Multiple prostate cancer cores with different Gleason grades submitted in the same specimen container without specific site designation: should each core be assigned an individual Gleason score?

Lakshmi P. Kunju, Stephanie Daignault, John T. Wei, Rajal B. Shah

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

20 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

To better represent the Gleason score of radical prostatectomy, the International Society of Urologic Pathologists Consensus Committee recommends assigning individual Gleason scores to prostate cancer cores submitted in separate containers and/or multiple cores in the same container with site identifiers. However, scenarios where multiple cores are submitted in the same container without site identifiers or labeled "left/right" are common. To assess this scenario, we analyzed 110 extended biopsies containing different Gleason scores with corresponding radical prostatectomy for clinically significant grade differences. Because cores are individually labeled and submitted at our institution, we simulated a scenario of multiple intact cores with different Gleason scores in the same container(s) by analyzing as if submitted in containers labeled "left/right." For each biopsy, a Global (all positive cores averaged as 1 long positive core), Worst, and Largest tumor volume Gleason score was determined and compared with grade of radical prostatectomy using κ statistics. Biopsies containing core(s) with 3+4 and other core(s) 3+3 were excluded because in this situation, both Global and Worst Gleason score will be always 3+4. The following scenarios were considered clinically significant upgrading: biopsy Gleason score 6 / 3+4 to radical prostatectomy 4+3; biopsy 7 to radical prostatectomy 8-10; biopsy 7 to radical prostatectomy 7 with tertiary Gleason pattern 5. Overall, 51 cases met inclusion criteria. Biopsy Worst Gleason score had the best correlation with radical prostatectomy (κ agreement of 0.37). Clinically significant upgrading at radical prostatectomy was least with Worst (4%) and highest with Global Gleason score (37%). Upgrading and downgrading were noted in 14% and 8%, respectively, of 59 cases containing core(s) with a Gleason score of 3+4 and other core(s) 3+3, suggesting that any amount of higher Gleason pattern should be recorded. When multiple intact cores are submitted in the same container without specific identifiers, individual cores with cancer should be graded and/or the Worst Gleason score should be recorded.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)558-564
Number of pages7
JournalHuman Pathology
Volume40
Issue number4
DOIs
StatePublished - Apr 1 2009
Externally publishedYes

Fingerprint

Neoplasm Grading
Prostatic Neoplasms
Prostatectomy
Biopsy
Tumor Burden

Keywords

  • Core needle biopsy
  • Gleason score
  • Prostate cancer

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Pathology and Forensic Medicine

Cite this

Multiple prostate cancer cores with different Gleason grades submitted in the same specimen container without specific site designation : should each core be assigned an individual Gleason score? / Kunju, Lakshmi P.; Daignault, Stephanie; Wei, John T.; Shah, Rajal B.

In: Human Pathology, Vol. 40, No. 4, 01.04.2009, p. 558-564.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

@article{f6ec064641324e7885f310b5aa1c1542,
title = "Multiple prostate cancer cores with different Gleason grades submitted in the same specimen container without specific site designation: should each core be assigned an individual Gleason score?",
abstract = "To better represent the Gleason score of radical prostatectomy, the International Society of Urologic Pathologists Consensus Committee recommends assigning individual Gleason scores to prostate cancer cores submitted in separate containers and/or multiple cores in the same container with site identifiers. However, scenarios where multiple cores are submitted in the same container without site identifiers or labeled {"}left/right{"} are common. To assess this scenario, we analyzed 110 extended biopsies containing different Gleason scores with corresponding radical prostatectomy for clinically significant grade differences. Because cores are individually labeled and submitted at our institution, we simulated a scenario of multiple intact cores with different Gleason scores in the same container(s) by analyzing as if submitted in containers labeled {"}left/right.{"} For each biopsy, a Global (all positive cores averaged as 1 long positive core), Worst, and Largest tumor volume Gleason score was determined and compared with grade of radical prostatectomy using κ statistics. Biopsies containing core(s) with 3+4 and other core(s) 3+3 were excluded because in this situation, both Global and Worst Gleason score will be always 3+4. The following scenarios were considered clinically significant upgrading: biopsy Gleason score 6 / 3+4 to radical prostatectomy 4+3; biopsy 7 to radical prostatectomy 8-10; biopsy 7 to radical prostatectomy 7 with tertiary Gleason pattern 5. Overall, 51 cases met inclusion criteria. Biopsy Worst Gleason score had the best correlation with radical prostatectomy (κ agreement of 0.37). Clinically significant upgrading at radical prostatectomy was least with Worst (4{\%}) and highest with Global Gleason score (37{\%}). Upgrading and downgrading were noted in 14{\%} and 8{\%}, respectively, of 59 cases containing core(s) with a Gleason score of 3+4 and other core(s) 3+3, suggesting that any amount of higher Gleason pattern should be recorded. When multiple intact cores are submitted in the same container without specific identifiers, individual cores with cancer should be graded and/or the Worst Gleason score should be recorded.",
keywords = "Core needle biopsy, Gleason score, Prostate cancer",
author = "Kunju, {Lakshmi P.} and Stephanie Daignault and Wei, {John T.} and Shah, {Rajal B.}",
year = "2009",
month = "4",
day = "1",
doi = "10.1016/j.humpath.2008.07.020",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "40",
pages = "558--564",
journal = "Human Pathology",
issn = "0046-8177",
publisher = "W.B. Saunders Ltd",
number = "4",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Multiple prostate cancer cores with different Gleason grades submitted in the same specimen container without specific site designation

T2 - should each core be assigned an individual Gleason score?

AU - Kunju, Lakshmi P.

AU - Daignault, Stephanie

AU - Wei, John T.

AU - Shah, Rajal B.

PY - 2009/4/1

Y1 - 2009/4/1

N2 - To better represent the Gleason score of radical prostatectomy, the International Society of Urologic Pathologists Consensus Committee recommends assigning individual Gleason scores to prostate cancer cores submitted in separate containers and/or multiple cores in the same container with site identifiers. However, scenarios where multiple cores are submitted in the same container without site identifiers or labeled "left/right" are common. To assess this scenario, we analyzed 110 extended biopsies containing different Gleason scores with corresponding radical prostatectomy for clinically significant grade differences. Because cores are individually labeled and submitted at our institution, we simulated a scenario of multiple intact cores with different Gleason scores in the same container(s) by analyzing as if submitted in containers labeled "left/right." For each biopsy, a Global (all positive cores averaged as 1 long positive core), Worst, and Largest tumor volume Gleason score was determined and compared with grade of radical prostatectomy using κ statistics. Biopsies containing core(s) with 3+4 and other core(s) 3+3 were excluded because in this situation, both Global and Worst Gleason score will be always 3+4. The following scenarios were considered clinically significant upgrading: biopsy Gleason score 6 / 3+4 to radical prostatectomy 4+3; biopsy 7 to radical prostatectomy 8-10; biopsy 7 to radical prostatectomy 7 with tertiary Gleason pattern 5. Overall, 51 cases met inclusion criteria. Biopsy Worst Gleason score had the best correlation with radical prostatectomy (κ agreement of 0.37). Clinically significant upgrading at radical prostatectomy was least with Worst (4%) and highest with Global Gleason score (37%). Upgrading and downgrading were noted in 14% and 8%, respectively, of 59 cases containing core(s) with a Gleason score of 3+4 and other core(s) 3+3, suggesting that any amount of higher Gleason pattern should be recorded. When multiple intact cores are submitted in the same container without specific identifiers, individual cores with cancer should be graded and/or the Worst Gleason score should be recorded.

AB - To better represent the Gleason score of radical prostatectomy, the International Society of Urologic Pathologists Consensus Committee recommends assigning individual Gleason scores to prostate cancer cores submitted in separate containers and/or multiple cores in the same container with site identifiers. However, scenarios where multiple cores are submitted in the same container without site identifiers or labeled "left/right" are common. To assess this scenario, we analyzed 110 extended biopsies containing different Gleason scores with corresponding radical prostatectomy for clinically significant grade differences. Because cores are individually labeled and submitted at our institution, we simulated a scenario of multiple intact cores with different Gleason scores in the same container(s) by analyzing as if submitted in containers labeled "left/right." For each biopsy, a Global (all positive cores averaged as 1 long positive core), Worst, and Largest tumor volume Gleason score was determined and compared with grade of radical prostatectomy using κ statistics. Biopsies containing core(s) with 3+4 and other core(s) 3+3 were excluded because in this situation, both Global and Worst Gleason score will be always 3+4. The following scenarios were considered clinically significant upgrading: biopsy Gleason score 6 / 3+4 to radical prostatectomy 4+3; biopsy 7 to radical prostatectomy 8-10; biopsy 7 to radical prostatectomy 7 with tertiary Gleason pattern 5. Overall, 51 cases met inclusion criteria. Biopsy Worst Gleason score had the best correlation with radical prostatectomy (κ agreement of 0.37). Clinically significant upgrading at radical prostatectomy was least with Worst (4%) and highest with Global Gleason score (37%). Upgrading and downgrading were noted in 14% and 8%, respectively, of 59 cases containing core(s) with a Gleason score of 3+4 and other core(s) 3+3, suggesting that any amount of higher Gleason pattern should be recorded. When multiple intact cores are submitted in the same container without specific identifiers, individual cores with cancer should be graded and/or the Worst Gleason score should be recorded.

KW - Core needle biopsy

KW - Gleason score

KW - Prostate cancer

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=62049084377&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=62049084377&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1016/j.humpath.2008.07.020

DO - 10.1016/j.humpath.2008.07.020

M3 - Article

C2 - 19144380

AN - SCOPUS:62049084377

VL - 40

SP - 558

EP - 564

JO - Human Pathology

JF - Human Pathology

SN - 0046-8177

IS - 4

ER -