Heterogeneity of gleason grade in multifocal adenocarcinorna of the prostate

被引:241
|
作者
Arora, R
Koch, MO
Eble, JN
Ulbright, TM
Li, L
Cheng, L
机构
[1] Indiana Univ, Sch Med, Dept Pathol & Lab Med, Indianapolis, IN USA
[2] Indiana Univ, Sch Med, Dept Urol, Indianapolis, IN 46204 USA
[3] Indiana Univ, Sch Med, Dept Med, Div Biostat, Indianapolis, IN USA
关键词
prostate; neoplasm; prostatectomy; Gleason grade; multifocal; heterogeneity; staging;
D O I
10.1002/cncr.20243
中图分类号
R73 [肿瘤学];
学科分类号
100214 ;
摘要
BACKGROUND. The Gleason grading system uniquely combines data front different areas of carcinoma in the same prostate specimen. Prostatic adenocarcinoma often is multifocal, and different Gleason grades may be present in different foci. The current study was undertaken to compare the Gleason grades of individual adenocarcinoma foci in a given specimen with the overall Gleason grades (primary and secondary) of that specimen. METHODS. Data were obtained front 115 consecutive radical prostatectomy specimens via whole-mount processing and complete sectioning. Diagrams were constructed by tracing the outline of each whole-mount section, and tumor maps subsequently were generated. The largest focus was considered the index tumor. Each prostatectomy specimen was assigned primary and secondary Gleason grades, and each tumor focus was assigned its own primary and secondary Gleason grades. Tumor volume was measured using the grid method. RESULTS. Two or more adenocarcinoma foci were present in 87% of all specimens (2 foci, n = 20; 3 foci, n = 33; 4 foci, n = 17; 5 foci, n = 13; > 5 foci, n = 17). Specimens (n = 15) containing a single tumor were excluded from further analysis. Among the remaining specimens (n = 100), all tumor foci had Gleason grades that were the same as the corresponding overall Gleason grades in only 9 cases (9%). The Gleason score (i.e., the sum of the primary and secondary grades) of the index tumor was correlated with the overall Gleason score in 68% of specimens. The primary grade of the index tumor was the same as the overall primary grade in 97 specimens, whereas the secondary grade of the index tumor was the same as the overall secondary grade in only 68 specimens. The primary and secondary grades of the index tumor, compared with the overall Gleason primary and secondary grades, were reversed in 17 specimens. CONCLUSIONS. The findings of the current study demonstrated the histologic heterogeneity of multifocal prostate malignancies. Although the Gleason grading system was used to determine an overall score for prostate carcinoma within a specimen, the scores of individual tumors, including index tumors, often did not agree with this overall score. These findings may have implications with respect to future biomarker and tissue array studies. (C) 2004 American Cancer Society.
引用
收藏
页码:2362 / 2366
页数:5
相关论文
共 50 条
  • [31] Proliferation Index of Gleason Grade 3 Prostate Adenocarcinoma with and without Associated Grade 4
    Hwang, Michael
    Fu, Liying
    Adeniran, Adebowale
    Humphrey, Peter A.
    MODERN PATHOLOGY, 2016, 29 : 239A - 239A
  • [32] Expression differences between proteins responsible for DNA damage repair according to the Gleason grade as a new heterogeneity marker in prostate cancer
    Jaworski, Damian
    Gzil, Arkadiusz
    Antosik, Paulina
    Zarebska, Izabela
    Dominiak, Joanna
    Neska-Dlugosz, Izabela
    Kasperska, Anna
    Grzanka, Dariusz
    Szylberg, Lukasz
    ARCHIVES OF MEDICAL SCIENCE, 2023, 19 (02) : 499 - 506
  • [33] PROGNOSTIC-SIGNIFICANCE OF ANTIGENIC HETEROGENEITY, GLEASON GRADE, AND PLOIDY OF LYMPH-NODE METASTASES IN PATIENTS WITH PROSTATE-CANCER
    BAZINET, M
    HAMDY, SM
    BEGIN, LR
    STEPHENSON, RA
    FAIR, WR
    PROSTATE, 1992, 20 (04): : 311 - 326
  • [34] A 17-gene Assay to Predict Prostate Cancer Aggressiveness in the Context of Gleason Grade Heterogeneity, Tumor Multifocality, and Biopsy Undersampling
    Klein, Eric A.
    Cooperberg, Matthew R.
    Magi-Galluzzi, Cristina
    Simko, Jeffry P.
    Falzarano, Sara M.
    Maddala, Tara
    Chan, June M.
    Li, Jianbo
    Cowan, Janet E.
    Tsiatis, Athanasios C.
    Cherbavaz, Diana B.
    Pelham, Robert J.
    Tenggara-Hunter, Imelda
    Baehner, Frederick L.
    Knezevic, Dejan
    Febbo, Phillip G.
    Shak, Steven
    Kattan, Michael W.
    Lee, Mark
    Carroll, Peter R.
    EUROPEAN UROLOGY, 2014, 66 (03) : 550 - 560
  • [35] Prostate-Specific Antigen Doubling Time as a Predictor of Gleason Grade in Prostate Cancer
    Nowroozi, Mohammad Reza
    Zeighami, Shahryar
    Ayati, Mohsen
    Jamshidian, Hassan
    Ranjbaran, Ali Reza
    Moradi, Asaad
    Afsar, Firuzeh
    UROLOGY JOURNAL, 2009, 6 (01) : 27 - 30
  • [36] PROSTATE-SPECIFIC ANTIGEN AND GLEASON GRADE - AN IMMUNOHISTOCHEMICAL STUDY OF PROSTATE-CANCER
    AIHARA, M
    LEBOVITZ, RM
    WHEELER, TM
    KINNER, BM
    OHORI, M
    SCARDINO, PT
    JOURNAL OF UROLOGY, 1994, 151 (06): : 1558 - 1564
  • [37] Biochemical Recurrence in Gleason Score 7 Prostate Cancer in Korean Men: Significance of the Primary Gleason Grade
    Ro, Yun Kwan
    Lee, Sangchul
    Jeong, Chang Wook
    Hong, Sung Kyu
    Byun, Seok Soo
    Lee, Sang Eun
    KOREAN JOURNAL OF UROLOGY, 2012, 53 (12) : 826 - 829
  • [38] Targeted Prostate Biopsy Gleason Score Heterogeneity and Implications for Risk Stratification
    Mesko, Shane
    Marks, Leonard
    Ragab, Omar
    Patel, Shyamal
    Margolis, Daniel A.
    Demanes, D. Jeffrey
    Kamrava, Mitchell
    AMERICAN JOURNAL OF CLINICAL ONCOLOGY-CANCER CLINICAL TRIALS, 2018, 41 (05): : 497 - 501
  • [39] Revisiting Prostate Biopsy with 2014 ISUP Modified Gleason Score and Gleason Grade - A Cross Section Study
    Shah, Manan B.
    Raju, Kalyani
    Kumar, Harish G.
    BIOMEDICAL RESEARCH AND THERAPY, 2018, 5 (12): : 2918 - 2925
  • [40] Limitations of biopsy Gleason grade: Implications for counseling patients with biopsy Gleason score 6 prostate cancer
    Sved, PD
    Gomez, P
    Manoharan, M
    Kim, SS
    Soloway, MS
    JOURNAL OF UROLOGY, 2004, 172 (01): : 98 - 102