OBJECTIVES: To assess the discrepancies between diagnostic and pathologic Gleason sums and the predictive role of age and prostate-specific antigen (PSA) level on Gleason sum discrepancies. METHODS: A total of 2963 patients receiving radical prostatectomy at Duke University from 1988 to 2006 were divided into two groups according to year of diagnosis: 1988 to 1999 and 2000 to 2006. The Gleason sum discrepancies were evaluated in the above groups. The predictive roles of diagnostic age (less than 50, 50 to 60, 60.1 to 70, and greater than 70 years), PSA level (less than 10, 10 to 20, and greater than 20 ng/mL), race, body mass index, and prostate weight on the discrepancies were analyzed. RESULTS: Overall, 55.8% of diagnostic Gleason sums differed from those on final surgical pathology (58.6% in the 1988 to 1999 and 49.3% in the 2000 to 2006 groups). Diagnostic Gleason sums were undergraded in 41.2% of cases and overgraded in 12.8% of cases. Men older than 60 years were more likely to have their diagnostic Gleason sums undergraded than men younger than 50 (odds ratio in age groups less than 50, 50 to 60, 60.1 to 70, and greater than 70 years: 1.00, 2.30, 4.03, and 3.96, respectively). Biopsy Gleason sums in men with a high PSA level were more likely to be undergraded compared with the PSA group less than 10 ng/mL (odds ratio in PSA groups less than 10, 10 to 20, and greater than 20 ng/mL: 1.00, 2.11, and 3.64, respectively). CONCLUSIONS: Significant discrepancies between diagnostic and pathologic Gleason sums remain in recent years. The rate of diagnostic Gleason sum undergrading was 3.2-fold that of overgrading. Advanced age and high PSA level were predictive of diagnostic Gleason sum undergrading, and caution should be exercised when recommending active surveillance in older men.
OBJECTIVES: To assess the discrepancies between diagnostic and pathologic Gleason sums and the predictive role of age and prostate-specific antigen (PSA) level on Gleason sum discrepancies. METHODS: A total of 2963 patients receiving radical prostatectomy at Duke University from 1988 to 2006 were divided into two groups according to year of diagnosis: 1988 to 1999 and 2000 to 2006. The Gleason sum discrepancies were evaluated in the above groups. The predictive roles of diagnostic age (less than 50, 50 to 60, 60.1 to 70, and greater than 70 years), PSA level (less than 10, 10 to 20, and greater than 20 ng/mL), race, body mass index, and prostate weight on the discrepancies were analyzed. RESULTS: Overall, 55.8% of diagnostic Gleason sums differed from those on final surgical pathology (58.6% in the 1988 to 1999 and 49.3% in the 2000 to 2006 groups). Diagnostic Gleason sums were undergraded in 41.2% of cases and overgraded in 12.8% of cases. Men older than 60 years were more likely to have their diagnostic Gleason sums undergraded than men younger than 50 (odds ratio in age groups less than 50, 50 to 60, 60.1 to 70, and greater than 70 years: 1.00, 2.30, 4.03, and 3.96, respectively). Biopsy Gleason sums in men with a high PSA level were more likely to be undergraded compared with the PSA group less than 10 ng/mL (odds ratio in PSA groups less than 10, 10 to 20, and greater than 20 ng/mL: 1.00, 2.11, and 3.64, respectively). CONCLUSIONS: Significant discrepancies between diagnostic and pathologic Gleason sums remain in recent years. The rate of diagnostic Gleason sum undergrading was 3.2-fold that of overgrading. Advanced age and high PSA level were predictive of diagnostic Gleason sum undergrading, and caution should be exercised when recommending active surveillance in older men.
Authors: Denong Wang; Laila Dafik; Rosalie Nolley; Wei Huang; Russell D Wolfinger; Lai-Xi Wang; Donna M Peehl Journal: Drug Dev Res Date: 2013-03 Impact factor: 4.360
Authors: Ali H Alhasan; Alexander W Scott; Jia J Wu; Gang Feng; Joshua J Meeks; C Shad Thaxton; Chad A Mirkin Journal: Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A Date: 2016-09-06 Impact factor: 11.205
Authors: Antonio B Porcaro; Salvatore Siracusano; Nicolò de Luyk; Paolo Corsi; Marco Sebben; Alessandro Tafuri; Daniele Mattevi; Leonardo Bizzotto; Irene Tamanini; Maria A Cerruto; Guido Martignoni; Matteo Brunelli; Walter Artibani Journal: Curr Urol Date: 2017-07-30
Authors: John A Onofrey; Lawrence H Staib; Saradwata Sarkar; Rajesh Venkataraman; Cayce B Nawaf; Preston C Sprenkle; Xenophon Papademetris Journal: Med Image Anal Date: 2017-04-12 Impact factor: 8.545
Authors: Geoffrey A Sonn; Shyam Natarajan; Daniel J A Margolis; Malu MacAiran; Patricia Lieu; Jiaoti Huang; Frederick J Dorey; Leonard S Marks Journal: J Urol Date: 2012-11-14 Impact factor: 7.450
Authors: A V Taira; G S Merrick; R W Galbreath; H Andreini; W Taubenslag; R Curtis; W M Butler; E Adamovich; K E Wallner Journal: Prostate Cancer Prostatic Dis Date: 2009-09-29 Impact factor: 5.554