Literature DB >> 11180133

Patterns of prostate cancer biopsy grading: trends and clinical implications.

C R King1.   

Abstract

The predictive value of Gleason grading from prostate needle biopsy was examined and the patterns of grade discordance with surgical specimens are discussed in terms of their clinical implications. Gleason scores from biopsy and matched radical prostatectomy specimens were compared in 428 consecutive patients. Patterns of concordance were examined with respect to numerical agreement as well as to whether differences result in a change in group assignment with respect to Gleason score group 2-4, 5-6, 7, and 8-10. The coefficient of agreement, kappa, and accuracy were used to measure predictive value. An exact Gleason score match was present in 41% of the cases, while 48% were undergraded and 17% overgraded. With respect to group assignment, 51% remained unchanged while 35% were undergraded and 14% overgraded. Kappa analysis yielded a value of 0.26, which represents a poor agreement beyond chance. A Gleason score of 5-6, 7, or 8 was reproduced in 52%, 53%, and 58% of cases, respectively. A systematic bias toward progressive undergrading of more well-differentiated cancers and overgrading of more poorly differentiated cancers on biopsy is suggested by the data. A pooled analysis with nine additional series (n = 2,687) confirms this conclusion. No correlation was found between the amount of tumor in the biopsy specimen and grade discordance. Biases in pathologic interpretation and sampling effects are suggested as responsible for grade discordance. Predictable differences exist between the histologic grade in prostate needle biopsies and the surgical specimen. Clinical staging of organ-confined prostate cancer should include the likelihood of histologic upgrading or downgrading when used to stratify patients for clinical trials, in comparing results among therapies based on biopsy grading and when recommending a radical therapy. Developing a methodology which reduces both sampling effects and pathologic interpretation bias would likely result in significantly improved accuracy of Gleason grading of prostate biopsies. Int. J. Cancer (Radiat. Oncol. Invest.) 90, 305-311 (2000). Copyright 2000 Wiley-Liss, Inc.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2000        PMID: 11180133     DOI: 10.1002/1097-0215(20001220)90:6<305::aid-ijc1>3.0.co;2-u

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Int J Cancer        ISSN: 0020-7136            Impact factor:   7.396


  19 in total

Review 1.  When prostate cancer remains undetectable: The dilemma.

Authors:  Mahmoud Othman Mustafa; Louis Pisters
Journal:  Turk J Urol       Date:  2015-03

2.  The influence of expertise of the surgical pathologist to undergrading, upgrading, and understaging of prostate cancer in patients undergoing subsequent radical prostatectomy.

Authors:  Attila Majoros; Attila Marcell Szász; Péter Nyirády; Eszter Székely; Péter Riesz; Attila Szendrői; Attila Keszthelyi; Janina Kulka; Imre Romics
Journal:  Int Urol Nephrol       Date:  2013-08-30       Impact factor: 2.370

3.  The value of second-opinion pathology diagnoses on prostate biopsies from patients referred for management of prostate cancer.

Authors:  Al B Barqawi; Ruslan Turcanu; Eduard J Gamito; Scott M Lucia; Colin I O'Donnell; E David Crawford; David D La Rosa; Francisco G La Rosa
Journal:  Int J Clin Exp Pathol       Date:  2011-06-12

4.  Predictors of Gleason Score (GS) upgrading on subsequent prostatectomy: a single Institution study in a cohort of patients with GS 6.

Authors:  Vikas Mehta; Kevin Rycyna; Bart M M Baesens; Güliz A Barkan; Gladell P Paner; Robert C Flanigan; Eva M Wojcik; Girish Venkataraman
Journal:  Int J Clin Exp Pathol       Date:  2012-07-29

Review 5.  Correlation between Gleason Scores in Needle Biopsy and Corresponding Radical Prostatectomy Specimens: A Twelve-Year Review.

Authors:  Maliheh Khoddami; Yassaman Khademi; Maryam Kazemi Aghdam; Haleh Soltanghoraee
Journal:  Iran J Pathol       Date:  2016

6.  Investigating the ability of multiparametric MRI to exclude significant prostate cancer prior to transperineal biopsy.

Authors:  Eva M Serrao; Tristan Barrett; Karan Wadhwa; Deepak Parashar; Julia Frey; Brendan C Koo; Anne Y Warren; Andrew Doble; Christof Kastner; Ferdia A Gallagher
Journal:  Can Urol Assoc J       Date:  2015-12-14       Impact factor: 1.862

7.  Pathologic correlation of transperineal in-bore 3-Tesla magnetic resonance imaging-guided prostate biopsy samples with radical prostatectomy specimen.

Authors:  Erik Velez; Andriy Fedorov; Kemal Tuncali; Olutayo Olubiyi; Christopher B Allard; Adam S Kibel; Clare M Tempany
Journal:  Abdom Radiol (NY)       Date:  2017-08

8.  Upgrading and downgrading of prostate needle biopsy specimens: risk factors and clinical implications.

Authors:  Stephen J Freedland; Christopher J Kane; Christopher L Amling; William J Aronson; Martha K Terris; Joseph C Presti
Journal:  Urology       Date:  2007-03       Impact factor: 2.649

9.  Pathological correlation between needle biopsy and radical prostatectomy specimen in patients with localized prostate cancer.

Authors:  Muhammad A Bulbul; Yaser El-Hout; Maurice Haddad; Ayman Tawil; Ali Houjaij; Nizar Bou Diab; Oussama Darwish
Journal:  Can Urol Assoc J       Date:  2007-09       Impact factor: 1.862

10.  Gleason grading challenges in the diagnosis of prostate adenocarcinoma: experience of a single institution.

Authors:  Sonja D Chen; Joseph L Fava; Ali Amin
Journal:  Virchows Arch       Date:  2015-11-12       Impact factor: 4.064

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.