The site of the Media Sphera Publishers contains materials intended solely for healthcare professionals.
By closing this message, you confirm that you are a certified medical professional or a student of a medical educational institution.

Login
EN
+7 (495) 482-4118
+7 (495) 482-0604
+8 800 250-18-12
  • (toll-free number for subscriptions)
    Mon-Fri from 10 a.m. to 6 p.m.

  • © 1998-2025
+7 (495) 482-43-29
EN
All journals
Journal
Year
Year
Search result: 0

Volchenko N.N.

Moskovskiĭ nauchno-issledovatel'skiĭ onkologicheskiĭ institut im. P.A. Gertsena, Moskva

Kaprin A.D.

FGBU "Moskovskiĭ nauchno-issledovatel'skiĭ onkologicheskiĭ institut im. P.A. Gertsena" Minzdrava Rossii

Belyakov M.M.

P.A. Herzen Moscow Oncology Research Institute, Branch, National Medical Radiology Research Center, Ministry of Health of Russia, Moscow, Russia

Petrov A.N.

FGBU "Moskovskiĭ nauchno-issledovatel'skiĭ onkologicheskiĭ institut im. P.A. Gertsena" Minzdrava RF

Comparative analysis of prostate cancer grades on biopsy and intraoperative materials

Authors:

Volchenko N.N., Kaprin A.D., Belyakov M.M., Petrov A.N.

More about the authors

Journal: P.A. Herzen Journal of Oncology. 2016;5(1): 18‑22

DOI: 10.17116/onkolog20165118-22

Views: 2520

Downloaded: 25

Download PDF (RU)
Contact the author
Table of contents

COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS OF PROSTATE CANCER GRADES ON BIOPSY AND INTRAOPERATIVE MATERIALS
COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS OF PROSTATE CANCER GRADES ON BIOPSY AND INTRAOPERATIVE MATERIALS

To cite this article:

Volchenko NN, Kaprin AD, Belyakov MM, Petrov AN. Comparative analysis of prostate cancer grades on biopsy and intraoperative materials. P.A. Herzen Journal of Oncology. 2016;5(1):18‑22. (In Russ.)
https://doi.org/10.17116/onkolog20165118-22

Подписка 2025-2 (P.A. Herzen Journal of Oncology)
МСФ на ЯМ
Close metadata
Recommended articles:
Resu­lts of the impact of personalized reha­bilitation on the quality of life of men after lapa­roscopic prostatectomy. P.A. Herzen Journal of Onco­logy. 2024;(4):22-28
Pote­ntial of specialized diet therapy in redu­cing toxic mani­festations in patients with meta­static castration-resistant prostate cancer with bone meta­stases during radionuclide therapy with radium chlo­ride [223Ra]. P.A. Herzen Journal of Onco­logy. 2024;(6):33-41
Patterns of CAF expression in tumors of the geni­tourinary system. Russian Journal of Archive of Pathology. 2024;(6):28-35

Objective: to comparatively analyze the prostate cancer grade established at histological examination of biopsy and intraoperative materials. Material and methods. To establish a correlation between the Gleason grade of prostate cancer, biopsy and intraoperative materials taken from 160 patients were preoperatively and postoperatively examined. Results. The sum of scores between the results of examining the biopsy and intraoperative materials coincided in 109 (68.1%) cases, increased in 35 (21.9%), and decreased in 16 (10%). The agreement of the sum of Gleason scores was 70.5% (n=62), 85.7% (n=48), and 69% (n=11) in the groups of 5—6, 7, and 8—10 scores. Conclusion. Our comparison of the biopsy material with the intraoperative one in the surgical treatment group revealed 69 to 85.7% agreements in relation to tumor grading, which allows the biopsy method to be used as a predictive factor in the indications determining the choice of medical treatments (hormone therapy, brachytherapy, and beam therapy).

Keywords:

prostate cancer
prostate cancer grading
Gleason scale
prostate biopsy
correlation between cancer grades in biopsy and intraoperative materials

Authors:

Volchenko N.N.

Moskovskiĭ nauchno-issledovatel'skiĭ onkologicheskiĭ institut im. P.A. Gertsena, Moskva

Kaprin A.D.

FGBU "Moskovskiĭ nauchno-issledovatel'skiĭ onkologicheskiĭ institut im. P.A. Gertsena" Minzdrava Rossii

Belyakov M.M.

P.A. Herzen Moscow Oncology Research Institute, Branch, National Medical Radiology Research Center, Ministry of Health of Russia, Moscow, Russia

Petrov A.N.

FGBU "Moskovskiĭ nauchno-issledovatel'skiĭ onkologicheskiĭ institut im. P.A. Gertsena" Minzdrava RF

List of references:

  1. Partin A. Combination of prostate-specific antigen, clinical stage, and Gleason score to predict pathological stage of localized prostate cancer. JAMA. 1997;277(18):1445. doi:10.1001/jama.1997.03540420041027.
  2. Kattan MW, Zelefsky MJ, Kupelian PA et al. Pretreatment nomogram for predicting the outcome of three-dimensional conformal radiotherapy in prostate cancer. J Clin Oncol. 2000;18:3352-3359.
  3. Epstein J. Pathologic and clinical findings to predict tumor extent of nonpalpable (stage T1c) prostate cancer. JAMA. 1994;271(5):368-374. doi:10.1001/jama.271.5.368.
  4. Stock R, Cesaretti J, Stone N. Disease-specific survival following the brachytherapy management of prostate cancer. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2006;64(3):810-816. doi:10.1016/j.ijrobp.2005.09.005.
  5. Bangma CH, Bul M, Van der Kwast TH, Pickles T, Korfage IJ, Hoeks CM et al. Active surveillance for low-risk prostate cancer. Crit Rev Oncol Hematol. 2013;85(3):295-302.
  6. Egevad L, Granfors T, Karlberg L, Bergh A, Stattin P. Prognostic value of the Gleason score in prostate cancer. BJU Int. 2002;89(6):538-542. doi:10.1046/j.1464-410x.2002.02669.x.
  7. Stark J, Perner S, Stampfer M et al. Gleason score and lethal prostate cancer: does 3+4=4+3? J Clin Oncol. 2009;27(21):3459-3464. doi:10.1200/jco.2008.20.4669.
  8. Epstein J, Allsbrook W, Amin M, Egevad L. The 2005 International Society of Urological Pathology (ISUP) Consensus Conference on Gleason grading of prostatic carcinoma. Am J Surg Pathol. 2005;29(9):1228-1242. doi:10.1097/01.pas.0000173646.99337.b1.
  9. Van der Kwast T, Bubendorf L, Mazerolles C et al. Guidelines on processing and reporting of prostate biopsies: the 2013 update of the pathology committee of the European Randomized Study of Screening for Prostate Cancer (ERSPC). Virchows Archiv. 2013;463(3):367-377. doi:10.1007/s00428-013-1466-5.
  10. Andreeva Yu.Yu., Frank G.A., red. Opukholi mochevydelitel'noi sistemy i muzhskikh polovykh organov. Morfologicheskaya diagnostika i genetika. Rukovodstvo dlya vrachei. 2-e izd. M.: Prakticheskaya meditsina; 2014.
  11. Bostwick D, Cheng L. Urologic surgical pathology. Philadelphia, Pa.: Elsevier Saunders; 2014.
  12. Egevad L. Reproducibility of Gleason grading of prostate cancer can be improved by the use of reference images. Urology. 2001;57(2):291-295. doi:10.1016/s0090-4295(00)00922-5.
  13. Epstein J. Gleason Score 2—4 Adenocarcinoma of the prostate on needle biopsy. Am J Surg Pathol. 2000;24(4):477-478. doi:10.1097/00000478-200004000-00001.
  14. Epstein J, Netto G, Epstein J. Biopsy interpretation of the prostate. Philadelphia: Wolters Kluwer Health/Lippincott Williams & Wilkins; 2008.
  15. Bostwick D. Correlation with grade in 316 matched prostatectomies. Am J Surg Pathol. 1994;18(8):796-803. doi:10.1097/00000478-199408000-00006.
  16. Spiries SE, Cibull ML, Wood DP Jr et al. Gleason histologic grading in prostatic carcinoma. Correlation of 18-gauge core biopsy with prostatectomy. Arch Pathol Lab Med. 1994;118:705-708.
  17. Tsui K, Shen B, Sun G, Lee S, Chang P. Probability based diagnostic biopsy specimens as predictors of tumor grade and stage found. Syst Biol Reprod Med. 2004;50(5):333-337. doi:10.1080/01485010490474788.
  18. Steinberg D, Sauvageot J, Piantadosi S, Epstein J. Correlation of prostate needle biopsy and radical prostatectomy Gleason grade in academic and community settings. Am J Surg Pathol. 1997;21(5):566-576. doi:10.1097/00000478-199705000-00010.
  19. Tomioka S, Nakatsu H, Suzuki N, Murakami S, Matsuzaki O, Shimazaki J. Comparison of Gleason grade and score between preoperative biopsy and prostatectomy specimens in prostate cancer. Int J Urol. 2006;13(5):555-559. doi:10.1111/j.1442-2042.2006.01346.x.
  20. King C, McNeal J, Gill H, Brooks J, Srinivas S, Presti J. Reliability of small amounts of cancer in prostate biopsies to reveal pathologic grade. Urology. 2006;67(6):1229-1234. doi:10.1016/j.urology.2005.12.031.
  21. King C, Long J. Prostate biopsy grading errors: A sampling problem? Int J Cancer. 2000;90(6):326-330. doi:10.1002/1097-0215(20001220)90:6<326::aid-ijc3>3.0.co;2-j.
  22. Thickman D, Speers WC, Philpott PJ, Shapiro H. Effect of the number of core biopsies of the prostate on predicting Gleason score of prostate cancer. J Urol. 1996;156(1):110-113. doi:10.1097/00005392-199607000-00034.
  23. Corcoran N, Hovens C, Hong M et al. Underestimation of Gleason score at prostate biopsy reflects sampling error in lower volume tumours. BJU Int. 2011;109(5):660-664. doi:10.1111/j.1464-410x.2011.10543.x.
  24. Poulos C, Daggy J, Cheng L. Preoperative prediction of Gleason grade in radical prostatectomy specimens: the influence of different Gleason grades from multiple positive biopsy sites. Mod Pathol. 2004;18(2):228-234. doi:10.1038/modpathol.3800302.

Close metadata

Contact the author
Email
Message
The publishing house "Media Sphere" does not provide treatment services, does not give recommendations on contacting medical institutions and specific specialists, on the prescription of medicines and dietary supplements.

Email Confirmation

An email was sent to test@gmail.com with a confirmation link. Follow the link from the letter to complete the registration on the site.

Email Confirmation

Contact us
If you have any questions, complaints or suggestions, please use this feedback form.
Email
Message
The publishing house "Media Sphere" does not provide treatment services, does not give recommendations on contacting medical institutions and specific specialists, on the prescription of medicines and dietary supplements.
Submit Application

You can become an author of one of our magazines, send a request and we will consider it in during the day.

Name
Phone
E-mail
Message
Login
Registration
E-mail
Password
Forgot Password?

Log in to the site using your account in one of the services

Password recovery
E-mail
Login
Register

We use cооkies to improve the performance of the site. By staying on our site, you agree to the terms of use of cооkies. To view our Privacy and Cookie Policy, please. click here.