Article

Prostate cancer grading: the effect of stratification of needle biopsy Gleason Score 4 + 3 as high or intermediate grade.

UCD School of Medicine and Medical Science, Conway Institute of Biomolecular and Biomedical Research, Dublin, Ireland.
BJU International (Impact Factor: 3.05). 10/2009; 105(5):631-5. DOI:10.1111/j.1464-410X.2009.08810.x
Source: PubMed

ABSTRACT To assess the discrepancy between needle biopsy (NB) and radical prostatectomy (RP) Gleason score (GS) in Irish men, specifically the influence of the stratification of GS 4 + 3 on overall levels of agreement, levels of discrepancy and kappa coefficients, as the GS assigned to prostate cancer NBs affects clinical decision-making and influences future therapeutic strategies.
We reviewed retrospectively a database of the discrepancies between NB and RP Gleason grades (GG) from 2003 to 2008. All patients had clinically localized prostate cancer, and none had had neoadjuvant therapy. Grading of 206 NB specimens was compared with their corresponding RP specimens. The discrepancy rate between NB and RP GS was assessed for each combination of GG. Intermediate- (GS 7, defined as GS 3 + 4 alone vs GS 7) and high-grade (GS 4 + 3 and GS 8-10 vs GS 8-10) classifications were compared. The level of agreement and the kappa coefficient for each system was assessed.
In NB, GS 6 was most frequently diagnosed (53%); after RP, GS 3 + 4 was most frequent (36%). In 42% of cases the exact GG remained unchanged after RP, increasing to 48% for GS 6 and GS 3 + 4. Overall 42% of cases showed an increase in their GG. In GS 6 NBs, the rate of increase in the primary GG or increase in the GS was 52%. Biopsy GS 6 and 3 + 4 showed the highest levels of agreement between NB and RP. Low-grade prostate cancer on NB was upgraded in 52% of cases; high-grade prostatic adenocarcinoma was downgraded in 27-77% of cases depending on the grading system used.
Classification of high-grade prostate cancer as GS 4 + 3 and GS 8-10 results in higher levels of agreement between NB and RP GS. Reliable identification of well differentiated prostatic adenocarcinoma in NB specimens represents an ongoing diagnostic challenge, necessitating careful preoperative consideration of the definitive grade of a patient's disease.

0 0
 · 
0 Bookmarks
 · 
44 Views
  • [show abstract] [hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: PURPOSE: Microporous polysaccharide hemospheres (MPH) are hemostatic beads engineered from plant starch to accelerate the natural clotting cascade. The purpose of this report is to detail our initial experience with MPH as a topical hemostatic agent during robot-assisted radical prostatectomy (RARP). METHODS: We examined a single surgeon series of 30 consecutive RARP's dividing patients into MPH or non-MPH groups. The last ten procedures utilized the MPH, which were matched 1:2 to non-MPH procedures for comparison. Nerve-sparing procedures were performed when clinically indicated and all done athermally. All demographic data, length of operation, margin status, blood loss, change in hemoglobin, and need for blood transfusion were prospectively collected and analyzed. RESULTS: The baseline characteristics were the same. The post-operative decrease in hemoglobin was less in the MPH group (1.8 g/dL MPH group vs. 3.2 g/dL non-MPH). One patient in each group required a blood transfusion. CONCLUSIONS: These preliminary findings support the role for MPH as a potential hemostatic agent during athermal nerve-sparing RARP.
    World Journal of Urology 12/2011; · 2.89 Impact Factor
  • Source
    [show abstract] [hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: There are dilemmas associated with the diagnosis and prognosis of prostate cancer which has lead to over diagnosis and over treatment. Prediction tools have been developed to assist the treatment of the disease. A retrospective review was performed of the Irish Prostate Cancer Research Consortium database and 603 patients were used in the study. Statistical models based on routinely used clinical variables were built using logistic regression, random forests and k nearest neighbours to predict prostate cancer stage. The predictive ability of the models was examined using discrimination metrics calibration curves and clinical relevance, explored using decision curve analysis. The N = 603 patients were then applied to the 2007 Partin table to compare the predictions from the current gold standard in staging prediction to the models developed in this study. 30 % of the study cohort had non organ-confined disease. The model built using logistic regression illustrated the highest discrimination metrics (AUC = 0.622, Sens = 0.647, Spec = 0.601), best calibration and the most clinical relevance based on decision curve analysis. This model also achieved higher discrimination than the 2007 Partin table (ECE AUC = 0.572 & 0.509 for T1c and T2a respectively). However, even the best statistical model does not accurately predict prostate cancer stage. This study has illustrated the inability of the current clinical variables and the 2007 Partin table to accurately predict prostate cancer stage. New biomarker features are urgently required to address the problem clinician's face in identifying the most appropriate treatment for their patients. This paper also demonstrated a concise methodological approach to evaluate novel features or prediction models.
    BMC Medical Informatics and Decision Making 11/2013; 13(1):126. · 1.60 Impact Factor
  • Source
    [show abstract] [hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: The 5-tier Gleason grading system for prostate cancer, introduced in 1966, has been proven to be one of the main independent predictors of prostate cancer outcome. This review addresses interobserver concordance in Gleason grading; the persistence of grading discrepancies with frequent upgrading from the biopsy to the prostatectomy specimen; the 2005 International Society of Urologic Pathologists' modifications to Gleason grading; the impact of this modified grading on grade migration and outcome prediction; and molecular correlates of cancer morphology. Data from the most recent years are emphasized.
    Current Urology Reports 03/2011; 12(3):216-22.

D M Fanning