OBJECTIVE: To examine data on the changes in the accuracy of the diagnosis of prostate cancer and of Gleason grading in the modern era. PATIENTS AND METHODS: The study comprised a pathological review within a multicentre study of patients with clinically localized prostate cancer diagnosed in the UK from 1991 to 1996 (inclusive) and treated by watchful-waiting or hormonal therapy alone. The clinical follow-up was available, histopathological appearances were reviewed and the Gleason score at diagnosis was compared with the Gleason score as analysed by a panel of genitourinary pathologists using internationally agreed criteria. In all, 1789 patients diagnosed with prostate cancer between 1991 and 1996 were reviewed, with disease-specific survival as the main outcome measure. RESULTS: In all, 133 patients (7%) were reassigned a nonmalignant diagnosis. There was a significant reassignment in the Gleason score for those with cancer, with increases of Gleason score across a wide spectrum. In multivariate analysis the revised Gleason score was a more accurate predictor of prognosis than the original score. CONCLUSION: Misdiagnosis and reassignment of Gleason score at diagnosis would have guided clinicians into large-scale changes in the management of patients. Current rates of misdiagnosis are unknown. If applicable nationally, these changes would have profound effects on the workload of prostate cancer management in the UK.
OBJECTIVE: To examine data on the changes in the accuracy of the diagnosis of prostate cancer and of Gleason grading in the modern era. PATIENTS AND METHODS: The study comprised a pathological review within a multicentre study of patients with clinically localized prostate cancer diagnosed in the UK from 1991 to 1996 (inclusive) and treated by watchful-waiting or hormonal therapy alone. The clinical follow-up was available, histopathological appearances were reviewed and the Gleason score at diagnosis was compared with the Gleason score as analysed by a panel of genitourinary pathologists using internationally agreed criteria. In all, 1789 patients diagnosed with prostate cancer between 1991 and 1996 were reviewed, with disease-specific survival as the main outcome measure. RESULTS: In all, 133 patients (7%) were reassigned a nonmalignant diagnosis. There was a significant reassignment in the Gleason score for those with cancer, with increases of Gleason score across a wide spectrum. In multivariate analysis the revised Gleason score was a more accurate predictor of prognosis than the original score. CONCLUSION: Misdiagnosis and reassignment of Gleason score at diagnosis would have guided clinicians into large-scale changes in the management of patients. Current rates of misdiagnosis are unknown. If applicable nationally, these changes would have profound effects on the workload of prostate cancer management in the UK.
Authors: Hillary M Ross; Oleksandr N Kryvenko; Janet E Cowan; Jeffry P Simko; Thomas M Wheeler; Jonathan I Epstein Journal: Am J Surg Pathol Date: 2012-09 Impact factor: 6.394
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
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
Authors: Anita V Mitra; Elizabeth K Bancroft; Yolanda Barbachano; Elizabeth C Page; C S Foster; C Jameson; G Mitchell; G J Lindeman; A Stapleton; G Suthers; D G Evans; D Cruger; I Blanco; C Mercer; J Kirk; L Maehle; S Hodgson; L Walker; L Izatt; F Douglas; K Tucker; H Dorkins; V Clowes; A Male; A Donaldson; C Brewer; R Doherty; B Bulman; P J Osther; M Salinas; D Eccles; K Axcrona; I Jobson; B Newcombe; C Cybulski; W S Rubinstein; S Buys; S Townshend; E Friedman; S Domchek; T Ramon Y Cajal; A Spigelman; S H Teo; N Nicolai; N Aaronson; A Ardern-Jones; C Bangma; D Dearnaley; J Eyfjord; A Falconer; H Grönberg; F Hamdy; O Johannsson; V Khoo; Z Kote-Jarai; H Lilja; J Lubinski; J Melia; C Moynihan; S Peock; G Rennert; F Schröder; P Sibley; M Suri; P Wilson; Y J Bignon; S Strom; M Tischkowitz; A Liljegren; D Ilencikova; A Abele; K Kyriacou; C van Asperen; L Kiemeney; D F Easton; Rosalind A Eeles Journal: BJU Int Date: 2010-09-14 Impact factor: 5.588
Authors: Athanase Billis; Maisa M Q Quintal; Luciana Meirelles; Leandro L L Freitas; Larissa B E Costa; João F L Bonfitto; Betina L Diniz; Paola H Poletto; Luís A Magna; Ubirajara Ferreira Journal: Int Urol Nephrol Date: 2013-10-06 Impact factor: 2.370
Authors: Anita Mitra; Charles Jameson; Yolanda Barbachano; Lydia Sanchez; Zsofia Kote-Jarai; Susan Peock; Nayanta Sodha; Elizabeth Bancroft; Anne Fletcher; Colin Cooper; Douglas Easton; Rosalind Eeles; Christopher S Foster Journal: Histopathology Date: 2009-12 Impact factor: 5.087
Authors: Jennifer R Stark; Sven Perner; Meir J Stampfer; Jennifer A Sinnott; Stephen Finn; Anna S Eisenstein; Jing Ma; Michelangelo Fiorentino; Tobias Kurth; Massimo Loda; Edward L Giovannucci; Mark A Rubin; Lorelei A Mucci Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2009-05-11 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: C S Foster; A R Dodson; L Ambroisine; G Fisher; H Møller; J Clark; G Attard; J De-Bono; P Scardino; V E Reuter; C S Cooper; D M Berney; J Cuzick Journal: Br J Cancer Date: 2009-08-25 Impact factor: 7.640