Literature DB >> 9158682

Correlation of prostate needle biopsy and radical prostatectomy Gleason grade in academic and community settings.

D M Steinberg1, J Sauvageot, S Piantadosi, J I Epstein.   

Abstract

Prior studies have not analyzed grading patterns and accuracy in nonacademic sites and have not analyzed reasons for discrepant grades. We analyzed 499 radical prostatectomy (RP) specimens at The Johns Hopkins Hospital (JHH) from 1994 and compared them with the corresponding JHH needle biopsy Gleason grade and, when available (n = 390), to the outside institution (non-JHH) Gleason biopsy grade. For JHH, there was exact agreement between biopsy and RP in 58% and agreement to within one digit in 93% of cases, compared with 34% and 67%, respectively, for non-JHH. Combining cases into more meaningful groups (Gleason 2-4, 5-6, 7, and 8-10), there was 66% exact correlation between the biopsy and RP for JHH as compared with 45% for non-JHH. Non-JHH undergraded biopsy results more than JHH, with 22.3% and 1.2% Gleason score 2-4, respectively. None of the cases with a Gleason score of 2-4 on biopsy from JHH or non-JHH were Gleason score 2-4 on RP. Fifty-five percent of the tumors with non-JHH needle biopsy results graded Gleason 2-4 had either capsular penetration, seminal vesicle, or lymph node involvement. All of the tumors with needle Gleason score 2-4 at JHH were organ confined. The JHH needle biopsy grade correlated better with pathologic stage than did non-JHH (R = 0.27 JHH vs. R = 0.12 non-JHH). Extent of cancer in the biopsy sample was not a factor in the accuracy of predicting RP grade or stage. Eighty-two cases evaluated at JHH were signed out by a genitourinary pathologist; the grading of the biopsy samples by other JHH pathologists was just as accurate. Gleason score of > or = 7 on the biopsy sample predicted a Gleason score of > or = 7 in the RP 87.5% of the time. A Gleason score of < 7 predicted a Gleason score of < 7 only 63.9% of the time. Discordant grades in some cases reflected patterns of cancer on needle biopsy that were borderline between two different Gleason scores. Sampling was the major source of discrepancy and was often due to the high-grade component in the RP not being present in the biopsy results or due to a component of cancer on the needle reflecting such a small percentage of the pattern seen on RP that this pattern was not included in the final RP Gleason score.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  1997        PMID: 9158682     DOI: 10.1097/00000478-199705000-00010

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


  54 in total

Review 1.  When prostate cancer remains undetectable: The dilemma.

Authors:  Mahmoud Othman Mustafa; Louis Pisters
Journal:  Turk J Urol       Date:  2015-03

2.  [The 2014 consensus conference of the ISUP on Gleason grading of prostatic carcinoma].

Authors:  G Kristiansen; L Egevad; M Amin; B Delahunt; J R Srigley; P A Humphrey; J I Epstein
Journal:  Pathologe       Date:  2016-02       Impact factor: 1.011

Review 3.  Current practice of Gleason grading of prostate carcinoma.

Authors:  Antonio Lopez-Beltran; Gregor Mikuz; Rafael J Luque; Roberta Mazzucchelli; Rodolfo Montironi
Journal:  Virchows Arch       Date:  2005-11-23       Impact factor: 4.064

4.  The significance of modified Gleason grading of prostatic carcinoma in biopsy and radical prostatectomy specimens.

Authors:  Burkhard Helpap; Lars Egevad
Journal:  Virchows Arch       Date:  2006-11-08       Impact factor: 4.064

Review 5.  Morphological assessment of radical prostatectomy specimens. A protocol with clinical relevance.

Authors:  Rodolfo Montironi; Roberta Mazzucchelli; Theodorus Kwast
Journal:  Virchows Arch       Date:  2003-01-16       Impact factor: 4.064

6.  Detection and tumour grading of prostate cancer in community hospitals.

Authors:  Wassim Kassouf
Journal:  Can Urol Assoc J       Date:  2008-10       Impact factor: 1.862

7.  The role of PSA density to predict a pathological tumour upgrade between needle biopsy and radical prostatectomy for low risk clinical prostate cancer in the modified Gleason system era.

Authors:  Stavros Sfoungaristos; Ioannis Katafigiotis; Petros Perimenis
Journal:  Can Urol Assoc J       Date:  2013 Nov-Dec       Impact factor: 1.862

8.  Prostate gland biopsies and prostatectomies: an Ontario community hospital experience.

Authors:  Ken J Newell; John F Amrhein; Rashmikant J Desai; Paul F Middlebrook; Todd M Webster; Barry W Sawka; Brian F Rudrick
Journal:  Can Urol Assoc J       Date:  2008-10       Impact factor: 1.862

9.  Change in prostate cancer grade over time in men followed expectantly for stage T1c disease.

Authors:  Todd B Sheridan; H Ballentine Carter; Wenle Wang; Patricia B Landis; Jonathan I Epstein
Journal:  J Urol       Date:  2008-01-22       Impact factor: 7.450

Review 10.  Reproducibility and reliability of tumor grading in urological neoplasms.

Authors:  Rainer Engers
Journal:  World J Urol       Date:  2007-09-09       Impact factor: 4.226

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.