1 / 1

Pathologic grading of prostate cancer: A comparison of two pathology providers

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

allen-johns
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. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

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

More Related