Literature DB >> 26274028

Prostate biopsy and radical prostatectomy Gleason score correlation in heterogenous tumors: proposal for a composite Gleason score.

Javier A Arias-Stella1, Alpa B Shah, Diego Montoya-Cerrillo, Sean R Williamson, Nilesh S Gupta.   

Abstract

When prostate biopsy cores are separately identified in multiple containers, current recommendations are to grade each specimen individually. For treatment algorithms, the highest Gleason score (HGS) is typically used as the overall score, even if a lower score predominates. This practice has the potential to misrepresent the overall cancer in the entire gland for some patients and place them in a higher-grade group. We compare a novel composite Gleason score (CGS), integrating grade patterns from contiguous positive biopsy sites, with HGS to determine correlation with the radical prostatectomy (RP) Gleason score (GS). One hundred needle biopsy cases from 2008 to 2012 with >2 GSs in a biopsy set (eg, 3+3=6, 3+4=7, and 4+3=7) or more than a 1-step difference in GS (eg, 3+4=7 and 4+4=8 without 4+3=7) were analyzed. Grades were assigned using both methods (HGS and CGS) and compared with RPGS. Grade groups I to V were used to define downgrade and upgrade. Comparing HGS with RPGS, 31% remained the same and 69% had a change in GS (87% downgraded and 13% upgraded). Comparing CGS with RPGS, 59% remained the same and 41% had a change in GS (10% downgraded and 90% upgraded). Of the 2 methods, the CGS showed better overall correlation with RP (P<0.001) and was less likely to be downgraded compared with HGS. CGS correlates better with RPGS than HGS when >2 grades are present in a biopsy set. CGS has a significantly lower rate of downgrade and predicts the RPGS more accurately than HGS.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2015        PMID: 26274028     DOI: 10.1097/PAS.0000000000000499

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Am J Surg Pathol        ISSN: 0147-5185            Impact factor:   6.394


  5 in total

1.  Identification of Clinically Significant Prostate Cancer by Combined PCA3 and AMACR mRNA Detection in Urine Samples.

Authors:  Elena S Kotova; Yulia A Savochkina; Yuriy V Doludin; Alexander O Vasilyev; Elena A Prilepskay; Natalia V Potoldykova; Konstantin A Babalyan; Alexandra V Kanygina; Andrey O Morozov; Alexander V Govorov; Dmitry V Enikeev; Elena S Kostryukova; Elena N Ilina; Vadim M Govorun; Dmitry Y Pushkar; Elena I Sharova
Journal:  Res Rep Urol       Date:  2020-09-17

2.  Target prostate biopsies: How best to report in synoptic format?

Authors:  Michelle R Downes; John R Srigley; Andrew Loblaw; Nathan Perlis; Sangeet Ghai; Theodorus van der Kwast
Journal:  Can Urol Assoc J       Date:  2022-04       Impact factor: 1.862

3.  New prostate cancer grade group system correlates with prostate cancer death in addition to biochemical recurrence.

Authors:  Jonathan I Epstein
Journal:  Br J Cancer       Date:  2016-05-10       Impact factor: 7.640

4.  Next Generation Quality: Assessing the Physician in Clinical History Completeness and Diagnostic Interpretations Using Funnel Plots and Normalized Deviations Plots in 3,854 Prostate Biopsies.

Authors:  Michael Bonert; Ihab El-Shinnawy; Michael Carvalho; Phillip Williams; Samih Salama; Damu Tang; Anil Kapoor
Journal:  J Pathol Inform       Date:  2017-11-23

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.