4.4 Article

Accuracy of Grading Gleason Score 7 Prostatic Adenocarcinoma on Needle Biopsy: Influence of Percent Pattern 4 and Other Histological Factors

Journal

PROSTATE
Volume 77, Issue 6, Pages 681-685

Publisher

WILEY
DOI: 10.1002/pros.23314

Keywords

prostate cancer; gleason grading; percent pattern 4; interobserver

Ask authors/readers for more resources

BACKGROUNDRecognition of Gleason pattern 4 in prostatic needle biopsies is crucial for both prognosis and therapy. Recently, it has been recommended to record percent pattern 4 when Gleason score 7 cancer is the highest grade in a case. METHODSFour hundred and five prostate needle core biopsies received for a second opinion at our institution from February-June, 2015 were prospectively diagnosed with prostatic adenocarcinoma Gleason score 7 as the highest score on review by a consultant urological pathologist. Percentage of core involvement by cancer, percentage of Gleason pattern 4 per core, distribution of Gleason pattern 4 (clustered, scattered), morphology of pattern 4 (cribriform, non-cribriform), and whether the cancer was continuous or discontinuous were recorded. RESULTSBetter agreement was noted between the consultant and referring pathologists when pattern 4 was clustered as opposed to dispersed in biopsies (P=0.009). The percentage of core involvement by cancer, morphology of pattern 4, and continuity of cancer did not affect the agreement between the consultant and referring pathologists. There was a trend (P=0.06) for better agreement based on the percent of pattern 4. CONCLUSIONSWhen pattern 4 is scattered amongst pattern 3 as opposed to being discrete foci, there is less interobserver reproducibility in grading Gleason score 7 cancer, and in this setting pathologists should consider obtaining second opinions either internally within their group or externally. Prostate 77: 681-685, 2017. (c) 2017 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.4
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available