SavedAdd your journal

Journals / Ankara Eğitim ve Araştırma Hastanesi Tıp Dergisi / 2019 / Cilt: 52 - Sayı: 3

EVALUATION OF GLEASON SCORE RESULTS FROM NEEDLE BIOPSY AND RADICAL PROSTATECTOMY SPECIMENS IN PROSTATE ADENOCARCINOMA

PROSTAT ADENOKARSİNOMUNDA İĞNE BİYOPSİSİ VE RADİKAL PROSTATEKTOMİ ÖRNEKLERİNDEN ELDE EDİLEN GLEASON SKOR SONUÇLARININ DEĞERLENDİRİLMESİ

Mahi Balcı
Tuba Devrim
Pages
222–226
Publication Date
2022-10-11
DOI
—
🏛️Bibliographic metadata and full text access for this article are provided via DergiPark.
DergiPark Record ↗
✨

AI Summary & Key Takeaways

AI Insight
⚡ TL;DR(Too Long; Didn't Read)

Similarly, in RP material, in 6 (14.2%) patients, grade group score was decreased compared to IB (low score, down-grade) and in 8 (19%) patients increased (high score, up-grade) and one-to-one compliance was observed in 28 (66.6%) of the patients.

📌 3 Key Takeaways

🎯
Objective & Hypothesis:PURPOSE: In this study, needle biopsy (IB) and radical prostatectomy (RP) materials in prostate adenocarcinoma were compared histopathologically and it was aimed to evaluate compliance of Gleason score and grade group classifications which are important in prognosis.
📊
Key Findings & Data:Material and Method: RP and IB materials of 42 patients who were diagnosed as prostate adenocarcinoma between 2013 and 2018 in Kırıkkale University Medical Faculty Medical Pathology Department were evaluated histopathologically.
💡
Conclusion & Impact:Similarly, in RP material, in 6 (14.2%) patients, grade group score was decreased compared to IB (low score, down-grade) and in 8 (19%) patients increased (high score, up-grade) and one-to-one compliance was observed in 28 (66.6%) of the patients.
🔬Design:Research Article
📍Scope:2013 Verileri
⚙️Variables:Domain Parameters

Abstract

PURPOSE: In this study, needle biopsy (IB) and radical prostatectomy (RP) materials in prostate adenocarcinoma were compared histopathologically and it was aimed to evaluate compliance of Gleason score and grade group classifications which are important in prognosis. Material and Method: RP and IB materials of 42 patients who were diagnosed as prostate adenocarcinoma between 2013 and 2018 in Kırıkkale University Medical Faculty Medical Pathology Department were evaluated histopathologically. Results: The mean age of the 42 patients included in the study was 61.1 (48-79) years and serum PSA levels were 4 ng / ml (0.03- 26.320 ng/ml). Thirty patients had a one-to-one match in the IB and RP Gleason scores, and one different grade score in 12 patients. Similarly, in RP material, in 6 (14.2%) patients, grade group score was decreased compared to IB (low score, down-grade) and in 8 (19%) patients increased (high score, up-grade) and one-to-one compliance was observed in 28 (66.6%) of the patients. When the Gleason (p

Özet

Amaç: Bu çalışmada, prostat adenokarsinomunda iğne biyopsi (İB)ve radikal prostatektomi (RP) materyalleri, histopatolojik olarakkarşılaştırılarak, prognozda önem arz eden Gleason skor ve gradegrup sınıflamalarının uyumunun değerlendirilmesi amaçlandı.Gereç ve Yöntem: Kırıkkale Üniversitesi Tıp Fakültesi TıbbiPatoloji Anabilim Dalı’nda, 2013-2018 yılları arasında 42 adet,prostat adenokarsinomu tanısı almış olan hastaya ait RP ve İBmateryalleri histopatolojik olarak değerlendirildi.Bulgular: Çalışma kapsamındaki 42 olgunun ortalama yaşı 61,1(48-79) ve serum PSA düzeyleri 4 ng/ml (0,03-26,320 ng/ml) idi.Otuz olguda İB ve RP Gleason skorlarında birebir, 12 olguda ise 1grade skoru farkla uyum tespit edildi. Benzer şekilde RP materyalindede 6 (%14,2) hastada grade grup skorunda İB’ye göre azalma (düşükskor verme, down-grade), 8 (%19) hastada ise artma (yüksek skorverme, up-grade) belirlenirken 28 (%66,6) hastada ise birebir uyumsaptandı. RP ve İB örneklerinde Gleason (p

🔖

Cite This Article

Balcı, M., Devrim, T. (2022). EVALUATION OF GLEASON SCORE RESULTS FROM NEEDLE BIOPSY AND RADICAL PROSTATECTOMY SPECIMENS IN PROSTATE ADENOCARCINOMA. Ankara Eğitim ve Araştırma Hastanesi Tıp Dergisi, Cilt: 52 - Sayı: 3, 222–226. https://ajindex.com/articles/441257

📄 Full Text PDF Viewer

📄

PDF görüntüleyici hazırlanıyor...

References (1)

  1. )Bray F, Ferlay J, Soerjomataram I, Siegel RL, Torre LA, Jemal A. Global cancer statistics 2018: GLOBOCAN estimates of incidence and mortality worldwide for 36 cancers in 185 countries. CA Cancer J Clin. 2018; 68(6): 394-424. 2.)Cui Y, Cao W, Li Q et al. Evaluation of prostate cancer antigen 3 for detecting prostate cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Sci Rep. 2016; 10(6): 25776. 3.)Bechis SK, Carroll, PR, Cooperberg MR. Impact of age at diagnosis on prostate cancer treatment and survival. J Clin Oncol. 2011; 10;29(2): 235-241. 4.)Barakzai MA. Prostatic adenocarcinoma: A grading from Gleason to the new grade-group system: a historical and critical review. Asian Pac J Cancer Prev. 2019; 26;20(3): 661-666. 5.)Chung DY, Lee JS, Goh HJ, et al. Predictive factors and oncologic outcome of downgrade to pathologic gleason score 6-7 after radical prostatectomy in patients with biopsy gleason score. J Clin Med. 2019; 8(4): 438. 6.)Epstein JI, Egevad L, Amin MB et al. The 2014 international society of urological pathology (ISUP) consensus conference on gleason grading of prostatic carcinoma definition of grading patterns and proposal for a new grading system. Am J Surg Pathol. 2016; 40(2): 244-52. 7.)Carroll PR, Parsons JK, Andriole G et al. NCCN guidelines insights: Prostate cancer early detection, version 2. 2016. J. Natl. Compr. Cancer Netw. 2016; 14: 509-519. 8.)Moch H, Humphrey PA, Ulbright TM, Reuter VE. WHO Classification of tumours of the urinary system and male genital organs. World Health Organization; 4th Edition. 2016, ISBN-13: 978-9283224372 9.)Kryvenko ON, Epstein JI. Changes in prostate cancer grading: including a new patient-centric grading system. Prostate. 2016; 76: 427-433. 10.)Bulut S, Özden C, Aktaş BK, Gökkaya CS, Demirdal Ö, Memiş A. Radikal prostatektomi uygulanan hastalarda preoperatif PSA, PSA dansitesi ve serbest/total PSA oranının cerrahi spesmendeki kötü patolojik özellikler ve biyokimyasal başarısızlık ile ilişkisi. Turk J Urol. 2010; 36(3): 226-232. 11.)Yüksel ÖH, Şahin A, Ürkmez A, Verit A. Gleason skoruna etki eden parametreler kullanılarak transrektal prostat biopsi sonuçları ile radikal prostatektomi spesmenlerinin uyumunun değerlendirilmesi. Haydarpasa Numune Med J. 2017; 57(1): 22-27. 12.)Öztürk C, Görgel SN, Bayır O, Kaygısız M, Bal K, Bölükbaşı A. Prostat kanseri nedeniyle radikal prostatektomi uygulanan hastalarda nüks ve sağkalımı etkileyen faktörler. Turk J Urol. 2011; 37(1): 1-8. 13.)Steinberg DM, Sauvageot J, P