Literature DB >> 18341718

Gleason score as predictor of clinicopathologic findings and biochemical (PSA) progression following radical prostatectomy.

Marbele S Guimaraes1, Maisa M Quintal, Luciana R Meirelles, Luis A Magna, Ubirajara Ferreira, Athanase Billis.   

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: There is evidence showing that Gleason grading of prostatic adenocarcinoma is one of the most powerful predictors of biological behavior and one of the most influential factors used to determine treatment for prostate cancer. The aim of the current study was to compare the Gleason score for needle biopsy to the Gleason score for the correspondent surgical specimen, find any possible difference in the biochemical (PSA) progression following surgery in upgraded cases, correlate Gleason score in the specimens to several clinicopathologic variables, and compare outcomes between patients with low-grade vs. high-grade Gleason and Gleason scores 3+4 vs. 4+3.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: The study population consisted of 200 consecutive patients submitted to radical prostatectomy. Biochemical progression was defined as PSA > or = 0.2 ng/mL. Time to PSA progression was studied using the Kaplan-Meier product-limit analysis.
RESULTS: In 47.1% of the cases, there was an exact correlation and 40.6% of cases were underestimated in the biopsies. Half of the tumors graded Gleason 6 at biopsy were Gleason score 7 at surgery. These upgraded tumors had outcomes similar to tumors with Gleason score 7 in both biopsy and surgery. There was a positive correlation of high-grade Gleason score in the surgical specimens to higher preoperative PSA, more extensive tumors, positive margins and more advanced pathologic staging. Tumors with a Gleason score > or = 7 have lower PSA progression-free survival vs. Gleason scores < 7. In this series, there was no significant difference when comparing Gleason scores of 3+4 vs. 4+3.
CONCLUSIONS: The findings support the importance of Gleason grading for nomograms, which are used by clinicians to counsel individual patients and help them make important decisions regarding their disease.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2008        PMID: 18341718     DOI: 10.1590/s1677-55382008000100005

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Int Braz J Urol        ISSN: 1677-5538            Impact factor:   1.541


  5 in total

Review 1.  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

2.  TMPRSS2-ERG gene fusion is associated with low Gleason scores and not with high-grade morphological features.

Authors:  Samson W Fine; Anuradha Gopalan; Margaret A Leversha; Hikmat A Al-Ahmadie; Satish K Tickoo; Qin Zhou; Jaya M Satagopan; Peter T Scardino; William L Gerald; Victor E Reuter
Journal:  Mod Pathol       Date:  2010-06-18       Impact factor: 7.842

3.  Impact of the primary Gleason pattern on biochemical recurrence-free survival after radical prostatectomy: a single-center cohort of 1,248 patients with Gleason 7 tumors.

Authors:  Olivier Alenda; Guillaume Ploussard; Pascal Mouracade; Evanguelos Xylinas; Alexandre de la Taille; Yves Allory; Dimitri Vordos; Andras Hoznek; Claude Clement Abbou; Laurent Salomon
Journal:  World J Urol       Date:  2010-11-24       Impact factor: 4.226

4.  Prostate hyperplasia in St Mary's Hospital Lacor: utility of prostate specific antigen in screening for prostate malignancy.

Authors:  Ronald Okidi; Cyprian Opira; Vanusa Da Consolação Sambo; Caroline Achola; David Martin Ogwang
Journal:  Afr Health Sci       Date:  2020-09       Impact factor: 0.927

5.  Determining relative importance of variables in developing and validating predictive models.

Authors:  Joseph Beyene; Eshetu G Atenafu; Jemila S Hamid; Teresa To; Lillian Sung
Journal:  BMC Med Res Methodol       Date:  2009-09-14       Impact factor: 4.615

  5 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.