Comments on: A recommendation to re-think Gleason grading http://prostatecancerinfolink.net/2009/09/22/a-recommendation-to-re-think-gleason-grading/ Tue, 14 Feb 2012 02:28:48 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.com/ By: Sitemaster http://prostatecancerinfolink.net/2009/09/22/a-recommendation-to-re-think-gleason-grading/#comment-5987 Fri, 25 Sep 2009 01:58:58 +0000 http://prostatecancerinfolink.net/?p=6906#comment-5987 Oh. Sorry. … That sentence is just “science speak.” Read enough medical and scientific journals and it starts to make perfect sense, even though there may be simpler ways to say almost exactly the same thing.

]]> By: Chris http://prostatecancerinfolink.net/2009/09/22/a-recommendation-to-re-think-gleason-grading/#comment-5986 Fri, 25 Sep 2009 00:46:01 +0000 http://prostatecancerinfolink.net/?p=6906#comment-5986 Yes. I understood the article. That specific text did not make any sense.

]]> By: Sitemaster http://prostatecancerinfolink.net/2009/09/22/a-recommendation-to-re-think-gleason-grading/#comment-5985 Fri, 25 Sep 2009 00:22:29 +0000 http://prostatecancerinfolink.net/?p=6906#comment-5985 Chris:

Basically, what Dr. Epstein and his colleagues are saying is that, in general, if you have Gleason 3 + 3 = 6 disease and a tertiary area of Gleason grade 4 or 5, then your risk of progressive disease is higher than if you had only the Gleason 3 + 3 = 6 disease and no tertiary Gleason grade 4 or 5 , but it is not as high in risk as if you had Gleason 7 disease.

The same rationale holds true for men who have Gleason 3 + 4 disease and a tertiary of Gleason 5, but not for men who have Gleason 4 + 3 disease and a tertiary of Gleason 5, because they might as well have had Gleason 4 + 4 = 8.

In other words, a tertiary Gleason grade of 4 or 5 tends to increase your risk upwards towards the next highest standard Gleason score. Does that help?

]]> By: chris http://prostatecancerinfolink.net/2009/09/22/a-recommendation-to-re-think-gleason-grading/#comment-5983 Thu, 24 Sep 2009 23:56:09 +0000 http://prostatecancerinfolink.net/?p=6906#comment-5983 OK. I don’t understand what is being said here: “The probability of biochemical recurrence of cancers with tertiary Gleason components were nearly all intermediate between those of cancer without a tertiary Gleason component in the same Gleason score category and cancer in the next higher Gleason score category. ” Could you please explain?

]]>