Article ID | Journal | Published Year | Pages | File Type |
---|---|---|---|---|
9601425 | Clinical Oncology | 2005 | 4 Pages |
Abstract
Our findings confirm previous reports of only limited correlation between pathologists in reporting Gleason sums. In this study, 19% (16/83) of cases had their grading changed to a level that altered clinical risk, almost always (94%; 15/16) to one that worsened prognosis. This would have significantly affected treatment strategy for these patients, and thus we recommend that all centres ensure accurate Gleason grading by the use of pathologists with special interests in prostate cancer.
Related Topics
Health Sciences
Medicine and Dentistry
Oncology
Authors
P. Sooriakumaran, D.P. Lovell, A. Henderson, P. Denham, S.E.M. Langley, R.W. Laing,