Practice patterns related to prostate cancer grading: results of a 2019 Genitourinary Pathology Society clinician survey.
Active surveillance
Cribriform
Grading
MRI
Prostate cancer
Journal
Urologic oncology
ISSN: 1873-2496
Titre abrégé: Urol Oncol
Pays: United States
ID NLM: 9805460
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
05 2021
05 2021
Historique:
received:
20
07
2020
revised:
14
08
2020
accepted:
19
08
2020
pubmed:
20
9
2020
medline:
15
12
2021
entrez:
19
9
2020
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
To survey urologic clinicians regarding interpretation of and practice patterns in relation to emerging aspects of prostate cancer grading, including quantification of high-grade disease, cribriform/intraductal carcinoma, and impact of magnetic resonance imaging-targeted needle biopsy. The Genitourinary Pathology Society distributed a survey to urology and urologic oncology-focused societies and hospital departments. Eight hundred and thirty four responses were collected and analyzed using descriptive statistics. Eighty percent of survey participants use quantity of Gleason pattern 4 on needle biopsy for clinical decisions, less frequently with higher Grade Groups. Fifty percent interpret "tertiary" grade as a minor/<5% component. Seventy percent of respondents would prefer per core grading as well as a global/overall score per set of biopsies, but 70% would consider highest Gleason score in any single core as the grade for management. Seventy five percent utilize Grade Group terminology in patient discussions. For 45%, cribriform pattern would affect management, while for 70% the presence of intraductal carcinoma would preclude active surveillance. This survey of practice patterns in relationship to prostate cancer grading highlights similarities and differences between contemporary pathology reporting and its clinical application. As utilization of Gleason pattern 4 quantification, minor tertiary pattern, cribriform/intraductal carcinoma, and the incorporation of magnetic resonance imaging-based strategies evolve, these findings may serve as a basis for more nuanced communication and guide research efforts involving pathologists and clinicians.
Identifiants
pubmed: 32948433
pii: S1078-1439(20)30396-3
doi: 10.1016/j.urolonc.2020.08.027
pmc: PMC9399962
mid: NIHMS1827581
pii:
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
295.e1-295.e8Subventions
Organisme : NCI NIH HHS
ID : P30 CA008748
Pays : United States
Informations de copyright
Copyright © 2020 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.
Références
Hum Pathol. 2018 Jun;76:68-75
pubmed: 29551676
Eur Urol. 2016 Aug;70(2):248-53
pubmed: 26525839
Am J Surg Pathol. 2018 Nov;42(11):1522-1529
pubmed: 30080706
Eur Urol. 2013 Dec;64(6):895-902
pubmed: 23541457
Eur Urol. 2017 Nov;72(5):665-674
pubmed: 28511883
Hum Pathol. 2017 May;63:27-32
pubmed: 27993581
J Clin Pathol. 2018 Oct;71(10):874-878
pubmed: 29720406
Am J Surg Pathol. 2016 Feb;40(2):244-52
pubmed: 26492179
J Natl Compr Canc Netw. 2019 May 1;17(5):479-505
pubmed: 31085757
Eur Urol. 2005 Dec;48(6):911-5
pubmed: 16140457
Br J Cancer. 2016 May 10;114(10):1078-83
pubmed: 27100731
Am J Surg Pathol. 2004 Jul;28(7):946-52
pubmed: 15223967
Eur Urol. 2016 Apr;69(4):592-598
pubmed: 26542947
Am J Surg Pathol. 2004 Mar;28(3):394-8
pubmed: 15104304
Mod Pathol. 2006 Dec;19(12):1528-35
pubmed: 16980940
Mod Pathol. 2019 Jan;32(1):139-146
pubmed: 30349027
J Urol. 2020 Oct;204(4):748-753
pubmed: 32259468
BJU Int. 2013 May;111(5):753-60
pubmed: 23464824
Am J Surg Pathol. 2014 Aug;38(8):1096-101
pubmed: 24832163
Arch Pathol Lab Med. 2021 Apr 1;145(4):461-493
pubmed: 32589068
Mod Pathol. 2019 Jan;32(1):122-127
pubmed: 30181565
Eur Urol. 2016 Mar;69(3):428-35
pubmed: 26166626
Eur J Cancer. 2012 Jun;48(9):1318-25
pubmed: 22405699
Am J Surg Pathol. 2005 Sep;29(9):1228-42
pubmed: 16096414
J Urol. 2016 Aug;196(2):405-11
pubmed: 26920466
Hum Pathol. 2010 Jun;41(6):781-93
pubmed: 20466122
Mod Pathol. 2016 Jun;29(6):630-6
pubmed: 26939875
Am J Surg Pathol. 2016 Dec;40(12):1686-1692
pubmed: 27487740