Literature DB >> 26563400

Gleason grading challenges in the diagnosis of prostate adenocarcinoma: experience of a single institution.

Sonja D Chen1, Joseph L Fava2, Ali Amin3,4.   

Abstract

Gleason score (GS) is an important factor in determining management and outcome of prostate adenocarcinoma. A standard GS scheme was introduced by ISUP 2005 consensus conference, but there is still significant discordance in grading prostate adenocarcinomas among pathologists, especially between genitourinary-trained (GU) and non-GU pathologists. All biopsies from outside institutions referred for definitive treatment in our hospital are reviewed by a GU pathologist for confirmation and quality assurance. From 2011 to 2013, 117 consecutive prostate consults were retrieved and compared with the initial outside reports as well as final radical prostatectomy (RP) results. Follow-up prostate specific antigen (PSA) was assessed pre- and post-RP, and the results were analyzed. The overall initial GS was higher for all specimens (p = 0.007) especially for the RP cases (p = 0.002). Overall, the modal GS on initial diagnosis was GS7(4 + 3) that was downgraded to the modal GS6(3 + 3) upon review. Despite an overall substantial agreement between the non-GU and GU pathologists [ICC = 0.66], GS by GU pathologist had higher correlation with the final GS in the RP specimen [ICC = 0.62] than non-GU pathologist [ICC = 0.48]. GS on all reviewed cases were found to correlate significantly with the pre-operative PSA (p = 0.002) but the same was not true for the initial report. A non-GU pathologist is more likely to assign a higher GS than a GU pathologist, with a trend to overcall Gleason pattern 4. Considering the implications on treatment, close attention must be paid to the ISUP 2005 consensus conference recommendations.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Expert opinion; Gleason score; Overgrading; Prostate adenocarcinoma; Undergrading

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2015        PMID: 26563400     DOI: 10.1007/s00428-015-1879-4

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Virchows Arch        ISSN: 0945-6317            Impact factor:   4.064


  24 in total

1.  Interobserver reproducibility of Gleason grading of prostatic carcinoma: general pathologist.

Authors:  W C Allsbrook; K A Mangold; M H Johnson; R B Lane; C G Lane; J I Epstein
Journal:  Hum Pathol       Date:  2001-01       Impact factor: 3.466

2.  The value of mandatory second opinion pathology review of prostate needle biopsy interpretation before radical prostatectomy.

Authors:  Fadi Brimo; Luciana Schultz; Jonathan I Epstein
Journal:  J Urol       Date:  2010-05-15       Impact factor: 7.450

3.  Current practice of Gleason grading among genitourinary pathologists.

Authors:  Lars Egevad; William C Allsbrook; Jonathan I Epstein
Journal:  Hum Pathol       Date:  2005-01       Impact factor: 3.466

Review 4.  The 2005 International Society of Urological Pathology (ISUP) Consensus Conference on Gleason Grading of Prostatic Carcinoma.

Authors:  Jonathan I Epstein; William C Allsbrook; Mahul B Amin; Lars L Egevad
Journal:  Am J Surg Pathol       Date:  2005-09       Impact factor: 6.394

5.  The influence of expertise of the surgical pathologist to undergrading, upgrading, and understaging of prostate cancer in patients undergoing subsequent radical prostatectomy.

Authors:  Attila Majoros; Attila Marcell Szász; Péter Nyirády; Eszter Székely; Péter Riesz; Attila Szendrői; Attila Keszthelyi; Janina Kulka; Imre Romics
Journal:  Int Urol Nephrol       Date:  2013-08-30       Impact factor: 2.370

6.  Classification of prostatic carcinomas.

Authors:  D F Gleason
Journal:  Cancer Chemother Rep       Date:  1966-03

7.  Diagnosis of "Poorly Formed Glands" Gleason Pattern 4 Prostatic Adenocarcinoma on Needle Biopsy: An Interobserver Reproducibility Study Among Urologic Pathologists With Recommendations.

Authors:  Ming Zhou; Jianbo Li; Liang Cheng; Lars Egevad; Fang-Ming Deng; Lakshmi Priya Kunju; Cristina Magi-Galluzzi; Jonathan Melamed; Rohit Mehra; Savvas Mendrinos; Adeboye O Osunkoya; Gladell Paner; Steve S Shen; Toyonori Tsuzuki; Kiril Trpkov; Wei Tian; Ximing Yang; Rajal B Shah
Journal:  Am J Surg Pathol       Date:  2015-10       Impact factor: 6.394

8.  Gleason inflation 1998-2011: a registry study of 97,168 men.

Authors:  Daniela Danneman; Linda Drevin; David Robinson; Pär Stattin; Lars Egevad
Journal:  BJU Int       Date:  2015-02       Impact factor: 5.588

9.  Prostate-specific antigen kinetics under androgen deprivation therapy and prostate cancer prognosis.

Authors:  Li-Min Zhang; Hao-Wen Jiang; Shi-Jun Tong; Hui-Qing Zhu; Jun Liu; Qiang Ding
Journal:  Urol Int       Date:  2013-06-11       Impact factor: 2.089

10.  A multivariate analysis of clinical and pathological factors that predict for prostate specific antigen failure after radical prostatectomy for prostate cancer.

Authors:  A V D'Amico; R Whittington; S B Malkowicz; D Schultz; M Schnall; J E Tomaszewski; A Wein
Journal:  J Urol       Date:  1995-07       Impact factor: 7.450

View more
  1 in total

Review 1.  Quality checkpoints in the MRI-directed prostate cancer diagnostic pathway.

Authors:  Tristan Barrett; Maarten de Rooij; Francesco Giganti; Clare Allen; Jelle O Barentsz; Anwar R Padhani
Journal:  Nat Rev Urol       Date:  2022-09-27       Impact factor: 16.430

  1 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.