Objectives: We compared the Gleason scores obtained from sextant prostate biopsy and radical prostatectomy (RP) specimens in patients with localized prostate cancer. Patients and Methods: Sixty-one patients having a clinical diagnosis of localized prostate cancer underwent needle biopsy under transrectal ultrasonography (TRUS) and RP. Grading and staging were assigned based on Gleason scores and the TNM system, respectively. Results: Mean patient age was 65.5 ± 13.43 years and mean PSA level was 14.69 ± 3.95. Mean Gleason score for prostate biopsy and RP specimen were 5.85 ± 0.7 and 6.34 ± 1.44, respectively. With respect to clinical stage, there were 20 patients in stage 1 and 41 patients in stage 2 prostate cancer. Comparing the Gleason scores, the biopsy score was lower in 26 (42.26%) and higher than RP specimens in 7 (11.84%) cases, and there was agreement between the biopsy and RP specimens in 28 (45.9%) patients. The difference between the two Gleason scores was ± 1 for 18 patients (29.5%) and ± 2 or more for 17 patients (27.86%). Conclusion: In our study, high Gleason score biopsies with elevated PSA level (>10 ng/ml) were risk factors for extraprostatic extension, and we demonstrated that Gleason scores were significantly correlated with seminal vesicle and lymph node invasion (p < 0.05). The Gleason scores of biopsy and RP specimens agreed with 45.9% of TRUS-guided sextant prostate biopsies, and this ratio was 91.1% in moderately differentiated tumors

Keywords:
Gleason grade, Prostate cancer, Radical prostatectomy, Transrectal ultrasound-guided biopsy
This content is only available via PDF.
© 2001 S. Karger AG, Basel
2001
Copyright / Drug Dosage / Disclaimer
Copyright: All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be translated into other languages, reproduced or utilized in any form or by any means, electronic or mechanical, including photocopying, recording, microcopying, or by any information storage and retrieval system, without permission in writing from the publisher.
Drug Dosage: The authors and the publisher have exerted every effort to ensure that drug selection and dosage set forth in this text are in accord with current recommendations and practice at the time of publication. However, in view of ongoing research, changes in government regulations, and the constant flow of information relating to drug therapy and drug reactions, the reader is urged to check the package insert for each drug for any changes in indications and dosage and for added warnings and precautions. This is particularly important when the recommended agent is a new and/or infrequently employed drug.
Disclaimer: The statements, opinions and data contained in this publication are solely those of the individual authors and contributors and not of the publishers and the editor(s). The appearance of advertisements or/and product references in the publication is not a warranty, endorsement, or approval of the products or services advertised or of their effectiveness, quality or safety. The publisher and the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to persons or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content or advertisements.
You do not currently have access to this content.