Literature DB >> 19144380

Multiple prostate cancer cores with different Gleason grades submitted in the same specimen container without specific site designation: should each core be assigned an individual Gleason score?

Lakshmi P Kunju1, Stephanie Daignault, John T Wei, Rajal B Shah.   

Abstract

To better represent the Gleason score of radical prostatectomy, the International Society of Urologic Pathologists Consensus Committee recommends assigning individual Gleason scores to prostate cancer cores submitted in separate containers and/or multiple cores in the same container with site identifiers. However, scenarios where multiple cores are submitted in the same container without site identifiers or labeled "left/right" are common. To assess this scenario, we analyzed 110 extended biopsies containing different Gleason scores with corresponding radical prostatectomy for clinically significant grade differences. Because cores are individually labeled and submitted at our institution, we simulated a scenario of multiple intact cores with different Gleason scores in the same container(s) by analyzing as if submitted in containers labeled "left/right." For each biopsy, a Global (all positive cores averaged as 1 long positive core), Worst, and Largest tumor volume Gleason score was determined and compared with grade of radical prostatectomy using kappa statistics. Biopsies containing core(s) with 3+4 and other core(s) 3+3 were excluded because in this situation, both Global and Worst Gleason score will be always 3+4. The following scenarios were considered clinically significant upgrading: biopsy Gleason score 6 / 3+4 to radical prostatectomy 4+3; biopsy 7 to radical prostatectomy 8-10; biopsy 7 to radical prostatectomy 7 with tertiary Gleason pattern 5. Overall, 51 cases met inclusion criteria. Biopsy Worst Gleason score had the best correlation with radical prostatectomy (kappa agreement of 0.37). Clinically significant upgrading at radical prostatectomy was least with Worst (4%) and highest with Global Gleason score (37%). Upgrading and downgrading were noted in 14% and 8%, respectively, of 59 cases containing core(s) with a Gleason score of 3+4 and other core(s) 3+3, suggesting that any amount of higher Gleason pattern should be recorded. When multiple intact cores are submitted in the same container without specific identifiers, individual cores with cancer should be graded and/or the Worst Gleason score should be recorded.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2009        PMID: 19144380     DOI: 10.1016/j.humpath.2008.07.020

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


  5 in total

1.  Overall and worst gleason scores are equally good predictors of prostate cancer progression.

Authors:  Teemu T Tolonen; Paula M Kujala; Teuvo L J Tammela; Vilppu J Tuominen; Jorma J Isola; Tapio Visakorpi
Journal:  BMC Urol       Date:  2011-10-06       Impact factor: 2.264

2.  Validation of a contemporary prostate cancer grading system using prostate cancer death as outcome.

Authors:  Daniel M Berney; Luis Beltran; Gabrielle Fisher; Bernard V North; David Greenberg; Henrik Møller; Geraldine Soosay; Peter Scardino; Jack Cuzick
Journal:  Br J Cancer       Date:  2016-04-21       Impact factor: 7.640

3.  The percentage of high-grade prostatic adenocarcinoma in prostate biopsies significantly improves on Grade Groups in the prediction of prostate cancer death.

Authors:  Daniel M Berney; Luis Beltran; Holly Sandu; Geraldine Soosay; Henrik Møller; Peter Scardino; Jacqueline Murphy; Amar Ahmad; Jack Cuzick
Journal:  Histopathology       Date:  2019-08-13       Impact factor: 5.087

Review 4.  Grading of prostatic adenocarcinoma: current state and prognostic implications.

Authors:  Jennifer Gordetsky; Jonathan Epstein
Journal:  Diagn Pathol       Date:  2016-03-09       Impact factor: 2.644

5.  The 2019 International Society of Urological Pathology (ISUP) Consensus Conference on Grading of Prostatic Carcinoma.

Authors:  Geert J L H van Leenders; Theodorus H van der Kwast; David J Grignon; Andrew J Evans; Glen Kristiansen; Charlotte F Kweldam; Geert Litjens; Jesse K McKenney; Jonathan Melamed; Nicholas Mottet; Gladell P Paner; Hemamali Samaratunga; Ivo G Schoots; Jeffry P Simko; Toyonori Tsuzuki; Murali Varma; Anne Y Warren; Thomas M Wheeler; Sean R Williamson; Kenneth A Iczkowski
Journal:  Am J Surg Pathol       Date:  2020-08       Impact factor: 6.298

  5 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.