Advertisement

Grading Prostate Cancer

  • William A. GardnerJr.
  • Andrew Chiarodo
  • Donald S. Coffey
  • Jonathan I. Epstein
  • James P. Karr
  • John E. McNeal
  • Gary J. Miller

Abstract

The continued relevance of the “old saw” quoted above was dramatically underscored recently at the Prouts Neck 1986 multidisciplinary meeting on the management of prostate cancer. During the meeting it became apparent that the ability to evaluate therapeutic modalities is seriously limited when differing histopathologic grading systems are used. Specifically, meaningful comparisons are severely compromised or negated if patient groups have been stratified differently. Clearly some common grading reference system is urgently needed in the published literature if clinical studies are to be compared.

Keywords

Prostate Cancer Histologic Grade Grade System Multidisciplinary Meeting Urologic Pathology 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

References

  1. 1.
    Osler, W. Treatment of disease, Can. Lancet Toronto, Reprinted in Movern and Roland, Osier (Note 7), p. 233, 42:896–912, 1909.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Gleason, D.F. and the Veterans Administrations Cooperative Urological Research Group. Histologic grading and clinical staging of prostatic carcinoma, in: “Urologie Pathology: The Prostate,” M. Tannenbaum, (ed.), Lea and Febiger, Philadelphia, pp. 171–198, 1977.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Plenum Press, New York 1988

Authors and Affiliations

  • William A. GardnerJr.
  • Andrew Chiarodo
  • Donald S. Coffey
  • Jonathan I. Epstein
  • James P. Karr
  • John E. McNeal
  • Gary J. Miller

There are no affiliations available

Personalised recommendations