Advances in Clinical Medicine
Vol. 13  No. 12 ( 2023 ), Article ID: 77620 , 10 pages
10.12677/ACM.2023.13122738

前列腺根治性切除术后Gleason分组高于活检Gleason分组的相关因素

张金满1,李九智2*

1石河子大学医学院,新疆 石河子

2新疆维吾尔自治区人民医院泌尿中心,新疆 乌鲁木齐

收稿日期:2023年11月21日;录用日期:2023年12月14日;发布日期:2023年12月21日

摘要

目的:探讨前列腺根治术后2014年国际泌尿病理协会病理分组升高的相关因素。方法:回顾性分析新疆维吾尔自治区人民医院2016年6月~2023年6月期间行前列腺根治切除术患者的临床资料,收集患者年龄、BMI、根治穿刺时间间隔、单核细胞计数、中性粒细胞计数、淋巴细胞计数、NLR、tPSA、fPSA、f/tPSA、PV、PSAD、穿刺术后Gleason评分、穿刺阳性针数、评分最高针肿瘤组织占比、根治术后Gleason评分、内分泌治疗史、高血压史和糖尿病史。分别在中体患者和活检Gleason分组 = 1亚组中分析根治术后Gleason分组升高的相关因素。结果:共纳入170名患者,在总体患者中,50 (29.4%)名根治术后Gleason分组高于活检Gleason分组,经过单因素分析与多因素logistics回归分析,仅活检Gleason分组(p = 0.000, OR = 0.575)是根治术后Gleason分组升高的独立危险因素。进一步用ROC曲线分析,AUC为0.316 (95%CI: 0.237~0.394)。活检Gleason分组 = 1亚组共57名患者,其中22 (38.6%)名患者根治术后Gleason分组上升。PSAD (0.024)及临床T分期(0.009)是根治术后Gleason评分升高的独立危险因素。其AUC分别为:0.806 (95%CI: 0.683~0.903)和0.786 (95%CI: 0.666~0.907)。结论:约29.4%的前列腺癌患者会出现根治术后Gleason分组升级,其中活检Gleason分组 ≤ 3的患者有较高的升级风险。在活检Gleason分组 = 1的患者中,PSAD和临床T分期是根治术后Gleason分组升高的预测因素,具有一定的预测价值。

关键词

前列腺癌,Gleason评分,病理升级

Factors Associated with a Higher Gleason Group after Radical Prostatectomy Compared to the Biopsy Gleason Group

Jingman Zhang1, Jiuzhi Li2*

1Department of Medicine, Shihezi University School, Shihezi Xinjiang

2Department of Urology, People’s Hospital of Xinjiang Uygur Autonomous Region, Urumqi Xinjiang

Received: Nov. 21st, 2023; accepted: Dec. 14th, 2023; published: Dec. 21st, 2023

ABSTRACT

Objective: To investigate the factors related to the increase of the pathologic group of the International Urological Pathology Association in 2014 after radical prostatectomy. Method: Clinical data of patients undergoing radical prostatectomy in the People’s Hospital of Xinjiang Uygur Autonomous Region from June 2016 to June 2023 were retrospectively analyzed. Patients’ age, BMI, radical puncture interval, monocyte count, neutrophil count, lymphocyte count, NLR, tPSA, fPSA, f/tPSA, PV, PSAD, Gleason score after puncture, number of positive needles, proportion of tumor tissue with the highest score, Gleason score after radical surgery, history of endocrine therapy, history of hypertension and history of diabetes were collected. Factors associated with the elevation of Gleason group after radical surgery were analyzed in the middle body patients and in the biopsy Gleason group = 1 subgroup. Result: A total of 170 patients were included. Among the total number of patients, 50 (29.4%) had higher Gleason group after radical surgery than biopsy Gleason group. After univariate analysis and multi-factor logistics regression analysis, Biopsy Gleason group alone (p = 0.000, OR = 0.575) was an independent risk factor for increased Gleason group after radical surgery. Further ROC curve analysis showed that the AUC was 0.316 (95%CI: 0.237~0.394). The Gleason group of biopsy = 1 subgroup of 57 patients, of which 22 (38.6%) patients had increased Gleason group after radical surgery. PSAD (0.024) and clinical T stage (0.009) were independent risk factors for increased Gleason score after radical surgery. The AUC was 0.806 (95%CI: 0.683~0.903) and 0.786 (95%CI: 0.666~0.907), respectively. Conclusions: About 29.4% of prostate cancer patients will have Gleason group escalation after radical surgery, and patients with Gleason group ≤ 3 on biopsy have a higher risk of escalation. In patients with biopsy Gleason group = 1, PSAD and clinical T stage are predictors of increased Gleason group after radical surgery, and have some predictive value.

Keywords:Prostate Cancer, Gleason Score, Pathological Upgrading

Copyright © 2023 by author(s) and Hans Publishers Inc.

This work is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution International License (CC BY 4.0).

http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/

1. 引言

前列腺癌是常见的男性泌尿生殖系统疾病之一。2015年前列腺癌居我国男性癌症发病率第6位,且其发病率呈升高趋势,严重威胁男性健康并降低男性生活质量 [1] 。前列腺穿刺活检是前列腺癌诊断的金标准,其病理活检Gleason评分作为评估前列腺癌患者预后的主要临床指标之一,对前列腺癌患者的治疗有重要的指导作用 [2] [3] 。然而在临床工作中,部分患者活检Gleason评分低于根治术后Gleason评分 [4] [5] ,故根据活检Gleason评分对患者进行危险分层,可能会制定出不合适的治疗方案,从而发生延误治疗这一不良事件。因此分析术后Gleason评分升高的相关因素,可以在医生制定治疗方案时提供重要的参考依据。

2. 研究方法

纳入2016年6月~2023年6月在新疆维吾尔自治区人民医院行前列腺癌根治性切除术,且初次前列腺穿刺活检病理回报为前列腺癌的患者,排除处于急性感染期、其他恶性肿瘤或全身炎症病史、穿刺活检术与前列腺癌根治术间隔时间大于6个月和临床资料不全的患者。

收集纳入的研究对象的临床资料,包括年龄、体质指数(body mass index, BMI)、根治穿刺时间间隔、单核细胞计数、中性粒细胞计数、淋巴细胞计数、总前列腺特异性抗原(total prostate specific antigen, tPSA)、游离前列腺特异性抗原(free prostate specific antigen, fPSA)、前列腺体积(prostate volume, PV)、PSA密度(PSA density, PSAD)、活检Gleason评分、穿刺阳性针数、评分最高针肿瘤组织占比、根治术后Gleason评分、内分泌治疗史、高血压史和糖尿病史。其中PV计算公式:PV = 上下经 × 左右经 × 前后径 × 0.52;PSAD计算公式为PSAD = tPSA ÷ PV。中性粒细胞–淋巴细胞比值(neutrophil-lymphocyte ratio, NLR)计算公式为NLR = 中性粒细胞计数 ÷ 淋巴细胞计数。

由经验丰富的泌尿外科医师行B超引导下经会阴或直肠行前列腺穿刺活检术,术者根据患者术前影像学资料选择合适的穿刺针数或行13针系统穿刺。根治性前列腺切除术由高年资的泌尿外科医师在腹腔镜或机器人辅助下完成。前列腺穿刺活检与根治术后病理标本由经验丰富的病理医师根据国际泌尿病理协会(International Society of Urological Pathology, ISUP) 2014提出的Gleason分级分组系统进行评分。将根治术后Gleason分组升高定义为根治术后Gleason分组高于活检Gleason分组。

符合正态分布的计量资料以平均数 ± 标准差( x ¯ ± s )表示,用t检验进行组间比较;余计量资料用中位数和百分位数[M(M25%~M75%)]表示,使用Wilcoxon秩和检验进行组间比较。分类变量用频数(百分比) [n(%)]表示,组间比较用卡方检验。将有统计学差异的变量纳入多因素logistic回归分析,并用受试者工作特征(receiver operating characteristic curve, ROC)曲线评估各独立危险因素的预测价值。使用SPSS25.0进行统计分析,以p < 0.05有统计学差异。

3. 结果

3.1. 总体患者

共纳入170名患者,其中88 (51.8%)名患者根治术后Gleason分组与活检Gleason分组一致,50 (29.4%)名患者根治术后Gleason分组升高,32 (18.8%)名患者根治术后Gleason分组降低。活检Gleason分组根治术后Gleason分组对应详“见表1”。根治术后Gleason分组升高患者与未升高患者资料“见表2”。

Table 1. Corresponding table of Gleason group (score) after biopsy and radical surgery [n(%)]

表1. 活检与根治术后Gleason分组(评分)对应表[n(%)]

Table 2. Comparison of clinical data between patients with Gleason group upgrading and those without Gleason group upgrading after radical surgery [n(%), x ¯ ± s , M(M25%~M75%)]

表2. 总体患者中根治术后Gleason分组升高患者与未升高患者临床资料对比[n(%), x ¯ ± s , M(M25%~M75%)]

Table 3. Results of multifactor logistics regression analysis in total patients

表3. 总体患者中多因素logistics回归分析结果

单因素分析显示两组间单核细胞计数(p = 0.029)、中性粒细胞计数(p = 0.033)和活检Gleason分组(p = 0.000)有统计学意义“见表2”。将上述指标纳入多因素logistics回归分析中,仅活检Gleason分组(p = 0.000, OR = 0.575)是根治术后Gleason分组升高的独立相关因素“见表3”。用ROC评估其预测效能“见图1”,ROC曲线下面积为0.316 (95%CI: 0.237~0.394)“见表4”。活检Gleason分组临界值为3.5时约登指数最大,此时灵敏度为:42.5%,特异度为94.0%。

Figure 1. The ROC curve of biopsy Gleason group predicted the Gleason group upgrading after radical surgery in total patients

图1. 总体患者中活检Gleason分组预测根治术后Gleason分组升高的ROC曲线

Table 4. The AUC of biopsy Gleason group predicted the Gleason group upgrading after radical surgery in total patients

表4. 总体患者中活检Gleason分组预测根治术后Gleason分组升高的ROC曲线下面积

3.2. 活检Gleason分组 = 1亚组

共有57名患者活检Gleason分组= 1,其中35 (61.4%)名患者根治术后Gleason评分分级与活检Gleason评分分级一致,22 (38.6%)名患者根治术后Gleason分组升高“见表1”。

Table 5. Comparison of clinical data between patients with Gleason group upgrading and those without Gleason group upgrading after radical surgery in Gleason group = 1 patients [n(%), x ¯ ± s , M(M25%~M75%)]

表5. 活检Gleason分组 = 1的患者中根治术后Gleason分组升高患者与未升高患者临床资料对比[n(%), x ¯ ± s , M(M25%~M75%)]

Table 6. Results of multifactor logistics regression analysis in Gleason group = 1 patients

表6. 活检Gleason分组 = 1患者中多因素logistics回归分析结果

单因素分析显示两组间tPSA (p = 0.004)、f/tPSA (p = 0.009)、评分最高针肿瘤组织占比(p = 0.003)、PSAD (p = 0.000)和临床T分期(p = 0.000)有统计学差异“见表5”。将上述指标纳入多因素logistics回归分析中,结果显示只有PSAD (p = 0.024)及临床T分期(p = 0.009)是根治术后Gleason评分升高的独立危险因素(见表6)。用ROC评估PSAD及临床T分期的预测效能“见图2”,其ROC曲线下面积分别为:0.806 (95%CI: 0.683~0.903)和0.786 (95%CI: 0.666~0.907)“见表7”。PSAD的临界值为0.23时其约登指数最大,此时灵敏度为:81.8%,特异度为74.3%。临床T分期的临界值为2时约登指数最大,此时灵敏度为:40.9%,特异度为97.1%。

Figure 2. PSAD and clinical T staging in patients predicted the ROC curve of elevated Gleason group after radical surgery in Gleason group = 1 patients

图2. 活检Gleason分组 = 1亚组患者中PSAD和临床T分期预测根治术后Gleason分组升高的ROC曲线

Table 7. The AUC of PSAD and clinical T staging predicted the Gleason group upgrading after radical surgery in Gleason group = 1 patients

表7. 活检Gleason分组 = 1亚组患者中PSAD和临床T分期预测根治术后Gleason分组升高ROC曲线下面积

4. 讨论

活检Gleason评分是评估前列腺癌风险的主要指标之一,对临床医师选择合适的治疗方案具有重要的指导作用 [3] 。然而由于前列腺癌呈多灶性生长,各个病灶之间恶性程度不完全一致 [2] ,穿刺不一定能取到恶性程度最高的病灶。在临床工作中根治术后Gleason评分可能与活检Gleason评分不同,约30%的患者根治术后Gleason评分升高 [5] [6] [7] ,活检Gleason评分为6分的患者根治术后Gleason评分升高的比例更高,达44.7% [7] 。本研究中,总体患者中有50 (29.4%)名患者根治术后Gleason分组升高;在活检Gleason分组 = 1的57名患者中,22 (38.4%)名患者根治术后Gleason分组高于活检Gleason分组,这与国内外研究相近。

本研究显示,穿刺活检Gleason分组是根治术后Gleason分组升高的独立相关因素(p = 0.000),大体上随Gleason分组级别增加,出现根治术后Gleason分组可能性降低。一些对国内患者的研究也有类似的发现 [4] [8] [9] 。目前对低危前列腺癌患者的治疗方案的研究显示,主动监测和手术治疗有相似的预后且对生活质量影响小 [10] [11] ,现越来越多的低危前列腺癌患者为获得更好的生活质量选择主动监测治疗。目前有数个标准可以用来选择适合行主动监测治疗的前列腺癌患者,各个标准多个临床指标组成,其中多数标准包含活检Gleason评分 ≤ 6 [12] 。然而在本研究中,有38.60%活检Gleason评分 = 6的患者出现根治术后Gleason分组升高,在另一项研究中活检Gleason分组为1的患者根治术后Gleason分组升高比例达72.30% [9] 。这部分患者可能延迟获得积极治疗。此外在本研究中,活检Gleason分组 ≤ 3的患者根根治术后Gleason分组升高的比例较高,可能是在2014ISUP分级系统中,对Gleason评分3级和4级的筛状结构区分模糊,此外由于相邻腺体的空间位置和切片时的切面角度差异,部分切片中局部腺体结构不清或融合,这会影响病理医师的判断。为减少过度诊断,协会推荐将介于Gleason 3级和4级之间的标本认定为Gleason3级 [13] ,从而导致根治术后Gleason分组升级。

tPSA是前列腺癌筛查和诊断指标之一,其与根治术后Gleason评分升高的相关性尚存在争议:部分研究显示根治术后Gleason评分升高的患者拥有较高的tPSA水平 [14] ,然而在另一部分研究中根治术后Gleason评分升高患者和未升高患者之间tPSA无统计学差异 [4] [9] ,本研究中,在活检Gleason评分为6的患者中,根治术后Gleason评分升高的患者倾向于有更高的tPSA (p = 0.004),然而在总体患者中两组之间的tPSA无统计学差异(p = 0.231)。一种可能的原因如下:假设根治术后Gleason评分升高的患者tPSA水平更高,同时研究显示相比活检Gleason评分与tPSA成正相关 [15] ,相比与Gleason分组 ≤ 4的患者,活检Gleason分组 = 5的患者有更高的tPSA水平,然而这些患者根治术后Gleason分组最高也为5,即不会出现根治术后Gleason评分升高这一现象。因此在对总体患者的分析中可能会低估tPSA和根治术后Gleason评分升高的相关性。根据该猜想,进一步分析发现各个活检Gleason分组之间和在活检Gleason分组 ≤ 4的患者中根治术后Gleason分组升高患者与非升高患者之间的tPSA有统计学差异,p值分别为0.00和0.014。

PSAD综合了tPSA和PV这两项指标,有研究指出在活检Gleason评分为6的患者中,其是根治术后Gleason升高的危险因素 [16] ,本研究与该结果一致,然而在总体患者中,并没有发现这一关系,活检Gleason分组为5组的患者对结果的干扰可能是原因之一。PV对跟根治术后Gleason评分升高的预测作用尚存在争议,李晓东等根据患者前列腺体积大小,以25 ml、40 ml和60 ml为临界值将患者分为4组。前列腺体积 ≤ 25 ml组患者和25~40 ml组患者根治术后Gleason评分升高的风险分别为前列腺体积 > 60 ml组患者的27倍和9倍 [5] 。另一项研究发现根治术后Gleason评分升高的患者前列腺体积更小(35.42 vs 39.52, p = 0.04) [17] ,然而在阚霖 [18] 等的研究中,建模数据集和验证集的两组患者之间PV无统计学意义,在本研究中两组间PV也无统计学意义。

在本研究中临床T分期是活检Gleason分组 = 1患者根治术后Gleason升高的独立危险因素,在Zhang [8] 等的研究中对临床T分期进行了更细致的划分,在总体和活检Gleason评分 = 6的亚组中,临床T分期 ≥ T2c患者根治术后Gleason升级的风险分别临床T分期 ≤ T2b患者的3.20和4.69倍。Wang [19] 等学者对比了不同穿刺针数的研究结果,提出随着T分期升高,肿瘤增大,获取的穿刺组织相对减少,从而导致根治术后Gleason评分升高。

炎症在前列腺癌发生、发展的各个阶段都起着至关重要的作用 [20] 。本研究在总体患者中,根治术后Gleason分组升高和非升高的患者间单核粒细胞和中性粒细胞水平有统计学差异,然而在多因素回归分析中,单核粒细胞和中性粒细胞都不是根治术后Gleason分组升级的独立危险因素。在活检Gleason = 6的患者中,根治术后Gleason分组升高患者平均单核粒细胞和中性粒细胞水平偏高,但无统计学差异。国外有研究提示NLR可作为Gleason评分升级的预测因素 [21] [22] 。然而本研究未发现NLR在根治术后Gleason分组升高患者和非升高患者间有统计学差异,另一项国内研究也未发现NLR对根治术后Gleason评分升级的预测作用 [8] 。

本研究为单中心的回顾性研究,可能出现选择性偏移,需要进行多中心前瞻性研究进行验证;本研究中纳入的指标较多,部分指标间相互影响,可能降低对根治术后Gleason评分升级的预测作用,需纳入更多样本来进一步分析阐明。

5. 结论

综上所述,30%左右的前列腺癌患者根治术后Gleason分组高于活检Gleason分组,其中活检Gleason分组 ≤ 3的患者更有可能出现根治术后Gleason分组升高。对活检Gleason评分为6的患者进一步分析发现,T分期和PSAD是根治术后Gleason评分升高的独立危险因素,且具有一定的预测价值。

文章引用

张金满,李九智. 前列腺根治性切除术后Gleason分组高于活检Gleason分组的相关因素
Factors Associated with a Higher Gleason Group after Radical Prostatectomy Compared to the Biopsy Gleason Group[J]. 临床医学进展, 2023, 13(12): 19442-19451. https://doi.org/10.12677/ACM.2023.13122738

参考文献

  1. 1. 郑荣寿, 孙可欣, 张思维, 等. 2015年中国恶性肿瘤流行情况分析[J]. 中华肿瘤杂志, 2019, 41(1): 19-28.

  2. 2. Mottet, N., Van Den Bergh, R.C.N., Briers, E., et al. (2021) EAU-EANM-ESTRO-ESUR-SIOG Guide-lines on Prostate Cancer-2020 Update. Part 1: Screening, Diagnosis, and Local Treatment with Curative Intent. European Urology, 79, 243-262. https://www.auajournals.org/doi/10.1097/JU.0000000000002757

  3. 3. Eastham, J.A., Auffenberg, G.B., Barocas, D.A., et al. (2022) Clinically Localized Prostate Cancer: AUA/ASTRO Guideline, Part I: In-troduction, Risk Assessment, Staging, and Risk-Based Management. Journal of Urology, 208, 10-18. https://doi.org/10.1097/JU.0000000000002757

  4. 4. 欧阳仪, 陈东, 李永红, 等. 根治性前列腺切除术后ISUP病理分级较前列腺穿刺病理分级升高的预测因素[J]. 中华泌尿外科杂志, 2020, 41(2): 114-119.

  5. 5. 李晓东, 瞿根义, 许宁, 等. ISUP版Gleason评分在前列腺癌根治术后评分升级的影响因素分析[J]. 中华男科学杂志, 2016, 22(5): 415-419.

  6. 6. 陈伟, 周鹏, 葛力源, 等. 前列腺癌根治术后Gleason评分升级相关危险因素分析[J]. 现代泌尿外科杂志, 2017, 22(6): 429-432.

  7. 7. Schreiber, D., Wong, A.T., Rineer, J., et al. (2015) Prostate Biopsy Con-cordance in a Large Population-Based Sample: A Surveillance, Epidemiology and End Results Study. Journal of Clinical Pathology, 68, 453-457. https://doi.org/10.1136/jclinpath-2014-202767

  8. 8. Zhang, B., Wu, S., Zhang, Y., Guo, M.Y. and Liu, R.L. (2021) Analysis of Risk Factors for Gleason Score Upgrading after Radical Prostatectomy in a Chinese Cohort. Cancer Medi-cine, 10, 7772-7780. https://doi.org/10.1002/cam4.4274

  9. 9. Liu, H., Tang, K., Xia, D., et al. (2020) Combined Multiple Clinical Characteristics for Prediction of Discordance in Grade and Stage in Prostate Cancer Patients Undergo-ing Systematic Biopsy and Radical Prostatectomy. Pathology—Research and Practice, 216, Article ID: 153235. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.prp.2020.153235

  10. 10. Thompson, D., Bensley, J.G., Tempo, J., et al. (2023) Long-Term Health-Related Quality of Life in Patients on Active Surveillance for Prostate Cancer: A Systematic Review. European Urology Oncology, 6, 4-15. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.euo.2022.09.001

  11. 11. Hamdy, F.C., Donovan, J.L., Lane, J.A., et al. (2016) 10-Year Outcomes after Monitoring, Surgery, or Radiotherapy for Localized Prostate Cancer. New England Journal of Medicine, 375, 1415-1424. https://doi.org/10.1056/NEJMoa1606220

  12. 12. Walker, C.H., Marchetti, K.A., Singhal, U. and Morgan, T.M. (2022) Active Surveillance for Prostate Cancer: Selection Criteria, Guidelines, and Outcomes. World Journal of Urology, 40, 35-42. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00345-021-03622-8

  13. 13. 赵明, 滕晓东, 何向蕾, 等. 2014年国际泌尿病理协会前列腺癌分级系统新进展和新的预后分组[J]. 中华病理学杂志, 2016, 45(10): 673-675.

  14. 14. Wang, X., Zhang, Y., Ji, Z., et al. (2020) Men with High Prostate Specific Antigen Have Higher Risk of Gleason Upgrading after Prostatectomy: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis. Urology Journal, 18, 477-484.

  15. 15. 王功伟, 沈丹华. 前列腺腺癌患者血清PSA水平对Gleason评分的预测价值[J]. 现代泌尿外科杂志, 2014, 19(10): 644-647, 657.

  16. 16. Press, B.H., Khajir, G., Ghabili, K., et al. (2021) Utility of PSA Density in Predicting Upgraded Gleason Score in Men on Active Surveil-lance with Negative MRI. Urology, 155, 96-100. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.urology.2021.05.035

  17. 17. 雷银, 吴汶钊, 李天杰, 等. 前列腺穿刺与前列腺癌根治术后Gleason评分的比较[J]. 现代泌尿生殖肿瘤杂志, 2020, 12(6): 338-342.

  18. 18. 阚霖, 崔军, 宋永胜. 前列腺癌根治术后病理升级的预测模型[J]. 中国男科学杂志, 2022, 36(4): 36-41, 46.

  19. 19. Wang, Y., Chen, X., Liu, K., et al. (2023) Predictive Factors for Gleason Score Upgrading in Patients with Prostate Cancer after Radical Prostatectomy: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis. Urologia Internationalis, 107, 460-479. https://doi.org/10.1159/000528873

  20. 20. Tewari, A.K., Stockert, J.A., Yadav, S.S., Yadav, K.K. and Khan, I. (2018) Inflammation and Prostate Cancer. Advances in Experimental Medicine and Biology, 1095, 41-65. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-95693-0_3

  21. 21. Ferro, M., Musi, G., Serino, A., et al. (2019) Neutrophil, Plate-lets, and Eosinophil to Lymphocyte Ratios Predict Gleason Score Upgrading in Low-Risk Prostate Cancer Patients. Urologia Internationalis, 102, 43-50. https://doi.org/10.1159/000494259

  22. 22. Karadağ, S., Ekşi, M., Özdemir, O., et al. (2021) Is Neutrophile to Lym-phocyte Ratio a Predictor of Gleason Score Upgrading According to Risk Classifications in Patients with Prostate Cancer. Archivos Espanoles De Urologia, 74, 599-605.

  23. NOTES

    *通讯作者。

期刊菜单