Talk:Gleason grading system

message: 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)
thread_title:  Could use more detail on distinguishing score from grade 

message: Typo: debateable==>debatable Join Typo Team - You can help!Aclayartist (talk) 15:44, 5 November 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Typo Cleanup

message: GS and GS inflation and prognosis should be mentioned
with Dendreon somehow. Their modelling was a big issue earlier and
part of the controversy dealt with GS among other putative prognostic
factors. I'm not sure secondary sources exist but there should be primary
sources from both the company and FDA briefing documents. On a personal note, I would not suggest sending out slides of prostate histology as a substitute for christmas cards as I did on a DNDN message board a few years ago ( slow holiday time LOL). Nerdseeksblonde (talk) 22:16, 3 September 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  should link from Dendreon 

message: Is the name of this page not slightly confusing as the Gleason grading and score are measurements of histological findings (i.e. cell differentiation) representing a grading system and not spread of the tumour or "staging" system.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.110.182.189 (talk) 19:43, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  page name 

message: quote:
:In contrast to the original Gleason grading system, it is now recommended that on a needle core biopsy both the most common and highest grade are added together for the Gleason score [2]. For example, if there is 60 % Gleason pattern 3, 35 % Gleason pattern 4, and 5 % Gleason pattern 5, the Gleason score would be 3 + 5 = 8. Needle core biopsy is an imperfect, non-targeted, random sampling of the prostate gland. Thus any amount of high-grade tumor sampled on needle biopsy most likely indicates a more significant amount of high-grade tumor within the prostate.
end of quote .. 
citation: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4784293/
( Martin |  talk • contribs  17:41, 4 October 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  does not reflect the change to the Gleason grading system made in 2014 (I think it was)