Literature DB >> 14562287

Should each core with prostate cancer be assigned a separate gleason score?

George M Kunz1, Jonathan I Epstein.   

Abstract

If multiple biopsy cores contain prostate cancer with differing Gleason scores, should an overall Gleason score be assigned, or should each core be graded separately? We obtained data on 127 men with prostate cancer on needle biopsy who underwent subsequent radical prostatectomy at our institution. We compared the Gleason scores found on needle biopsy with the grade and stage (organ-confined, extra-prostatic extension, positive seminal vesicles or lymph nodes) at radical prostatectomy. On biopsy, 40 men had a pure Gleason score of 4 + 3 = 7, 25 men had a Gleason score of 4 + 3 = 7 with a Gleason score of 3 + 3 = 6 on a separate core of the biopsy specimen, 27 men had a pure Gleason score of 4 + 4 = 8, and 35 men had a Gleason score of 4 + 4 = 8 with separate cores containing Gleason pattern grade 3. A Gleason score of 4 + 4 = 8 with pattern grade 3 in other cores had a more advanced stage than a pure Gleason score of 4 + 3 = 7 (P = 0.008). There was no clear pattern analyzing pathological stage of men with a pure Gleason score of 4 + 3 = 7 in comparison with those with Gleason scores of 4 + 3 = 7 and 3 + 3 = 6 in other cores. The group with a Gleason score of 4 + 4 = 8 and Gleason pattern grade 3 on other cores had a higher overall grade on radical prostatectomy than the group with a pure Gleason score of 4 + 3 = 7 (P = 0.001). If one had assigned an overall Gleason score, then a biopsy with Gleason score 4 + 4 = 8 on 1 or more cores and some pattern grade 3 in other cores, would be designated as a Gleason score of 4 + 3 = 7. Based on our findings, patients with a Gleason score of 4 + 4 = 8 on one or more cores with pattern grade 3 in other cores should be given a final Gleason score of 4 + 4 = 8 instead of 4 + 3 = 7, because these patients are more likely to have higher stage and grade on radical prostatectomy, comparable to a pure Gleason score of 4 + 4 = 8. Each core should be assigned a separate Gleason score, especially in cases with high Gleason score cancer on at least 1 core.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2003        PMID: 14562287     DOI: 10.1016/s0046-8177(03)00338-1

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Hum Pathol        ISSN: 0046-8177            Impact factor:   3.466


  6 in total

Review 1.  Current practice of Gleason grading of prostate carcinoma.

Authors:  Antonio Lopez-Beltran; Gregor Mikuz; Rafael J Luque; Roberta Mazzucchelli; Rodolfo Montironi
Journal:  Virchows Arch       Date:  2005-11-23       Impact factor: 4.064

2.  Predicting the Gleason sum of a patient with a prostate biopsy core Gleason ≤7 and a prostate biopsy core Gleason ≥8.

Authors:  Olivier P Heimrath; Zuzana Kos; Eric C Belanger; Ilias Cagiannos; Chris Morash; Ronald G Gerridzen; Luke T Lavallée; Mark A Preston; Kelsey Witiuk; Rodney H Breau
Journal:  Can Urol Assoc J       Date:  2014-07       Impact factor: 1.862

3.  Overall and worst gleason scores are equally good predictors of prostate cancer progression.

Authors:  Teemu T Tolonen; Paula M Kujala; Teuvo L J Tammela; Vilppu J Tuominen; Jorma J Isola; Tapio Visakorpi
Journal:  BMC Urol       Date:  2011-10-06       Impact factor: 2.264

4.  Validation of a contemporary prostate cancer grading system using prostate cancer death as outcome.

Authors:  Daniel M Berney; Luis Beltran; Gabrielle Fisher; Bernard V North; David Greenberg; Henrik Møller; Geraldine Soosay; Peter Scardino; Jack Cuzick
Journal:  Br J Cancer       Date:  2016-04-21       Impact factor: 7.640

Review 5.  Grading of prostatic adenocarcinoma: current state and prognostic implications.

Authors:  Jennifer Gordetsky; Jonathan Epstein
Journal:  Diagn Pathol       Date:  2016-03-09       Impact factor: 2.644

6.  The 2019 International Society of Urological Pathology (ISUP) Consensus Conference on Grading of Prostatic Carcinoma.

Authors:  Geert J L H van Leenders; Theodorus H van der Kwast; David J Grignon; Andrew J Evans; Glen Kristiansen; Charlotte F Kweldam; Geert Litjens; Jesse K McKenney; Jonathan Melamed; Nicholas Mottet; Gladell P Paner; Hemamali Samaratunga; Ivo G Schoots; Jeffry P Simko; Toyonori Tsuzuki; Murali Varma; Anne Y Warren; Thomas M Wheeler; Sean R Williamson; Kenneth A Iczkowski
Journal:  Am J Surg Pathol       Date:  2020-08       Impact factor: 6.298

  6 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.