slide1 n.
Download
Skip this Video
Loading SlideShow in 5 Seconds..
Pathologic grading of prostate cancer: A comparison of two pathology providers PowerPoint Presentation
Download Presentation
Pathologic grading of prostate cancer: A comparison of two pathology providers

Loading in 2 Seconds...

play fullscreen
1 / 1
allen-johns

Pathologic grading of prostate cancer: A comparison of two pathology providers - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

111 Views
Download Presentation
Pathologic grading of prostate cancer: A comparison of two pathology providers
An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation

Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - E N D - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Presentation Transcript

  1. No. 176 Pathologic grading of prostate cancer: A comparison of two pathology providers Callum LOGAN†*, Cynthia HAWKS† º, Ronald COHEN~º", and Dickon HAYNE†* º † Fremantle Hospital, Urology Department , Fremantle, Western Australia, Australia; * University of Western Australia, School of Surgery, Western Australia, Australia; ~Uropath Pty Ltd, Perth, Western Australia, Australia; º Western Australian Urologic Research Organisation, Perth, Western Australia, Australia; " University of Western Australia, School of Pathology and Laboratory Medicine, Western Australia, Australia Posters Proudly Supported by: • Results • No difference in GS based on RA for FP was identified (p >0.05) • The difference in proportions for GS were similar for both urban and rural cohorts in both groups: • FP - GS 6, 40% (RA1-2) and 56% (RA3-5) respectively • UP - 30% (RA1-2) and 27% (RA3-5) respectively. A chi-square test was performed (p <0.001) • There were very large differences in proportions of GS 6 vs. 7 vs. 8-10 between UP and FP Introduction We have previously presented data from Uropath Pty Ltd (UP), a specialist uropathology service, that showed rural men had higher rates of cancer diagnosis, higher grade tumours and underwent fewer radical prostatectomies. 1 Aim We aimed to identify if the rural-urban difference seen in the UP data would be replicated in the Fremantle PathWest cohort of prostate biopsies. • Methods • Between 2000 and 2011, 948 cases of prostate cancer were examined at Fremantle PathWest (FP), Fremantle Hospital, Western Australia. • We determined the tumour stage (pT) and Gleason score (GS) for the first 500 cases of which the total number of prostate biopsies with histopathology reports was 286 • Remoteness area (RA) was determined by postcode on pathology reports and classified according to the Australian Bureau of Statistics classification: (RA 1-2 urban, RA 3-5 rural) • Cases by RA were; RA 1-2 (n = 261), RA 3-5 (n = 25) • Comparison was made between FP and UP data based on RA and GS and compared using a chi-square test • Conclusions • No differences in GS based on RA for the FP group were identified though this study was underpowered. • Proportions of each GS were strikingly different between the two laboratories. • This may represent a difference in assignment of Gleason score by the reporting pathologists as opposed to a true difference of Gleason score. • This is of concern and may result in inappropriate treatment decisions. Acknowledgements Uropath - Uropathology Specialist • References • Ooi WL, Brown A, Ramakrishnan S, Cohen R and Hayne D. Comparison of prostate cancer diagnosis and tumour characteristics between urban and rural patients in Western Australia. BJUI USANZ supplement 2012; 109 (4): 10