4.3 Article

Importance and determinants of Gleason score undergrading on biopsy sample of prostate cancer in a population-based study

期刊

BMC UROLOGY
卷 13, 期 -, 页码 -

出版社

BIOMED CENTRAL LTD
DOI: 10.1186/1471-2490-13-19

关键词

Prostate cancer; Gleason score; Biopsy; Prostatectomy; Population-based study; Biopsy undergrading

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background: In this population-based study, we investigated the degree of concordance between Gleason scores obtained from prostate biopsies and those obtained from prostatectomy specimens, as well as the determinants of biopsy understaging. Methods: We considered for this study all 371 prostate cancer patients recorded at the Geneva Cancer Registry diagnosed from 2004 to 2006 who underwent a radical prostatectomy. We used the kappa statistic to evaluate the Gleason score concordance from biopsy and prostatectomy specimens. Logistic regression was used to determine the parameters that predict the undergrading of the Gleason score in prostate biopsies. Results: The kappa statistic between biopsy and prostatectomy Gleason score was 0.42 (p < 0.0001), with 67% of patients exactly matched, and 26% (n = 95) patients with Gleason score underestimated by the biopsy. In a multi-adjusted model, increasing age, advanced clinical stage, having less than ten biopsy cores, and longer delay between the two procedures, were all independently associated with biopsy undergrading. In particular, the proportion of exact match increased to 72% when the patients had ten or more needle biopsy cores. The main limitation of the study is that both biopsy and prostatectomy specimens were examined by different laboratories. Conclusions: The data show that concordance between biopsy and prostatectomy Gleason scores lies within the classic clinical standards in this population-based study. The number of biopsy cores appears to strongly impact on the concordance between biopsy and radical prostatectomy Gleason score.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.3
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据