE,Zhongze FANG,Ying YANG,Jing LIU,Wenyao MA,Yong HUO,Wei GAO,Yangfeng WU,Gaoqiang XIE. Relationship between lipid metabolism molecules in plasma and carotid atheroscle-rotic plaques, traditional cardiovascular risk factors, and dietary factors [J]. Journal of Peking University (Health Sciences), 2024, 56(4): 722-728.
[10] Shan CAI,Yihang ZHANG,Ziyue CHEN,Yunfe LIU,Jiajia DANG,Di SHI,Jiaxin LI,Tianyu HUANG,Jun MA,Yi SONG. Status and pathways of factors influencing physical activity time among elementary and junior high school students in Beijing [J]. Journal of Peking University (Health Sciences), 2024, 56(3): 403-410.
[11] Zuhong ZHANG,Tianjiao CHEN,Jun MA. Associations between puberty timing and cardiovascular metabolic risk factors among primary and secondary students [J]. Journal of Peking University (Health Sciences), 2024, 56(3): 418-423.
[12] Yuting LIN,Huali WANG,Yu TIAN,Litong GONG,Chun CHANG. Factors influencing cognitive function among the older adults in Beijing [J]. Journal of Peking University (Health Sciences), 2024, 56(3): 456-461.
[13] Jinrong ZHU,Yana ZHAO,Wei HUANG,Weiwei ZHAO,Yue WANG,Song WANG,Chunyan SU. Clinical characteristics of COVID-19 infection in patients undergoing hemodialysis [J]. Journal of Peking University (Health Sciences), 2024, 56(2): 267-272.
[14] Zhanhong LAI,Jiachen LI,Zelin YUN,Yonggang ZHANG,Hao ZHANG,Xiaoyan XING,Miao SHAO,Yuebo JIN,Naidi WANG,Yimin LI,Yuhui LI,Zhanguo LI. A unicenter real-world study of the correlation factors for complete clinical response in idiopathic inflammatory myopathies [J]. Journal of Peking University (Health Sciences), 2024, 56(2): 284-292.
[15] Xiaoqian SI,Xiujuan ZHAO,Fengxue ZHU,Tianbing WANG. Risk factors for acute respiratory distress syndrome in patients with traumatic hemorrhagic shock [J]. Journal of Peking University (Health Sciences), 2024, 56(2): 307-312.
Viewed
Full text


Abstract

Cited

  Shared   
  Discussed   
No Suggested Reading articles found!