Literature DB >> 11180135

Prostate biopsy grading errors: a sampling problem?

C R King1, J P Long.   

Abstract

Potential reasons for discordance between the Gleason score in biopsies and surgical specimens are: 1) pathological interpretation bias, and 2) sampling effects. The importance of sampling effects in grading errors was examined in a series where the number of biopsy cores obtained was high. Biopsies were obtained using a technique whereby 18 directed cores were systematically obtained and mapped out within the gland. Gleason scores from biopsies and matched prostatectomy specimens were compared among 28 consecutive patients with localized prostate cancer. A pooled database from 10 series (n = 2,687) served as a baseline for comparison in the accuracy of Gleason score grading. With the present biopsy technique, an exact Gleason score match was achieved in 57% of cases, compared with the pooled database (PD) mean of 42% (P = 0.055), and was within 1 point in 93% of cases compared with 78% (PD) (P = 0.029). Upgrading of biopsies was seen in 35% of cases, compared with 43% (PD) (P = 0.19). With respect to Gleason score 7, an exact match was present in 78% of cases, compared with 63% (PD) (P = 0.17), and upgrading was 0%, compared with 20% (PD) (P = 0.07). The data suggest a significant reduction in grade errors by minimizing sampling effects, one that it is of the same order of magnitude as the reduction achieved from consensus pathologic evaluation. In our study, seven patients (25%) would have had their cancers missed altogether with sextant biopsies. Sampling effects may contribute significantly to grading errors in prostate needle biopsies, although a larger study is needed to confirm this. A methodology which adopts a higher number of cores combined with a consensus pathologic evaluation could potentially reduce grading errors substantially. The optimal number of cores remains to be determined in a larger study. Int. J. Cancer (Radiat. Oncol. Invest.) 90, 326-330 (2000). Copyright 2000 Wiley-Liss, Inc.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2000        PMID: 11180135     DOI: 10.1002/1097-0215(20001220)90:6<326::aid-ijc3>3.0.co;2-j

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


  26 in total

1.  Utility of Single-Cell Genomics in Diagnostic Evaluation of Prostate Cancer.

Authors:  Joan Alexander; Jude Kendall; Jean McIndoo; Linda Rodgers; Robert Aboukhalil; Dan Levy; Asya Stepansky; Guoli Sun; Lubomir Chobardjiev; Michael Riggs; Hilary Cox; Inessa Hakker; Dawid G Nowak; Juliana Laze; Elton Llukani; Abhishek Srivastava; Siobhan Gruschow; Shalini S Yadav; Brian Robinson; Gurinder Atwal; Lloyd C Trotman; Herbert Lepor; James Hicks; Michael Wigler; Alexander Krasnitz
Journal:  Cancer Res       Date:  2017-11-27       Impact factor: 12.701

2.  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

Review 3.  Histopathological image analysis: a review.

Authors:  Metin N Gurcan; Laura E Boucheron; Ali Can; Anant Madabhushi; Nasir M Rajpoot; B Yener
Journal:  IEEE Rev Biomed Eng       Date:  2009-10-30

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

5.  Magnetic resonance imaging-ultrasound fusion biopsy for prediction of final prostate pathology.

Authors:  Jesse D Le; Samuel Stephenson; Michelle Brugger; David Y Lu; Patricia Lieu; Geoffrey A Sonn; Shyam Natarajan; Frederick J Dorey; Jiaoti Huang; Daniel J A Margolis; Robert E Reiter; Leonard S Marks
Journal:  J Urol       Date:  2014-05-01       Impact factor: 7.450

6.  A multicentric study on accurate grading of prostate cancer with systematic and MRI/US fusion targeted biopsies: comparison with final histopathology after radical prostatectomy.

Authors:  R Diamand; M Oderda; W Al Hajj Obeid; S Albisinni; R Van Velthoven; G Fasolis; G Simone; M Ferriero; J-B Roche; T Piechaud; A Pastore; A Carbone; G Fiard; J-L Descotes; G Marra; P Gontero; E Altobelli; R Papalia; P Kumar; D Eldred-Evans; A Giacobbe; G Muto; V Lacetera; V Beatrici; T Roumeguere; A Peltier
Journal:  World J Urol       Date:  2019-01-16       Impact factor: 4.226

7.  Automatic classification of prostate cancer Gleason scores from multiparametric magnetic resonance images.

Authors:  Duc Fehr; Harini Veeraraghavan; Andreas Wibmer; Tatsuo Gondo; Kazuhiro Matsumoto; Herbert Alberto Vargas; Evis Sala; Hedvig Hricak; Joseph O Deasy
Journal:  Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A       Date:  2015-11-02       Impact factor: 11.205

8.  Clinical and pathological variables that predict changes in tumour grade after radical prostatectomy in patients with prostate cancer.

Authors:  Stavros Sfoungaristos; Petros Perimenis
Journal:  Can Urol Assoc J       Date:  2013 Jan-Feb       Impact factor: 1.862

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.  Prediction of prostate cancer recurrence using magnetic resonance imaging and molecular profiles.

Authors:  Amita Shukla-Dave; Hedvig Hricak; Nicole Ishill; Chaya S Moskowitz; Marija Drobnjak; Victor E Reuter; Kristen L Zakian; Peter T Scardino; Carlos Cordon-Cardo
Journal:  Clin Cancer Res       Date:  2009-05-12       Impact factor: 12.531

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.