rss
J Clin Pathol 2009;62:260-263 doi:10.1136/jcp.2008.060632
  • Original article

Impact of reporting rules of biopsy Gleason score for prostate cancer

  1. K Kuroiwa,
  2. H Uchino,
  3. A Yokomizo,
  4. S Naito
  1. Department of Urology, Graduate School of Medical Sciences, Kyushu University, Fukuoka, Japan
  1. Dr K Kuroiwa, Department of Urology, Graduate School of Medical Sciences, Kyushu University, 3-1-1 Maidashi, Higashi-ku, Fukuoka 812-8582, Japan; humeiten{at}hotmail.com
  • Accepted 4 October 2008
  • Published Online First 24 October 2008

Abstract

Aims: To investigate how the biopsy Gleason score (GS) and the clinical risk classification have been changed by the reporting rules.

Methods: 565 prostate biopsy specimens were reassessed. Each Gleason pattern, 1 to 5, was interpreted according to the modified Gleason grading system proposed by the International Society of Urological Pathology. The GS for each case was assigned by the previous reporting rules in the institute (OLD rules), applying the overall-scoring, and ignoring a pattern occupying less than 5% and the tertiary pattern. The GS was also assigned according to the NEW rules, applying the highest-core scoring and reflecting a pattern occupying less than 5% and the tertiary pattern.

Results: GS upgrading by the NEW rules was observed in 195 (35%) patients. Of these, 179 (92%) patients were upgraded only by applying the highest-core scoring. Of 198 patients with GS 6 by the OLD rules, 22 (11%) were upgraded to GS 3+4. Of 172 patients with GS 3+4 by the OLD rules, 59 (34%) and 28 (16%), respectively, were upgraded to GS 4+3 and ≥8. Of 108 patients with GS 4+3 by the OLD rules, 63 (58%) were upgraded to GS ≥8. As a result, the distribution of D’Amico’s clinical risk classification (low, intermediate and high risk) was changed from 26%, 43% and 31% to 23%, 35% and 41%, respectively.

Conclusions: Clinicians should be aware that the reporting rules, especially the highest-core scoring, contribute to a significant upward shift of the biopsy GS and risk classification.

Footnotes

  • Competing interests: None.

  • Ethics approval: Ethics approval was obtained.

Register for free content


Free trial
Individuals may register for a free 60 day online trial to all content.

Free archive
The full back archive is now available for all BMJ Journals. Institutional subscribers may access the entire archive as part of their subscription. Personal subscribers will also have access to all content when logged in. Non-subscribers who register have free access to all articles published before 2006 right back to volume 1 issue 1. Register here to access the free archive of all BMJ Journals.

Don't forget to sign up for content alerts so you keep up to date with all the articles as they ar