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.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
References
Osler, W. Treatment of disease, Can. Lancet Toronto, Reprinted in Movern and Roland, Osier (Note 7), p. 233, 42:896–912, 1909.
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.
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 1988 Plenum Press, New York
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Gardner, W.A. et al. (1988). Grading Prostate Cancer. In: Coffey, D.S., Resnick, M.I., Dorr, F.A., Karr, J.P. (eds) A Multidisciplinary Analysis of Controversies in the Management of Prostate Cancer. Springer, Boston, MA. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4613-1667-1_30
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4613-1667-1_30
Publisher Name: Springer, Boston, MA
Print ISBN: 978-1-4612-8925-8
Online ISBN: 978-1-4613-1667-1
eBook Packages: Springer Book Archive