Literature DB >> 19793829

Will the modification of the Gleason grading system affect the urology practice?

Hakki Ugur Ozok1, Levent Sagnak, Can Tuygun, Murat Oktay, Nihat Karakoyunlu, Hamit Ersoy, Murat Alper.   

Abstract

The aim of the present study was to determine how the modified Gleason grading (mGG) system affects the score discrepancy between needle biopsy (NB) and radical prostatectomy (RP) and to investigate the effect of the modified scores on nomogram predictions. When the conventional Gleason grading (cGG) and mGG systems were compared, a new Gleason score was obtained in the NBs for 40 out of 97 patients (41.2%; P < .001) and in the RP specimens for 15 out of 97 patients (15.5%; P = .005). The agreement between the NBs and RP specimens rose from 31.9% to 44.3% with the mGG system (P = .017). However, when the predictions calculated with the location of modified Gleason scores in the Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center nomogram were compared with those of the conventional Gleason scores, higher pathological stage and lower life expectancy predictions were obtained. Therefore, when a clinician is making a choice from therapeutic options, this change should be taken into account.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2009        PMID: 19793829     DOI: 10.1177/1066896909346272

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Int J Surg Pathol        ISSN: 1066-8969            Impact factor:   1.271


  8 in total

1.  Do adenocarcinomas of the prostate with Gleason score (GS) ≤6 have the potential to metastasize to lymph nodes?

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

2.  [Documentation quality of histopathology reports of prostate needle biopsies: a snapshot].

Authors:  S Biesterfeld
Journal:  Urologe A       Date:  2014-11       Impact factor: 0.639

3.  Prostate Cancer Patients' Understanding of the Gleason Scoring System: Implications for Shared Decision-Making.

Authors:  Erin K Tagai; Suzanne M Miller; Alexander Kutikov; Michael A Diefenbach; Ronak A Gor; Tahseen Al-Saleem; David Y T Chen; Sara Fleszar; Gem Roy
Journal:  J Cancer Educ       Date:  2019-06       Impact factor: 2.037

4.  Prognostic Gleason grade grouping: data based on the modified Gleason scoring system.

Authors:  Phillip M Pierorazio; Patrick C Walsh; Alan W Partin; Jonathan I Epstein
Journal:  BJU Int       Date:  2013-03-06       Impact factor: 5.588

5.  African American Men With Low-Risk Prostate Cancer Are Candidates for Active Surveillance: The Will-Rogers Effect?

Authors:  Robert Qi; Judd Moul
Journal:  Am J Mens Health       Date:  2017-08-22

6.  The current status of renal cell carcinoma and prostate carcinoma grading.

Authors:  Brett Delahunt; Lars Egevad; John Yaxley; Hemamali Samaratunga
Journal:  Int Braz J Urol       Date:  2018 Nov-Dec       Impact factor: 1.541

7.  Endorectal power Doppler/grayscale ultrasound-guided biopsies vs. multiparametric MRI/ultrasound fusion-guided biopsies in males with high risk of prostate cancer: A prospective cohort study.

Authors:  Zhizhong He; Zhifan Yuan; Limei Liang; Xinx In Xie; Jianjun Yuan; Wenxu He; Junjun Chen; Yongpei Kuang
Journal:  Exp Ther Med       Date:  2019-10-31       Impact factor: 2.447

Review 8.  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

  8 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.