OBJECTIVE: To understand the morphologic and spatial relationships of the various grades of prostate cancer, we investigated whether poorly differentiated cancer usually arises within the center of a large, well-differentiated tumor or more often forms the periphery or leading edge of the tumor. METHODS: In a series of one hundred and one completely sectioned whole-mount radical prostatectomy specimens removed from patients with clinical Stage T2 prostate cancer, we mapped the distribution of each of the five Gleason grades and assessed their frequency, proportion, and spatial distribution. RESULTS: The average number of different grades present in our patients was 2.7 (range 1-5). Over 50 percent of the prostates contained at least three different grades of cancer. The number of different Gleason grades present increased significantly with increasing tumor volume (p < 0.0001). Only 10 percent of the index cancers (largest tumor present) were composed of a single grade and these cancers were small (0.02-1.7 cm3). Among cancers with multiple grades, the most common finding (53%) was a high-grade cancer present within the core of a larger, more well-differentiated tumor; however, the opposite pattern, low-grade cancer present within a larger poorly differentiated cancer, was also common (30%) and predominated in very large cancers (> 10 cm3). CONCLUSION: Small prostate cancers are often composed of a single grade, usually Gleason grade 2 or 3. But most palpable cancers contain multiple grades which are arranged in heterogeneous and unpredictable geographic interrelationships.
OBJECTIVE: To understand the morphologic and spatial relationships of the various grades of prostate cancer, we investigated whether poorly differentiated cancer usually arises within the center of a large, well-differentiated tumor or more often forms the periphery or leading edge of the tumor. METHODS: In a series of one hundred and one completely sectioned whole-mount radical prostatectomy specimens removed from patients with clinical Stage T2 prostate cancer, we mapped the distribution of each of the five Gleason grades and assessed their frequency, proportion, and spatial distribution. RESULTS: The average number of different grades present in our patients was 2.7 (range 1-5). Over 50 percent of the prostates contained at least three different grades of cancer. The number of different Gleason grades present increased significantly with increasing tumor volume (p < 0.0001). Only 10 percent of the index cancers (largest tumor present) were composed of a single grade and these cancers were small (0.02-1.7 cm3). Among cancers with multiple grades, the most common finding (53%) was a high-grade cancer present within the core of a larger, more well-differentiated tumor; however, the opposite pattern, low-grade cancer present within a larger poorly differentiated cancer, was also common (30%) and predominated in very large cancers (> 10 cm3). CONCLUSION: Small prostate cancers are often composed of a single grade, usually Gleason grade 2 or 3. But most palpable cancers contain multiple grades which are arranged in heterogeneous and unpredictable geographic interrelationships.
Authors: S G Jhavar; C Fisher; A Jackson; S A Reinsberg; N Dennis; A Falconer; D Dearnaley; S E Edwards; S M Edwards; M O Leach; C Cummings; T Christmas; A Thompson; C Woodhouse; S Sandhu; C S Cooper; R A Eeles Journal: J Clin Pathol Date: 2005-05 Impact factor: 3.411
Authors: Cynthia Ménard; Robert C Susil; Peter Choyke; Jonathan Coleman; Robert Grubb; Ahmed Gharib; Axel Krieger; Peter Guion; David Thomasson; Karen Ullman; Sandeep Gupta; Virginia Espina; Lance Liotta; Emanuel Petricoin; Gabor Fitchtinger; Louis L Whitcomb; Ergin Atalar; C Norman Coleman; Kevin Camphausen Journal: Mol Imaging Date: 2005 Jan-Mar Impact factor: 4.488
Authors: John F Donohue; Fernando J Bianco; Kentaro Kuroiwa; Andrew J Vickers; Thomas M Wheeler; Peter T Scardino; Victor A Reuter; James A Eastham Journal: J Urol Date: 2006-09 Impact factor: 7.450
Authors: Akhil Muthigi; Arvin K George; Abhinav Sidana; Michael Kongnyuy; Richard Simon; Vanessa Moreno; Maria J Merino; Peter L Choyke; Baris Turkbey; Bradford J Wood; Peter A Pinto Journal: J Urol Date: 2016-08-28 Impact factor: 7.450
Authors: Lei Wei; Jianmin Wang; Erika Lampert; Simon Schlanger; Adam D DePriest; Qiang Hu; Eduardo Cortes Gomez; Mitsuko Murakam; Sean T Glenn; Jeffrey Conroy; Carl Morrison; Gissou Azabdaftari; James L Mohler; Song Liu; Hannelore V Heemers Journal: Eur Urol Date: 2016-07-21 Impact factor: 20.096
Authors: Wennuan Liu; Sari Laitinen; Sofia Khan; Mauno Vihinen; Jeanne Kowalski; Guoqiang Yu; Li Chen; Charles M Ewing; Mario A Eisenberger; Michael A Carducci; William G Nelson; Srinivasan Yegnasubramanian; Jun Luo; Yue Wang; Jianfeng Xu; William B Isaacs; Tapio Visakorpi; G Steven Bova Journal: Nat Med Date: 2009-04-12 Impact factor: 53.440