@article {Ramos625, author = {Jorge Ramos and Edward Uchio and Mihaela Aslan and John Concato}, title = {Changes in Gleason Scores for Prostate Cancer}, volume = {58}, number = {4}, pages = {625--628}, year = {2010}, doi = {10.2310/JIM.0b013e3181d4720c}, publisher = {BMJ Publishing Group Limited}, abstract = {Background Men diagnosed with prostate cancer receive therapy based on various clinical characteristics, including the Gleason score, a measurement (range, 2-10) describing a tumor{\textquoteright}s histological appearance. An upward shift has occurred in the distribution of Gleason scores during the past decade; this change was influenced by reports suggesting that lower scores (range, 2-4) should not be assigned to biopsy specimens.Methods We (1) compared Gleason scores from 1994-1995 and 2004-2005 at the same institution, (2) reviewed representative articles examining changes in Gleason scores during the last 2 decades, and (3) assessed the implications of a change in histological measurements.Results Among men diagnosed with prostate cancer at VA Connecticut, Gleason scores 2 to 4 were reported for 11.4\% (19/167) of specimens in 1994-1995 but only 0.4\% (1/260) of specimens in 2004-2005; this difference persisted after adjusting for age, clinical stage, and prostate-specific antigen (P \< 0.001). Similar results were evident in previous publications on this topic. A change in criteria for a clinical measurement may have unintended consequences, including problems of inconsistency across "time" and "place."Conclusions Recent shifts in Gleason scores have led to fewer patients being diagnosed with low-grade prostate cancer; this change can have adverse impacts in clinical care and research.}, issn = {1081-5589}, URL = {http://hw-f5-jim.highwire.org/content/58/4/625}, eprint = {http://hw-f5-jim.highwire.org/content/58/4/625.full.pdf}, journal = {Journal of Investigative Medicine} }