Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
Review
. 2010 Mar-Apr;107(2):107-12.

Prostate cancer diagnosis

Affiliations
Review

Prostate cancer diagnosis

Peter A Humphrey et al. Mo Med. 2010 Mar-Apr.

Abstract

Prostate cancer is the fourth most common malignancy diagnosed in Missouri. The diagnosis may be clinically suspected based on an elevated serum prostate specific antigen (PSA) and/or digital rectal examination abnormality. Clinical symptoms are usually a manifestation of more advanced disease. The diagnosis is typically established by histopathologic examination of needle biopsy tissue. This article reviews clinical and pathological approaches to prostate cancer diagnosis, with a focus on clinically localized disease and needle biopsy diagnosis.

PubMed Disclaimer

Figures

Figure 1
Figure 1
Adenocarcinoma of the prostate, Gleason grade 3 + 3 = score of 6, in needle core biopsy tissue (H & E stain)
Figure 2
Figure 2
Nuclear atypia in high-grade adenocarcinoma of the prostate, with prominent nucleoli. (H &E stain)
Figure 3
Figure 3
High-grade prostatic adenocarcinoma, Gleason grade 5 +5 = score of 10, with sheet-like growth (left), adjacent to benign prostatic gland (right). (H and E stain)
Figure 4
Figure 4
Small focus of adenocarcinoma with AMACR expression (red stain) surrounded by benign prostatic glands with basal cells present (brown stain)
Figure 5
Figure 5
Gleason grade diagram showing histologic growth patterns of adenocarcinoma. Grade 1 is the most well-differentiated and shows nodule of small glands. Grade 5 is the most poorly-differentiated and shows sheets of carcinoma and/or necrosis, and/or single cancer cells
None
None

Similar articles

Cited by

References

    1. Jemal A, Siegel R, Ward E, Hao Y, Xu J, Murray T, Thun MJ. Cancer Statistics, 2008. CA Cancer J Clin. 2008;58:71–96. - PubMed
    1. Carter HB, Allaf ME, Partin AW. Diagnosis and staging of prostate cancer. In: Wein AJ ed-in-chief, editor. Campbell-Walsh Urology. Philadelphia: Saunders Elsevier; 2007. pp. 2912–2931.
    1. Kim ED, Grayhack JT. Clinical symptoms and signs of prostate cancer. In: Vogelzang NJ, Scardino PT, Shipley WU, et al., editors. Comprehensive Textbook of Genitourinary Oncology. Baltimore: Williams & Wilkins; 1996. pp. 557–56.
    1. Grubb RL, 3rd, Pinsky PF, Greenlee RT, Izmirlian G, Miller AB, Hickey TP, Riley TL, Mabie JE, Levin DL, Chia D, Kramer BS, Reding DJ, Church TR, Yokochi LA, Kvale PA, Weissfeld JL, Urban DA, Buys SS, Gelmann EP, Ragard LR, Crawford ED, Prorok PC, Gohagan JK, Berg CD, Andriole GL. Prostate cancer screening in the Prostate, Lung, Colorectal and Ovarian cancer screening trial: update on findings from the initial four rounds of screening in a randomized trial. BJU Int. 2008;102:1524–1530. - PubMed
    1. Epstein JI, Walsh PC, Carmichael M, Brendler CB. Pathologic and clinical findings to predict tumor extent of nonpalpable (stage T1c) prostate cancer. JAMA. 1994;271:368–374. - PubMed

Substances