Literature DB >> 15160339

Heterogeneity of Gleason grade in multifocal adenocarcinoma of the prostate.

Rebecca Arora1, Michael O Koch, John N Eble, Thomas M Ulbright, Lang Li, Liang Cheng.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: The Gleason grading system uniquely combines data from different areas of carcinoma in the same prostate specimen. Prostatic adenocarcinoma often is multifocal, and different Gleason grades may be present in different foci. The current study was undertaken to compare the Gleason grades of individual adenocarcinoma foci in a given specimen with the overall Gleason grades (primary and secondary) of that specimen.
METHODS: Data were obtained from 115 consecutive radical prostatectomy specimens via whole-mount processing and complete sectioning. Diagrams were constructed by tracing the outline of each whole-mount section, and tumor maps subsequently were generated. The largest focus was considered the index tumor. Each prostatectomy specimen was assigned primary and secondary Gleason grades, and each tumor focus was assigned its own primary and secondary Gleason grades. Tumor volume was measured using the grid method.
RESULTS: Two or more adenocarcinoma foci were present in 87% of all specimens (2 foci, n = 20; 3 foci, n = 33; 4 foci, n = 17; 5 foci, n = 13; > 5 foci, n = 17). Specimens (n = 15) containing a single tumor were excluded from further analysis. Among the remaining specimens (n = 100), all tumor foci had Gleason grades that were the same as the corresponding overall Gleason grades in only 9 cases (9%). The Gleason score (i.e., the sum of the primary and secondary grades) of the index tumor was correlated with the overall Gleason score in 68% of specimens. The primary grade of the index tumor was the same as the overall primary grade in 97 specimens, whereas the secondary grade of the index tumor was the same as the overall secondary grade in only 68 specimens. The primary and secondary grades of the index tumor, compared with the overall Gleason primary and secondary grades, were reversed in 17 specimens.
CONCLUSIONS: The findings of the current study demonstrated the histologic heterogeneity of multifocal prostate malignancies. Although the Gleason grading system was used to determine an overall score for prostate carcinoma within a specimen, the scores of individual tumors, including index tumors, often did not agree with this overall score. These findings may have implications with respect to future biomarker and tissue array studies. Copyright 2004 American Cancer Society.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2004        PMID: 15160339     DOI: 10.1002/cncr.20243

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Cancer        ISSN: 0008-543X            Impact factor:   6.860


  72 in total

1.  Molecular sampling of prostate cancer: a dilemma for predicting disease progression.

Authors:  Andrea Sboner; Francesca Demichelis; Stefano Calza; Yudi Pawitan; Sunita R Setlur; Yujin Hoshida; Sven Perner; Hans-Olov Adami; Katja Fall; Lorelei A Mucci; Philip W Kantoff; Meir Stampfer; Swen-Olof Andersson; Eberhard Varenhorst; Jan-Erik Johansson; Mark B Gerstein; Todd R Golub; Mark A Rubin; Ove Andrén
Journal:  BMC Med Genomics       Date:  2010-03-16       Impact factor: 3.063

2.  Frequency of the TMPRSS2:ERG gene fusion is increased in moderate to poorly differentiated prostate cancers.

Authors:  Ashish B Rajput; Melinda A Miller; Alessandro De Luca; Niki Boyd; Sam Leung; Antonio Hurtado-Coll; Ladan Fazli; Edward C Jones; Jodie B Palmer; Martin E Gleave; Michael E Cox; David G Huntsman
Journal:  J Clin Pathol       Date:  2007-01-26       Impact factor: 3.411

3.  Multiparametric MRI maps for detection and grading of dominant prostate tumors.

Authors:  Mehdi Moradi; Septimiu E Salcudean; Silvia D Chang; Edward C Jones; Nicholas Buchan; Rowan G Casey; S Larry Goldenberg; Piotr Kozlowski
Journal:  J Magn Reson Imaging       Date:  2012-01-20       Impact factor: 4.813

4.  Total intraglandular and index tumor volumes predict biochemical recurrence in prostate cancer.

Authors:  Su-Jin Shin; Cheol Keun Park; Sung Yoon Park; Won Sik Jang; Joo Yong Lee; Young Deuk Choi; Nam Hoon Cho
Journal:  Virchows Arch       Date:  2016-06-15       Impact factor: 4.064

5.  TMPRSS2-ERG fusion heterogeneity in multifocal prostate cancer: clinical and biologic implications.

Authors:  Marc Barry; Sven Perner; Francesca Demichelis; Mark A Rubin
Journal:  Urology       Date:  2007-10       Impact factor: 2.649

Review 6.  Oncogenic gene fusions in epithelial carcinomas.

Authors:  John R Prensner; Arul M Chinnaiyan
Journal:  Curr Opin Genet Dev       Date:  2009-02-21       Impact factor: 5.578

7.  ERG rearrangement metastasis patterns in locally advanced prostate cancer.

Authors:  Sven Perner; Maria A Svensson; Ruhella R Hossain; John R Day; Jack Groskopf; Ryan C Slaughter; Analee R Jarleborn; Matthias D Hofer; Rainer Kuefer; Francesca Demichelis; David S Rickman; Mark A Rubin
Journal:  Urology       Date:  2010-04       Impact factor: 2.649

Review 8.  Recurrent gene fusions in prostate cancer.

Authors:  Chandan Kumar-Sinha; Scott A Tomlins; Arul M Chinnaiyan
Journal:  Nat Rev Cancer       Date:  2008-06-19       Impact factor: 60.716

Review 9.  Pathologic basis of focal therapy for early-stage prostate cancer.

Authors:  Vladimir Mouraviev; Janice M Mayes; Thomas J Polascik
Journal:  Nat Rev Urol       Date:  2009-04       Impact factor: 14.432

10.  Parameters predicting postoperative unilateral disease in patients with unilateral prostate cancer in diagnostic biopsy: a rationale for selecting hemiablative focal therapy candidates.

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

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.