Effect of Level of Urology Training on Gleason Score and Prostate Volume Estimation Agreement between Transrectal Ultrasound Guided Biopsy and Radical Prostatectomy Specimen

Abstract

IntroductionTransrectal ultrasound guided prostate biopsy may be performed by operators with various levels of training. Little is known about the impact of training level on biopsy results. We evaluated the effect of training level on the accuracy of transrectal ultrasound guided prostate biopsy findings. MethodsWe retrospectively reviewed 500 consecutive patients who underwent transrectal ultrasound guided prostate biopsy and subsequent radical prostatectomy. Transrectal ultrasound operators were stratified based on level of training as junior, senior, chief, fellow or staff. Linear regression was performed to analyze the effect of training level on volume estimates. A weighted Kappa statistic evaluated agreement between biopsy and pathological Gleason scores while an adjusted cumulative logistic regression model analyzed the effects of training level. ResultsA total of 482 patients were included in the final analysis. Transrectal ultrasound guided biopsy was performed by staff in 78 (16%) patients, by fellows in 18 (4%), chief residents in 48 (10%), senior residents in 126 (26%) and junior residents in 212 (44%). There was no significant difference between transrectal ultrasound and radical prostatectomy specimen volume estimates among the training levels. Level of training was not significantly associated with pathological features, including Gleason score, primary Gleason grade, highest single Gleason grade and estimated tumor volume. Study limitations include the retrospective design and the variability among members of the same group. ConclusionsAgreement between biopsy and pathological Gleason scores is high for all levels of training. Training level has no impact on prostate volume estimations or the prediction of pathological features.