Talk:Gleason grading system
 | Medicine Start‑class Mid‑importance | |||||||||
| ||||||||||
Prognosis needed
Something could be added here about the significance of the Gleason score in terms of treatment/mortality etc. Is it appropriate to just copy sections directly from relevant other pages? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Wrongfooting (talk • contribs) 21:27, 15 March 2007 (UTC).
Could use more detail on distinguishing score from grade
Regarding:
"A pathologist examines the biopsy specimen and attempts to give a score to the two most prominent patterns. These scores are then added to obtain the final Gleason score. For example, a prostate biopsy specimen may exhibit two different patterns, one which is assigned a number two and the other a number three. The final Gleason score in this case would be five."
The basic measure is the grade, and the sum is the score. See: http://www.phoenix5.org/Infolink/GleasonGrading.html or http://www.prostatecancerfoundation.org/site/c.itIWK2OSG/b.47293/k.D232/Diagnosis.htm
The score is the sum of the most predominant grade and the second most predominant. A score of 7 can be expressed as 3 + 4 or 4 + 3, and the latter is considered more serious.
Some more details on biopsy could be considered. It is typical (at least where I live) to take 16 samples, but there is still a 25% probablity of false negative (that figure would need to be validated). The Gleason score can be established from biopsy samples and from post-operative pathology, and the score can be different between the two.
Recommend there also be a link to the Prostate Cancer Foundation. http://www.prostatecancerfoundation.org/ and Us TOO, the International Prostate Cancer Education and Support Network http://www.ustoo.com/. The reader may just have been diagnosed and might need all the information and support he can find. I was in that situation not so long ago.
Dharmadoggie 19:37, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
Excellent point. The Gleason scale is not just as set out in the main page. In developing his system, Dr Gleason discovered that by giving a combination of the grades of the two most common patterns he could see in any particular patient's specimens, he was better able to predict the likelihood that that particular patient would do well or badly. Therefore, the Gleason score is actually a combination or sum of two numbers. These combined Gleason sums or scores may be determined as follows:
1. The lowest possible Gleason score is 2 (1 + 1), where both the primary and secondary patterns have a Gleason grade of 1 and therefore when added together their combined sum is 2.
2. Very typical Gleason scores might be 5 (2 + 3), where the primary pattern has a Gleason grade of 2 and the secondary pattern has a grade of 3, or 6 (3 + 3), a pure pattern that is one of the most prevalent.
3. Another typical Gleason score might be 7 (3+ 4), where the primary pattern has a Gleason grade of 3 and the secondary pattern has a grade of 4.
4. Finally, the highest possible Gleason score is 10 (5 + 5), when the primary and secondary patterns both have the most disordered Gleason grades of 5.
In summary, with 5 Gleason grades there are 9 possible Gleason scores with 25 different combinations.
http://malecare.com/gleason-score_58.htm —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.4.59.205 (talk) 05:43, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
Definitely agreed. Very unclear explanation of what the two grades actually are. The "most common cancer" ....of what? PhatRita (talk) 02:54, 26 December 2008 (UTC)
Typo Cleanup
Typo: debateable==>debatable Join Typo Team - You can help!Aclayartist (talk) 15:44, 5 November 2008 (UTC)