Search

Purpose: We evaluated the reproducibility of Gleason grading as relevant to the clinical treatment of men on active surveillance. Materials and Methods: Three sets of digital images of prostatic adenocarcinoma in biopsies were reviewed and assigned Gleason scores by a total of 11 pathologists from 7 institutions. Interobserver and intra-observer reproducibility were assessed for assignment of the highest Gleason pattern (3 vs 4 or higher). We also identified 97 consecutive patients on active surveillance. Prostate biopsy glass slides from 82 of the patients were available for re-review and the frequency of carcinoma requiring the distinction of tangentially sectioned Gleason pattern 3 from 4 was determined. Results: Interobserver reproducibility for classic Gleason patterns was substantial (Light''s κ 0.76). Interobserver reproducibility for the histological distinction of tangentially sectioned Gleason pattern 3 from Gleason pattern 4 was only fair (Light''s κ 0.27). Intra-observer reproducibility ranged from 65% to 100% (mean 81.5%). Of the 82 patients on active surveillance 61 had carcinoma and 15 (24.5%) had a set of biopsies with at least 1 focus in which the distinction between tangentially sectioned Gleason pattern 3 and poorly formed pattern 4 glands had to be considered. Conclusions: The reproducibility of grading classic Gleason patterns is high. However, variability in grading occurred when distinguishing between tangentially sectioned pattern 3 glands and the poorly formed gland subset of pattern 4. Developing universally accepted histological and/or molecular criteria to distinguish these patterns and subsequently characterizing their natural history would be useful when treating patients on active surveillance. [Copyright &y& Elsevier]

Purpose: The clinical significance of ductal prostatic carcinoma is not well-defined. In a population based cancer registry we identified a large group of patients with ductal carcinoma to characterize the impact of the ductal subtype on presentation and survival in men with prostate cancer. Materials and Methods: We used a national cancer registry to identify incident cases of ductal and acinar adenocarcinoma from 1996 to 2006. We analyzed clinicopathological variables and performed Cox multivariate survival analysis. Prostate specific antigen values were available for 2004 to 2006 and used to assess differences in Gleason grade and serum prostate specific antigen between ductal and acinar cancer cases at diagnosis. Results: We identified 442,881 acinar and 371 ductal cases. Ductal cases were more likely to present with distant disease (12% vs 4%, p <0.001) and be poorly differentiated (50% vs 32%, p <0.001). Ductal histology was associated with a 30% decrease in geometric mean prostate specific antigen (adjusted coefficient 0.7, 95% CI 0.6–0.8) and more than 2-fold increased odds of prostate specific antigen less than 4.0 ng/ml (OR 2.4, 95% CI 1.4–4.0) independent of other clinicopathological variables. In men with nondistant disease at diagnosis ductal histology was associated with 2.2-fold (CI 1.4–3.5) increased disease specific mortality. Conclusions: In what is to our knowledge the largest series of this histological subtype ductal cancer cases were more likely to present with advanced stage cancer and lower prostate specific antigen, suggesting that timely disease detection is a significant challenge. Also, men with locoregional disease were more likely to die of the disease. [Copyright &y& Elsevier]