U.P.G.R.A.D.E. score: a new scoring system in predicting pathological upgrading after prostatectomy in patients with Gleason grade group 1 prostate cancer

Pathological upgrading poses a significant challenge in treatment decision-making, particularly for patients considered for active surveillance (AS). This study aimed to devise a novel scoring system to predict the risk of upgrading in patients with biopsy Gleason grade group 1 prostate cancer. We conducted a retrospective review of 235 patients who underwent radical prostatectomy between February 2014 and June 2022. Data on patient age, prostate-specific antigen (PSA) level, body mass index, clinical T-stage, prior biopsy history, Prostate Imaging-Reporting and Data System (PIRADS) score, time interval from biopsy to surgery, and pathological outcomes were collected. After a comprehensive review of the literature, multivariate analyses identified seven factors associated with upgrading in prostate cancer patients after radical prostatectomy: uninformative prior biopsy sample, PSA level, greatest percentage of tumor involvement, radiological PIRADS score, age, delay from biopsy to surgery and extension of positive cores. These factors were integrated into our devised U.P.G.R.A.D.E. model to form a scoring system. The U.P.G.R.A.D.E. score was calculated based on the cumulative score of these variables. The predictive performance of the U.P.G.R.A.D.E. scoring system was assessed, revealing a cohort with a mean age of 64.22 ± 5.88 years and a mean PSA value of 8.92 ± 5.05 ng/mL. The pathological samples of 95 patients (40.6%) were upgraded, and the upgraded patients exhibited significantly higher U.P.G.R.A.D.E. scores (p < 0.001). The area under the receiver operating characteristic (AUROC) curve for the U.P.G.R.A.D.E. scoring system demonstrated robust predictive ability for upgrading (AUROC = 0.952; 95% Confidence interval (CI): 0.926–0.978; p < 0.001). In addition, a higher U.P.G.R.A.D.E. score was strongly associated with an increased risk of upgrading in biopsy Gleason grade group 1 patients, suggesting potential limitations for active surveillance eligibility in these individuals. Further validation studies are warranted to confirm these initial findings.

Prostate cancer; Pathology; Upgrading; Scoring system

[1] Siegel RL, Miller KD, Fuchs HE, Jemal A. Cancer statistics, 2022. CA: A Cancer Journal for Clinicians. 2022; 72: 7–33.

[2] Mahal BA, Butler S, Franco I, Spratt DE, Rebbeck TR, D’Amico AV, et al. Use of active surveillance or watchful waiting for low-risk prostate cancer and management trends across risk groups in the United States, 2010–2015. JAMA. 2019; 321: 704–706.

[3] Qin X, Lv J, Zhu X. Multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging in the active surveillance of prostate cancer: protocol, risk stratification, and surveillance. Journal of Men’s Health. 2024; 20: 12–18.

[4] Brassetti A, Lombardo R, Emiliozzi P, Cardi A, Antonio V, Antonio I, et al. Prostate-specific antigen density is a good predictor of upstaging and upgrading, according to the new grading system: the keys we are seeking may be already in our pocket. Urology. 2018; 111: 129–135.

[5] Kovac E, Vertosick EA, Sjoberg DD, Vickers AJ, Stephenson AJ. Effects of pathologic upstaging or upgrading on metastasis and cancer-specific mortality in men with clinical low-risk prostate cancer. BJU International. 2018; 122: 1003–1009.

[6] Caster JM, Falchook AD, Hendrix LH, Chen RC. Risk of pathologic upgrading or locally advanced disease in early prostate cancer patients based on biopsy Gleason score and PSA: a population-based study of modern patients. International Journal of Radiation Oncology, Biology, Physics. 2015; 92: 244–251.

[7] Bakavicius A, Drevinskaite M, Daniunaite K, Barisienė M, Jarmalaitė S, Jankevičius F. The impact of prostate cancer upgrading and upstaging on biochemical recurrence and cancerspecific survival. Medicina. 2020; 56: 61.

[8] Yıldız A, Anıl H, Akdemir S, Aksaray EE, Ateş M, Arslan M. Extraperitoneal laparoscopic versus transperitoneal robot-assisted laparoscopic approaches for extended pelvic lymph node dissection during radical prostatectomy. Journal of Laparoendoscopic and Advanced Surgical Techniques. 2022; 32: 355–359.

[9] Monfared S, Fleishman A, Korets R, Chang P, Wagner A, Bubley G, et al. The impact of pretreatment PSA on risk stratification in men with Gleason 6 prostate cancer: implications for active surveillance. Urologic Oncology. 2021; 39: 783.e21–783.e30.

[10] Leeman JE, Chen MH, Huland H, Graefen M, D’Amico AV, Tilki D. Advancing age and the odds of upgrading and upstaging at radical prostatectomy in men with Gleason score 6 prostate cancer. Clinical Genitourinary Cancer. 2019; 17: e1116–e1121.

[11] Sayyid RK, Wilson B, Benton JZ, Lodh A, Thomas EF, Goldberg H, et al. Upgrading on radical prostatectomy specimens of very low- and low-risk prostate cancer patients on active surveillance: a population-level analysis. Canadian Urological Association Journal. 2021; 15: E335–E339.

[12] Soenens C, Dekuyper P, De Coster G, Damme NV, Eycken EV, Quackels T, et al. Concordance between biopsy and radical prostatectomy gleason scores: evaluation of determinants in a large-scale study of patients undergoing RARP in Belgium. Pathology and Oncology Research. 2020; 26: 2605–2612.

[13] Herlemann A, Buchner A, Kretschmer A, Apfelbeck M, Stief CG, Gratzke C, et al. Postoperative upgrading of prostate cancer in men ≥75 years: a propensity score-matched analysis. World Journal of Urology. 2017; 35: 1517–1524.

[14] Schiavina R, Borghesi M, Brunocilla E, Romagnoli D, Diazzi D, Giunchi F, et al. The biopsy Gleason score 3+4 in a single core does not necessarily reflect an unfavourable pathological disease after radical prostatectomy in comparison with biopsy Gleason score 3+3: looking for larger selection criteria for active surveillance candidates. Prostate Cancer and Prostatic Diseases. 2015; 18: 270–275.

[15] Wang X, Zhang Y, Zhang F, Ji Z, Yang P, Tian Y. Predicting Gleason sum upgrading from biopsy to radical prostatectomy pathology: a new nomogram and its internal validation. BMC Urology. 2021; 21: 3.

[16] Xu B, Luo C, Zhang Q, Jin J. Preoperative characteristics of the P.R.O.S.T.A.T.E. scores: a novel predictive tool for the risk of positive surgical margin after radical prostatectomy. Journal of Cancer Research and Clinical Oncology. 2017; 143: 687–692.

[17] Cooperberg MR, Hilton JF, Carroll PR. The CAPRA-S score: a straightforward tool for improved prediction of outcomes after radical prostatectomy. Cancer. 2011; 117: 5039–5046.

[18] Cohen MS, Hanley RS, Kurteva T, Ruthazer R, Silverman ML, Sorcini A, et al. Comparing the Gleason prostate biopsy and Gleason prostatectomy grading system: the Lahey clinic medical center experience and an international meta-analysis. European Urology. 2008; 54: 371–381.

[19] Bullock N, Simpkin A, Fowler S, Varma M, Kynaston H, Narahari K. Pathological upgrading in prostate cancer treated with surgery in the United Kingdom: trends and risk factors from the British association of urological surgeons radical prostatectomy registry. BMC Urology. 2019; 19: 94.

[20] Promsen W, Siriboonrid S, Binsri N, Kanjanatarayon S, Wiriyabanditkul W, Jiraanankul V. The prevalence and risk factors of upgrading of Gleason grade group between transrectal ultrasound prostate biopsy and prostatectomy specimens. Urology Annals. 2023; 15: 18–21.

[21] Corcoran NM, Hong MK, Casey RG, Hurtado-Coll A, Peters J, Harewood L, et al. Upgrade in Gleason score between prostate biopsies and pathology following radical prostatectomy significantly impacts upon the risk of biochemical recurrence. BJU International. 2011; 108: E202–E210.

[22] Epstein JI, Feng Z, Trock BJ, Pierorazio PM. Upgrading and downgrading of prostate cancer from biopsy to radical prostatectomy: incidence and predictive factors using the modified Gleason grading system and factoring in tertiary grades. European Urology. 2012; 61: 1019–1024.

[23] Wei L, Wang J, Lampert E, DePriest AD, Hu Q, Gomez EC, et al. Intratumoral and intertumoral genomic heterogeneity of multifocal localized prostate cancer impacts molecular classifications and genomic prognosticators. European Urology. 2017; 71: 183–192.

[24] Pirola GM, Castellani D, Orecchia L, Giulioni C, Gubbiotti M, Rubilotta E, et al. Transperineal US-MRI fusion-guided biopsy for the detection of clinical significant prostate cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis comparing cognitive and software-assisted technique. Cancers. 2023; 15: 3443.

[25] Li P, Ni P, Kombak FE, Wolters E, Haines GK, Si Q. Targeted biopsy added to systematic biopsy improves cancer detection in prostate cancer screening. International Journal of Clinical and Experimental Pathology. 2024; 17: 173–181.

[26] Weinstein IC, Wu X, Hill A, Brennan D, Omil-Lima D, Basourakos S, et al. Impact of magnetic resonance imaging targeting on pathologic upgrading and downgrading at prostatectomy: a systematic review and meta-analysis. European Urology Oncology. 2023; 6: 355–365.

[27] Lee AYM, Chen K, Cheng CWS, Ho HSS, Yuen JSP, Ngo NT, et al. Intensive sampling of the umbra and penumbra improves clinically significant prostate cancer detection and reduces risk of grade group upgrading at radical prostatectomy. World Journal of Urology. 2023; 41: 2265–2271.

[28] Alqahtani S, Wei C, Zhang Y, Szewczyk-Bieda M, Wilson J, Huang Z, et al. Prediction of prostate cancer Gleason score upgrading from biopsy to radical prostatectomy using pre-biopsy multiparametric MRI PIRADS scoring system. Scientific Reports. 2020; 10: 7722.

[29] Wang X, Zhang Y, 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 Journal of Surgical Oncology. 2021; 19: 18.

[30] Yoo S, Suh J, Park J, Cho MC, Son H, Jeong H. Proportion of cores with the highest Gleason grade group among positive cores on prostate biopsy: does this affect the probability of upgrading or downgrading? Scandinavian Journal of Urology. 2019; 53: 372–377.

[31] Kim SJ, Ryu JH, Yang SO, Lee JK, Jung TY, Kim YB. Does the time interval from biopsy to radical prostatectomy affect the postoperative oncologic outcomes in Korean men? Journal of Korean Medical Science. 2019; 34: e234.

[32] Altok M, Troncoso P, Achim MF, Matin SF, Gonzalez GN, Davis JW. Prostate cancer upgrading or downgrading of biopsy Gleason scores at radical prostatectomy: prediction of “regression to the mean” using routine clinical features with correlating biochemical relapse rates. Asian Journal of Andrology. 2019; 21: 598–604.

[33] Kim H, Kim JK, Hong SK, Jeong CW, Ku JH, Kwak C. Role of multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging to predict postoperative Gleason score upgrading in prostate cancer with Gleason score 3 + 4. World Journal of Urology. 2021; 39: 1825–1830.

[34] Qi F, Zhu K, Cheng Y, Hua L, Cheng G. How to pick out the “unreal” Gleason 313 patients: a nomogram for more precise active surveillance protocol in low-risk prostate cancer in a Chinese population. Journal of Investigative Surgery. 2021; 34: 583–589.

[35] Wang G, Wang X, Du H, Wang Y, Sun L, Zhang M, et al. Prediction model of Gleason score upgrading after radical prostatectomy based on a Bayesian network. BMC Urology. 2023; 23: 159.

[36] Wei C, Zhang Y, Zhang X, Ageeli W, Szewczyk-Bieda M, Serhan J, et al. Prostate cancer Gleason score from biopsy to radical surgery: can ultrasound shear wave elastography and multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging narrow the gap? Frontiers in Oncology. 2021; 11: 740724.

[37] Press BH, Jones T, Olawoyin O, Lokeshwar SD, Rahman SN, Khajir G, et al. Association between a 22-feature genomic classifier and biopsy Gleason upgrade during active surveillance for prostate cancer. European Urology Open Science. 2022; 37: 113–119.

[38] Yin H, Chen M, Qiu X, Qiu L, Gao J, Li D. Can 68Ga-PSMA-11 PET/CT predict pathological upgrading of prostate cancer from MRI-targeted biopsy to radical prostatectomy? European Journal of Nuclear Medicine and Molecular Imaging. 2021; 48: 3693–3701.

[39] Esen B, Seymen H, Gurses B, Armutlu A, Koseoglu E, Tarim K, et al. The role of PSMA PET/CT to predict upgrading in patients undergoing radical prostatectomy for ISUP grade group 1 prostate cancer. Prostate. 2024; 84: 32–38.

[40] Guan J, Pan Z, Zhao G. Identification of a 6-gene signature associated with ferroptosis for predicting the prognosis in prostate cancer. Journal of Men’s Health. 2023; 19: 58–68.