Discrepancy between gleason score of needle biopsies and radical prostatectomy specimens -current situation of general pathologists-

Taku Kato, Masahiro Nakano, Hiromi Uno, Kensaku Seike, Keitaro Kojima, Yasuaki Kubota, Takahiro Goto, Naoki Yamamoto, Hidetoshi Ehara, Yusuke Kanimoto, Yoshito Takahashi, Takashi Deguchi

Research output: Contribution to journalArticlepeer-review

1 Citation (Scopus)

Abstract

We retrospectively reviewed the discrepancy in Gleason score between needle biopsy and radical prostatectomy specimens. Specimens from 153 patients who underwent radical retropubic prostatectomy at Gifu University Hospital and 9 community-based institutions between January 2001 and December 2005, were studied. Gleason score was determined by the general pathologist at each institution. The coincidence rate of Gleason score between biopsy and prostatectomy specimens was 49.7%. In contrast, 37.4% of biopsy specimens were undergraded. In biopsy specimens given a Gleason score of 5 or less, the Gleason score was coincident or undergraded compared with prostatectomy specimens. In biopsy specimens given a Gleason score of 6, the coincidence rate was 39.6%. In 56% in biopsy specimens of cancers with a Gleason score of 6 the Gleason score was undergraded compared with the prostatectomy specimen. In this group, extra-prostatic extention was found significantly more often than in other groups (p=0.04). In patients, who underwent extended biopsy, or had a more positive biopsy core (2≧25%), the coincidence rate was significantly greater (p= 0.03). We should be aware of the limitations of Gleason scores based on biopsy specimens, and give treatment opinions careful consideration.

Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)641-645
Number of pages5
JournalActa Urologica Japonica
Volume54
Issue number10
Publication statusPublished - 10-2008
Externally publishedYes

All Science Journal Classification (ASJC) codes

  • Medicine(all)

Fingerprint

Dive into the research topics of 'Discrepancy between gleason score of needle biopsies and radical prostatectomy specimens -current situation of general pathologists-'. Together they form a unique fingerprint.

Cite this