Jump to content
RemedySpot.com

UroToday - Trends in Gleason Score: Concordance Between Biopsy and Prostatectomy over 15 Years

Rate this topic


Guest guest

Recommended Posts

Guest guest

Thursday, 27 March 2008

BERKELEY, CA (UroToday.com) - Gleason score remains one of the strongest

prognostic predictors of treatment outcome in patients with prostate cancer

(CaP). The prostate biopsy is a sampling and may not accurately reflect the

Gleason score in the final radical prostatectomy (RP) specimen. The biopsy

Gleason score can impact treatment decisions and outcomes if it does not

accurately reflect the true Gleason score and biology of the prostate tumor.

For example, some treatments such as brachytherapy are best suited for men

with Gleason score 6 or less CaP. In the online version of Urology, Dr.

Rajinikanth and the group of Dr. Mark Soloway at the University of Miami

report the trends in Gleason score concordance between biopsy and RP over a

15 year period.

A total of 1,363 men who underwent RP by Dr. Soloway between 1992 and 2006

were assessed in three groups; group 1 was 1992-1996, group 2 was 1997-2001,

and group 3 was 2002-2006. The same pathologist was not reviewing the

specimens in all cases. The number of RPs performed increased 2.5 fold from

group 1 to group 3. Overall, biopsy and RP Gleason score correlated exactly

in 59% of patients. The biopsy Gleason score was undergraded in 32% and

overgraded in 9%. The Gleason score concordance between biopsy and RP was

39%, 55%, and 70% in groups 1, 2, and 3, respectively. Undergrading of the

biopsy sample was the most common discordant finding. The rate of

undergrading decreased from 53% in group 1 to 20% in group 3. The percentage

of overgrading did not differ greatly over the 3 time periods and was about

5%. The data is reassuring to patients that the biopsy is a more accurate

reflection of their tumor than it may have been 10 to 15 years previously.

Rajinikanth A, Manoharan M, Soloway CT, Civantos FJ, Soloway MS

Urology. 2008 Feb 14 [Epub ahead of print]

doi: 10.1016/j.urology.2007.10.022

PubMed Abstract

PMID: 18279938

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
×
×
  • Create New...