Milan Král, Daniela Kurfürstová, Vladimír Študent, Aleš Vidlář, Martin Hrabec, Marek Dávid
Objective: When deciding about form and timing of prostate cancer treatment we rely on following information: clinical staging of disease, Gleason score and patient’s preferences. The aim of our study was to evaluate impact of prostate cancer grading modification regarding to conclusions from conference of uropathologists which took place in 2005 in the USA. Clinical material and methods: We performed reevaluation of biopic and operative specimens in group of 159 patients after radical prostatectomy from years 2003 - 2006 according to conventional and modified Gleason grading. Results: While agreement between pre- and postoperative specimens according to conventional evaluation was 34.6 %, underrating in 62.2 % occurred. On the other hand the modified evaluation showed agreement in 59.7 % and underrating occurred only in 28.3 % of specimens. In a view of this finding, active surveillance could be a choice for 22.6 % and 18.8 % patients according to conventional and modified evaluation, respectively. Conclusion: More accurate Gleason grading according to modified evaluation regarding score in postoperative histology was confirmed.