Literature DB >> 32948433

Practice patterns related to prostate cancer grading: results of a 2019 Genitourinary Pathology Society clinician survey.

Samson W Fine1, Kiril Trpkov2, Mahul B Amin3, Ferran Algaba4, Manju Aron5, Dilek E Baydar6, Antonio Lopez Beltran7, Fadi Brimo8, John C Cheville9, Maurizio Colecchia10, Eva Comperat11, Tony Costello12, Isabela Werneck da Cunha13, Warick Delprado14, Angelo M DeMarzo15, Giovanna A Giannico16, Jennifer B Gordetsky16, Charles C Guo17, Donna E Hansel18, Michelle S Hirsch19, Jiaoti Huang20, Peter A Humphrey21, Rafael E Jimenez9, Francesca Khani22, Max X Kong23, Oleksandr N Kryvenko24, L Priya Kunju25, Priti Lal26, Mathieu Latour27, Tamara Lotan15, Fiona Maclean14, Cristina Magi-Galluzzi28, Rohit Mehra25, Santosh Menon29, Hiroshi Miyamoto30, Rodolfo Montironi31, George J Netto28, Jane K Nguyen32, Adeboye O Osunkoya33, Anil Parwani34, Christian P Pavlovich35, Brian D Robinson22, Mark A Rubin36, Rajal B Shah37, Jeffrey S So38, Hiroyuki Takahashi39, Fabio Tavora40, Maria S Tretiakova41, Lawrence True41, Sara E Wobker42, Ximing J Yang43, Ming Zhou44, Debra L Zynger34, Jonathan I Epstein45.   

Abstract

PURPOSE: To survey urologic clinicians regarding interpretation of and practice patterns in relation to emerging aspects of prostate cancer grading, including quantification of high-grade disease, cribriform/intraductal carcinoma, and impact of magnetic resonance imaging-targeted needle biopsy.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: The Genitourinary Pathology Society distributed a survey to urology and urologic oncology-focused societies and hospital departments. Eight hundred and thirty four responses were collected and analyzed using descriptive statistics.
RESULTS: Eighty percent of survey participants use quantity of Gleason pattern 4 on needle biopsy for clinical decisions, less frequently with higher Grade Groups. Fifty percent interpret "tertiary" grade as a minor/<5% component. Seventy percent of respondents would prefer per core grading as well as a global/overall score per set of biopsies, but 70% would consider highest Gleason score in any single core as the grade for management. Seventy five percent utilize Grade Group terminology in patient discussions. For 45%, cribriform pattern would affect management, while for 70% the presence of intraductal carcinoma would preclude active surveillance.
CONCLUSION: This survey of practice patterns in relationship to prostate cancer grading highlights similarities and differences between contemporary pathology reporting and its clinical application. As utilization of Gleason pattern 4 quantification, minor tertiary pattern, cribriform/intraductal carcinoma, and the incorporation of magnetic resonance imaging-based strategies evolve, these findings may serve as a basis for more nuanced communication and guide research efforts involving pathologists and clinicians.
Copyright © 2020 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Active surveillance; Cribriform; Grading; MRI; Prostate cancer

Mesh:

Year:  2020        PMID: 32948433      PMCID: PMC9399962          DOI: 10.1016/j.urolonc.2020.08.027

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Urol Oncol        ISSN: 1078-1439            Impact factor:   2.954


  28 in total

1.  A Prostate Cancer "Nimbosus": Genomic Instability and SChLAP1 Dysregulation Underpin Aggression of Intraductal and Cribriform Subpathologies.

Authors:  Melvin L K Chua; Winnie Lo; Melania Pintilie; Jure Murgic; Emilie Lalonde; Vinayak Bhandari; Osman Mahamud; Anuradha Gopalan; Charlotte F Kweldam; Geert J L H van Leenders; Esther I Verhoef; Agnes Marije Hoogland; Julie Livingstone; Alejandro Berlin; Alan Dal Pra; Alice Meng; Junyan Zhang; Michèle Orain; Valérie Picard; Hélène Hovington; Alain Bergeron; Louis Lacombe; Yves Fradet; Bernard Têtu; Victor E Reuter; Neil Fleshner; Michael Fraser; Paul C Boutros; Theodorus H van der Kwast; Robert G Bristow
Journal:  Eur Urol       Date:  2017-05-13       Impact factor: 20.096

2.  Concordance of "Case Level" Global, Highest, and Largest Volume Cancer Grade Group on Needle Biopsy Versus Grade Group on Radical Prostatectomy.

Authors:  Kiril Trpkov; Sakkarn Sangkhamanon; Asli Yilmaz; Shaun A C Medlicott; Bryan Donnelly; Geoffrey Gotto; Melissa Shea-Budgell
Journal:  Am J Surg Pathol       Date:  2018-11       Impact factor: 6.394

3.  Contemporary prostate biopsy reporting: insights from a survey of clinicians' use of pathology data.

Authors:  Murali Varma; Krishna Narahari; Malcolm Mason; Jon D Oxley; Daniel M Berney
Journal:  J Clin Pathol       Date:  2018-05-02       Impact factor: 3.411

4.  What information are urologists extracting from prostate needle biopsy reports and what do they need for clinical management of prostate cancer?

Authors:  Aurélien Descazeaud; Mark A Rubin; Yves Allory; Martin Burchardt; Laurent Salomon; Dominique Chopin; Claude Abbou; Alexandre de la Taille
Journal:  Eur Urol       Date:  2005-08-09       Impact factor: 20.096

5.  A new risk classification system for therapeutic decision making with intermediate-risk prostate cancer patients undergoing dose-escalated external-beam radiation therapy.

Authors:  Zachary S Zumsteg; Daniel E Spratt; Isaac Pei; Zhigang Zhang; Yoshiya Yamada; Marisa Kollmeier; Michael J Zelefsky
Journal:  Eur Urol       Date:  2013-03-23       Impact factor: 20.096

6.  Prostate Cancer, Version 2.2019, NCCN Clinical Practice Guidelines in Oncology.

Authors:  James L Mohler; Emmanuel S Antonarakis; Andrew J Armstrong; Anthony V D'Amico; Brian J Davis; Tanya Dorff; James A Eastham; Charles A Enke; Thomas A Farrington; Celestia S Higano; Eric Mark Horwitz; Michael Hurwitz; Joseph E Ippolito; Christopher J Kane; Michael R Kuettel; Joshua M Lang; Jesse McKenney; George Netto; David F Penson; Elizabeth R Plimack; Julio M Pow-Sang; Thomas J Pugh; Sylvia Richey; Mack Roach; Stan Rosenfeld; Edward Schaeffer; Ahmad Shabsigh; Eric J Small; Daniel E Spratt; Sandy Srinivas; Jonathan Tward; Dorothy A Shead; Deborah A Freedman-Cass
Journal:  J Natl Compr Canc Netw       Date:  2019-05-01       Impact factor: 11.908

7.  The effect of limited (tertiary) Gleason pattern 5 on the new prostate cancer grade groups.

Authors:  Alexander S Baras; Joel B Nelson; Misop Han; Anil V Parwani; Jonathan I Epstein
Journal:  Hum Pathol       Date:  2016-12-16       Impact factor: 3.466

8.  Defining the optimal method for reporting prostate cancer grade and tumor extent on magnetic resonance/ultrasound fusion-targeted biopsies.

Authors:  Jennifer B Gordetsky; Luciana Schultz; Kristin K Porter; Jeffrey W Nix; John V Thomas; Maria Del Carmen Rodriguez Pena; Soroush Rais-Bahrami
Journal:  Hum Pathol       Date:  2018-03-16       Impact factor: 3.466

Review 9.  The 2014 International Society of Urological Pathology (ISUP) Consensus Conference on Gleason Grading of Prostatic Carcinoma: Definition of Grading Patterns and Proposal for a New Grading System.

Authors:  Jonathan I Epstein; Lars Egevad; Mahul B Amin; Brett Delahunt; John R Srigley; Peter A Humphrey
Journal:  Am J Surg Pathol       Date:  2016-02       Impact factor: 6.394

10.  Size-adjusted Quantitative Gleason Score as a Predictor of Biochemical Recurrence after Radical Prostatectomy.

Authors:  Fang-Ming Deng; Nicholas M Donin; Ruth Pe Benito; Jonathan Melamed; Julien Le Nobin; Ming Zhou; Sisi Ma; Jinhua Wang; Herbert Lepor
Journal:  Eur Urol       Date:  2015-10-30       Impact factor: 20.096

View more
  1 in total

1.  A distinct repertoire of cancer-associated fibroblasts is enriched in cribriform prostate cancer.

Authors:  Amanda B Hesterberg; Brenda L Rios; Elysa M Wolf; Colby Tubbs; Hong Yuen Wong; Kerry R Schaffer; Tamara L Lotan; Giovanna A Giannico; Jennifer B Gordetsky; Paula J Hurley
Journal:  J Pathol Clin Res       Date:  2021-02-18
  1 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.