Comparison of Gleason Scores in Specimens of Transrectal Prostate Needle Biopsy and Radical Prostatectomy

被引:0
|
作者
Tuygun, Can [1 ]
Demirel, Fuat [1 ]
Yigitbasi, Orhan [1 ]
Bozkurt, Halil [1 ]
Bakirtas, Hasan [1 ]
Imamoglu, Abdurrahim [1 ]
机构
[1] Diskapi Yildirim Beyazit Egitim & Arastirma Hasta, Urol Klin 1 2 & 4, Ankara, Turkey
来源
关键词
Needle biopsy; Radical prostatectomy; Gleason score; CANCER; ADENOCARCINOMA; CARCINOMA; ACCURACY; GRADE; DIAGNOSIS; VOLUME;
D O I
暂无
中图分类号
R73 [肿瘤学];
学科分类号
100214 ;
摘要
Comparison of Gleason Scores in Specimens of Transrectal Prostate Needle Biopsy and Radical Prostatectomy We investigated the correlation between biopsy and prostatectomy specimens, and evaluated the accuracy of treatment decision regarding to biopsy results in patients who have candidate to active-surveillance for localized prostate cancer (PC). Gleason score (GS) of the 118 patients who had undergone radical prostatectomy for PC after biopsy, were evaluated. Patients were cathegorized as low, intermediate and high-risk-PC regarding to rectal examination, serum PSA level and biopsy GS. Then, patients were reevaluated with prostatectomy GS (secondary-evaluation). Correlation and discorrelation in GS were determined in 52 and 66 (55.93%) patients, respectively. At biopsy, lower and higher grading was observed in 48 and 18 patients, respectively. Of 63 patients with low-risk-PC at primary-evaluation, 16 (25.39%) had intermediate-risk-PC at second-evaluation. Discorrelation was found in the rate of 56%, and it was more observed as low grading at biopsy. Finally, it should be considered that patients who will perform active-surveillance may be confronted with risk of undertreatment, with the assumption that 25% of patients with low-risk-PC may have actually intermediate-risk PC.
引用
收藏
页码:129 / 133
页数:5
相关论文
共 50 条
  • [1] Discrepancies between Gleason scores of needle biopsy and radical prostatectomy specimens
    Fukagai, T
    Namiki, T
    Namiki, H
    Carlile, RG
    Shimada, M
    Yoshida, H
    PATHOLOGY INTERNATIONAL, 2001, 51 (05) : 364 - 370
  • [2] Correlation of prostate needle biopsy and radical prostatectomy Gleason scores: A contemporary update
    Fine, SW
    Epstein, JI
    JOURNAL OF UROLOGY, 2006, 175 (04): : 447 - 447
  • [3] Correlation of prostate needle biopsy and radical prostatectomy Gleason scores: A contemporary update
    Fine, SW
    Epstein, JI
    LABORATORY INVESTIGATION, 2006, 86 : 136A - 136A
  • [4] Correlation of prostate needle biopsy and radical prostatectomy Gleason scores: A contemporary update
    Fine, SW
    Epstein, JI
    MODERN PATHOLOGY, 2006, 19 : 136A - 136A
  • [5] Correlation of Gleason scores between needle biopsy and radical prostatectomy specimens in prostatic adenocarcinoma
    Sezgin, Arsenal
    Postaci, Hakan
    Eliyatkin, Nuket
    VIRCHOWS ARCHIV, 2007, 451 (02) : 350 - 351
  • [6] Is There a Concordance Between the Gleason Scores of Needle Biopsy and Radical Prostatectomy Specimens in Prostatic Carsinoma?
    Ozgor, Faruk
    Kucuktopcu, Onur
    Sahan, Murat
    Simsek, Abdulmuttalip
    Berberoglu, Ahmet Yalcin
    Sarilar, Omer
    Savun, Metin
    Gurbuz, Zafer Gokhan
    HASEKI TIP BULTENI-MEDICAL BULLETIN OF HASEKI, 2016, 54 (01): : 32 - 35
  • [7] Gleason scores in prostate needle biopsy and prostatectomy specimens in prostatic adenocarcinoma: A correlation study
    Awang, Asmawiza
    Isa, Nurismah Md
    Yunus, Rosna
    Shah, Shamsul Azhar
    Pauzi, Suria Hayati Md
    MALAYSIAN JOURNAL OF PATHOLOGY, 2019, 41 (03) : 253 - 257
  • [8] Comparison of Gleason scores from sextant prostate biopsies and radical prostatectomy specimens
    Altay, B
    Kefi, A
    Nazli, O
    Killi, R
    Semerci, B
    Akar, I
    UROLOGIA INTERNATIONALIS, 2001, 67 (01) : 14 - 18
  • [9] Discrepancy between Gleason scores of biopsy and radical prostatectomy specimens
    Skrepetis, K
    Doumas, K
    Lykourinas, M
    EUROPEAN UROLOGY, 2001, 40 (02) : 239 - 239
  • [10] Discrepancy between Gleason scores of biopsy and radical prostatectomy specimens
    Köksal, IT
    Özcan, F
    Kadioglu, TC
    Esen, T
    Kiliçaslan, I
    Tunç, M
    EUROPEAN UROLOGY, 2000, 37 (06) : 670 - 674