What is your Gleason score? (Poll)

RangerTug said:

"Should ask PSA and Gleason scores at diagnosis, that would be an interesting statistic."

I don't have typical PSA scores at Dx, but I did make a post some time ago that gave G scores at diagnosis for a large number of PC biopsies. The numbers were:

Gleason..................% at
score.....................biopsy
2-5..........................2
6............................48
7............................33
8-10.......................17

Source:

prostate-cancer.org/the-gleason-score-a-significant-biologic-manifestation-of-prostate-cancer-aggressiveness-on-biopsy

So if the poll above is showing a good number of G6's and G7's, as it is, then this seems to parallel the likelihood of occurrence of these G numbers in the immediately above table.

My husband was DX with biopsy as G4+4=8 but was downgraded to a 4+3=7 after RP. His PSA was 5.6 before RP.

It looks like so far the 7's are the prevelent horrible monster.

"Cancer is a thief and biological con artist"

BOOGEE

Hubby's Gleason score was a 9 before and after surgery. Only 1 in 12 cores, PSA was 5.4 at surgery.

4+3 (7) involiving 80% of 7 cores.
MDA upgraded to 4+4 (8) but continue to writes "presented as 4+3 (7) PSA 57 at diagnosis"...so who knows.

One thing we do know is that a G7 can be regionally advanced high risk.

Gleason (4+3) 7

No 10's uh? My first report was mostly 4+5's with one 5+5. It was later changed to 5+4...yeaaaa?

Thank you to all of you who have contributed your Gleason score information to this thread. The poll above that has recorded this information is helping to give us a better picture of who we are as a group, facing the PCa challenge.

I think we have had enough entries into this poll to draw some conclusions, interesting ones at that. The data so far clearly show a preponderance of entries in the G6 and G7 categories, but still a fair number as well in the G9 box.

My original thought in starting this thread was that the opposite would happen, that the numbers would be skewed downward, with most entries in the G8-10 boxes. I thought that because it seemed to me that people with more aggressive PCa, as indicated by higher G numbers, would be the ones more motivated to seek out information about their situation from lists such as one, while those with lower (less aggressive) G numbers would not be quite so motivated.

However, the opposite seems to be the case. (All this is assuming of course that the sample as represented in the poll above accurately reflects the population of list users. Let's just assume that it does). And what is really interesting, I find, is that the poll number distribution seems to be close to the Gleason frequency at biopsy, as seen in the table I give in a post I made above (see above). If there is such an association, that is, the people who use this list correspond closely to the occurrence of PCa patients in general, then it would seem to suggest that the presence of list members is due not so much to any single factor, such as motivation to find information due to having a high risk, as expressed in a high G number, but more likely due to as many factors as there are list users.

So perhaps there actually are a good variety of reasons why people become users of our list, and not a single dominating one such as high G score. Considering our wide demographics, etc., that would seem to make sense.

So, perhaps we have indeed learned a little bit more about ourselves, to the good. Again, thank you all for participating. It has indeed been interesting.

MsWorryWart said...

FoxRun said...

Somebody said...
Posted Yesterday 11:36 AM (GMT -4)
PeterDisAbelard said...
For the odd numbered Gleason scores it might be interesting to know the components. I, for instance, am a Gleason 9(4+5) which is not as aggressive as a 9(5+4). For Gleason 7 it can make a difference in the treatment because low-volume GS7(3+4) is sometimes considered low risk while a low-volume GS7(4+3) is intermediate risk and often treated differently.

How interesting and why is (4+5) not as aggressive as (5+4)?

Clinical stage
R lobe positive 4/5 cores - 40% of R area
L lobe positive 5/5 cores - 30% of L area

Gleason score - 9/10 4+5 high grade

I'd be happy if anyone could answer that question.

A Gleason Score is obtained by examining the structure of each cell and assigned a number from 1-5. With "1" being the least differentiated cell and 5 being the most poorly differentiated cell.
So if you have more 5's than 4's (5+4=9), the cancer shows more poorly differentiated cells than that of a 4+5=9.
Same with a 3+4=7 or a 4+3=7.

Hope I explained that correctly.

I believe so, I do remember my ONC telling us about the differential cell formation, but at the time it did not sink in. Although, you wouldn't think the there would be a great difference in a 4 and a 5 differentiated cell formation?

Cast my vote at GL 7. Biopsy had it at 3+4 and surgical pathology had it at 4+3.

Sonny

Ivolgin,

The Gleason score is the sum of the "primary" and the "secondary" cell types seen -- first and second -- if the pathologist sees a third type appearing he may mention it as a "tertiary" -- third -- type. In your case it means he saw mostly type 4 cells with a smaller number of type 3 cells and a small smattering of type 5.

As for what it means in the larger sense, I don't know for sure, it seems like it would have added a bit more urgency to your need for treatment since type 5 cells are the most likely to cause distant metastases.

clinical biopsy was 7 (3+4), downgraded to 6, still t3b.

jslesinger -

Good question. Here is a discussion on another list that seem to address it:

www.cancerforums.net/threads/8547-Gleason-Scale-Who-has-Gleason-2

As to seeing anyone ever report having a Gleason 5 score, or less, no, I never have.

Gleason 6 from Biopsy, but Gleason 7 (3+4) from post-op pathology

At time of posting it looked liked us 7 were in the majority
Alf