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

被引:0
作者
Burkhard Helpap
Lars Egevad
机构
[1] Academic Hospital of the University of Freiburg,Department of Pathology, Center of Uropathology, General Hospital Hegau
[2] Karolinska Hospital,Bodensee
[3] International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC),Klinikum Singen
来源
Virchows Archiv | 2006年 / 449卷
关键词
Adenocarcinoma of the prostate; Modified Gleason grading; Core needle biopsy; Radical prostatectomy;
D O I
暂无
中图分类号
学科分类号
摘要
At an International Society of Urological Pathology consensus conference in 2005, the Gleason grading system for prostatic carcinoma underwent its first major revision. Gleason pattern 4 now includes most cribriform patterns and also fused and poorly formed glands. Our aims were to compare the grade distributions and assess the agreement between biopsy and radical prostatectomy specimens for the modified and conventional Gleason grading. More than 3,000 radical prostatectomy (RP), needle biopsies (NB) and transurethral resection specimens were assigned modified Gleason score (GS). In NB, modified GS 3 + 3 = 6 and 3 + 4 = 7a were almost equally common, while in RP, 3 + 4 = 7a was most common followed by 4 + 3 = 7b. After application of the modified GS on NB, a substantial shift in GS distribution occurred: The proportion of GS 6 and 7 were 48 and 26%, respectively, with conventional Gleason grading as compared to 22 and 68%, respectively, with modified grading. In 368 men, the agreement between NB and RP with a modified GS 6, 7a, 7b and 8–10 in NB was 28, 88, 68 and 64–100%, respectively. The overall agreement improved from 58 to 72% (p < 0.001) compared to conventional GS. The higher agreement with modified Gleason grading may facilitate therapeutic decisions.
引用
收藏
页码:622 / 627
页数:5
相关论文
共 117 条
[1]  
Amin M(2005)Prognostic and predictive factors and reporting of prostate carcinoma in prostate needle biopsy specimens Scand J Urol Nephrol 39 20-33
[2]  
Boccon-Gibod L(2005)Gleason grading: diagnostic criteria and clinical implications Pathologe 26 422-432
[3]  
Egevad L(1994)Gleason grading of prostatic needle biopsies. Correlation with grade in 316 matched prostatectomies Am J Surg Pathol 18 796-803
[4]  
Epstein JI(1994)Grading prostate cancer Am J Clin Pathol 102 38-59
[5]  
Humphrey PA(1998)Accuracy of biopsy Gleason scores from a large uropathology laboratory: use of a diagnostic protocol to minimize observer variability Urology 51 525-529
[6]  
Mikuz G(1997)Correlation between Gleason score of needle biopsy and radical prostatectomy specimen: accuracy and clinical implications J Urol 157 559-562
[7]  
Newling D(2002)Global Gleason score, highest Gleason score, or weighted Gleason score: what Gleason score should be reported in prostate needle biopsies Mod Pathol 15 161A-669A
[8]  
Nilsson S(2005)Current practice of Gleason grading among genitourinary pathologists Hum Pathol 36 5-9
[9]  
Sakr W(2002)Percent gleason grade 4/5 as prognostic factor in prostate cancer diagnosed at transurethral resection J Urol 168 509-513
[10]  
Srigley JR(2002)Prognostic value of the Gleason score in prostate cancer BJU Int 89 538-542