Literature DB >> 15712175

Current practice of Gleason grading among genitourinary pathologists.

Lars Egevad1, William C Allsbrook, Jonathan I Epstein.   

Abstract

There is consensus that the Gleason system should be used for grading of prostate cancer. However, a number of controversial issues remain as regards how this grading is applied. A questionnaire was sent to 91 genitourinary pathologists in countries around the world with the purpose to survey current practice of Gleason grading. The response rate was 74%, including 43 North American pathologists and 24 from other continents. Of all participants, only 13% and 36%, respectively, ever diagnosed a Gleason score (GS) of 2 to 3 or 4 on needle biopsies (NBX), and 88% of those who did so assigned a GS 4 to <1% of cancers. Cribriform Gleason pattern (GP) 3 was acknowledged by 88% but a majority of them would classify < or =20% of cribriform patterns as GP 3. One third only accepted cribriform or fusion patterns as GP 4, but two thirds also included incomplete or poorly defined glands. For GP 5 to be identified on NBX, 83% required clusters of individual cells, strands, or nests seen at less than x40 lens magnification. Only 26% defined GS on NBX as primary + tertiary GP, and a majority would mention a tertiary pattern separately. For NBX, global or highest GS was reported by 40% and 10%, respectively, whereas 46% only gave a separate GS for each individual NBX core. In conclusion, there is a need to standardize practical application of Gleason grading both in terms of interpretation of patterns as well as how grading is reported. Our survey data provide information to general pathologists about the most common grading practices among genitourinary pathologists.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2005        PMID: 15712175     DOI: 10.1016/j.humpath.2004.10.001

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


  13 in total

1.  [Gleason grading: diagnostic criteria and clinical implications].

Authors:  H Bonkhoff
Journal:  Pathologe       Date:  2005-11       Impact factor: 1.011

Review 2.  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

3.  The significance of modified Gleason grading of prostatic carcinoma in biopsy and radical prostatectomy specimens.

Authors:  Burkhard Helpap; Lars Egevad
Journal:  Virchows Arch       Date:  2006-11-08       Impact factor: 4.064

4.  Interactive digital slides with heat maps: a novel method to improve the reproducibility of Gleason grading.

Authors:  Lars Egevad; Ferran Algaba; Daniel M Berney; Liliane Boccon-Gibod; Eva Compérat; Andrew J Evans; Rainer Grobholz; Glen Kristiansen; Cord Langner; Gina Lockwood; Antonio Lopez-Beltran; Rodolfo Montironi; Pedro Oliveira; Matthias Schwenkglenks; Ben Vainer; Murali Varma; Vincent Verger; Philippe Camparo
Journal:  Virchows Arch       Date:  2011-06-23       Impact factor: 4.064

Review 5.  Current perspectives on Gleason grading of prostate cancer.

Authors:  Kenneth A Iczkowski; M Scott Lucia
Journal:  Curr Urol Rep       Date:  2011-06       Impact factor: 3.092

Review 6.  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

7.  Automated prostate tissue referencing for cancer detection and diagnosis.

Authors:  Jin Tae Kwak; Stephen M Hewitt; André Alexander Kajdacsy-Balla; Saurabh Sinha; Rohit Bhargava
Journal:  BMC Bioinformatics       Date:  2016-06-01       Impact factor: 3.169

8.  [Importance of second opinions on histology of prostate biopsy specimens].

Authors:  B Helpap; U Oehler
Journal:  Pathologe       Date:  2012-03       Impact factor: 1.011

9.  Digital quantification of five high-grade prostate cancer patterns, including the cribriform pattern, and their association with adverse outcome.

Authors:  Kenneth A Iczkowski; Kathleen C Torkko; Gregory R Kotnis; R Storey Wilson; Wei Huang; Thomas M Wheeler; Andrea M Abeyta; Francisco G La Rosa; Shelly Cook; Priya N Werahera; M Scott Lucia
Journal:  Am J Clin Pathol       Date:  2011-07       Impact factor: 2.493

Review 10.  Reproducibility and reliability of tumor grading in urological neoplasms.

Authors:  Rainer Engers
Journal:  World J Urol       Date:  2007-09-09       Impact factor: 4.226

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.