DISTRIBUTION OF GLEASON SCO¬RE IN PROSTATE ZONES AMONG PROSTATIC CANCER PATIENTS
##plugins.themes.bootstrap3.article.main##
##plugins.themes.bootstrap3.article.sidebar##
Abstract
Objective: To analyze the distribution features of Gleason score in the different prostate zones. Material & Method: Twenty paraffin block specimens of radical prostatectomy were analyzed looking for Gleason score distribution in each zone. Specimens were stained with Hematoxilin Eosin. Results: Among the 20 cancers, 16 (80%) specimens had more than one focus. Most foci were found in peripheral zone (95%), only one specimen contained foci solely found in transitional zone. More than half (55%) prostate specimens contain three different Gleason grades. Only one specimen contained a single grade. Conclusion: Our results confirm the heterogeneous, multifocal, and multizonal nature of prostate carcinomas. Most specimens had more than one tumor focus, with predominant location in the peripheral zone. Almost all transition zone foci were found concomitantly with peripheral zone foci. Keywords: Prostate cancer, prostate zones, Gleason score.
##plugins.themes.bootstrap3.article.details##
Michael EC, Dennis AJ, Kuang Tang. Detailed mapping of prostate carcinoma foci: Biopsy strategy implications. Cancer. 2000; 89(8): 1800-9.
Greene DR, Fitzpatrick JM, Scardino PT. Anatomy of the prostate and distribution of early prostate cancer. Semin Surg Oncol. 1995; 11(1): 9-22.
Antonio Lopez-Beltran, Gregor Mikuz, Rafael J. Luque. Current practice of Gleason grading of prostate carcinoma. Virchows Arch. 2006; 448: 111-8.
Wheeler TM. Anatomic considerations in carcinoma of the prostate. Urol Clin North Am. 1989; 16: 623-34.
McNeal JE, Redwine EA, Freiha FS, Stamey TA. Zonal distribution of prostatic adenocarcinoma. Correlation with histologic pattern and direction of spread. Am J Surg Path. 1988; 12: 897-906.
Bostwick DG, Grignon DJ, Hammond ME, Amin MB, Cohen M, Crawford D, et al. Prognostic factors in prostate cancer. College of American Pathologists Consensus Statement 1999. Arch Pathol Lab Med. 2000; 124: 995-1000.
Chan TY, Partin AW, Walsh PC, Epstein JI. Prognostic significance of Gleason score 3+4 versus Gleason score 4+3 tumor at radical prostatectomy. Urology. 2000; 56: 823-7.
Mosse CA, Magi-Galluzzi C, Tsuzuki T, Epstein JI. The prognostic significance of tertiary Gleason pattern 5 in radical prostatectomy specimens. Am J Surg Pathol. 2004; 28: 394-8.
Pan CC, Potter SR, Partin AW, Epstein JI. The prognostic significance of tertiary Gleason patterns of higher grade in radical prostatectomy specimens: A proposal to modify the Gleason grading system. Am J Surg Pathol. 2000; 24: 563-9.
Montironi R, Mazzuccheli R, Scarpelli M, Lopez-Beltran A, Fellegara G. Gleason grading of prostate cancer in needle biopsies or radical prostatectomy specimens: Contemporary approach, current clinical significance and sources of pathology discrepancies. BJU Int. 2005; 95: 1146-52.
Montironi R, van der Kwast T, Boccon-Gibod L, Bono AV. Handling and pathology reporting of radical prostatectomy specimens. Eur Urol. 2003; 44: 626-36.