The predictive value of Gleason grading from prostate needle biopsy was exa
mined and the patterns of grade discordance with surgical specimens are dis
cussed in terms of their clinical implications, Gleason scores from biopsy
and matched radical prostatectomy specimens were compared in 428 consecutiv
e patients, Patterns of concordance were examined with respect to numerical
agreement as well as to whether differences result in a change in group as
signment with respect to Gleason score group 2-4, 5-6, 7, and 8-10, The coe
fficient of agreement, kappa, and accuracy were used to measure predictive
value, An exact Gleason score match was present in 41% of the cases, while
48% were undergraded and 17% overgraded, With respect to group assignment,
51% remained unchanged while 35% were undergraded and 14% overgraded, Kappa
analysis yielded a value of 0.26, which represents a poor agreement beyond
chance. A Gleason score of 5-6, 7, or 8 was reproduced in 52%, 53%, and 58
% of cases, respectively. A systematic bias toward progressive undergrading
of more well-differentiated cancers and overgrading of more poorly differe
ntiated cancers on biopsy is suggested by the data. A pooled analysis with
nine additional series (n = 2,687) confirms this conclusion. No correlation
was found between the amount of tumor in the biopsy specimen and grade dis
cordance. Biases in pathologic interpretation and sampling effects are sugg
ested as responsible for grade discordance, Predictable differences exist b
etween the histologic grade in prostate needle biopsies and the surgical sp
ecimen. Clinical staging of organ-confined prostate cancer should include t
he likelihood of histologic upgrading or downgrading when used to stratify
patients for clinical trials, in comparing results among therapies based on
biopsy grading and when recommending a radical therapy. Developing a metho
dology which reduces both sampling effects and pathologic interpretation bi
as would likely result in significantly improved accuracy of Gleason gradin
g of prostate biopsies, int. J. Cancer (Radiat. Oncol. Invest.) 90, 305-311
(2000). (C) 2000 Wiley-Liss, Inc.