Understanding your prostate pathology report

At least initially, the pathology report is one of the most important factors in the management of your prostate health, especially if you have been diagnosed with cancer. For example, it can provide valuable information about the location and extent of the cancer, thus helping your physician decide whether to recommend active surveillance, hormone treatment, radiation therapy, or surgery.

With that in mind, you might think that preparing and reading a pathology report would be straightforward — but unfortunately the opposite is true. Pathology reports are not prepared uniformly (compare Figures 3 and 4, below, for example). In fact, they can vary considerably even within a single institution. They may not be labeled thoroughly or contain enough specifics for you and your doctor to make a good treatment decision.

At the same time, the information that is included in the report may be difficult to decipher. You may also get conflicting interpretations depending on how the report was prepared and who is reading it. It is entirely possible for two pathologists to look at the same biopsy slides and yet disagree about whether you have cancer! (For more information about this, read the article “Why pathologists may disagree.”)

In this article you will learn what your pathology report should include and how to make sense of the information it contains. Other articles on this site explain when to get a second opinion about the pathology report and why it is sometimes necessary to have a repeat biopsy, as well as what questions to ask to obtain the information you need to decide which treatment is best for you.

Deconstructing the report

It is always a good idea to request a copy of your pathology report. A thorough reading will give you the information you need to have informed discussions with your urologist, surgeon, and oncologist, and better guide any decisions you need to make about what to do next.

If the findings on the pathology report are abnormal, it is likely that the diagnosis will fall into one of three major categories:

  1. An atypical finding
  2. High-grade PIN
  3. Prostate cancer (adenocarcinoma).*
*Note: Although there are other, rare forms of cancer that can arise in the prostate gland, this article will focus on the most common type, adenocarcinoma.

An atypical finding means that the pathologist cannot confirm or rule out cancer. Sometimes this finding is reported as “suggestive of” or “suspicious for” cancer but not diagnostic of cancer. This frustratingly equivocal diagnosis usually means that the pathologist looked at the tissue on the slides and saw cells that were not typical, but they were not abnormal enough to classify as cancer (see “What makes it cancer?”).

What makes it cancer?

Although PSA levels or a digital rectal exam may hint at cancer, only a pathologist looking at cells in tissue samples can make the diagnosis. The following are among the key features they look for:

  • Proliferation of relatively uniform small glands lined by a single layer of cells
  • Cells with prominent nucleoli, components of the nucleus that help build proteins
  • Enlarged nuclei
  • Lack of basal cells, which sit below the epithelium in normal tissue
  • Cells that stain readily with dyes
  • Evidence of perineural invasion (PNI).

There is no consensus about the correct terminology to use for such lesions. Often you’ll see the term atypical small acinar proliferation, or ASAP, but it could also be labeled atypical hyperplasia, atypia, atypical glands, or focal glandular atypia.

Fortunately, such atypical findings are reported in only about 8% of pathology reports, according to a review of 39 studies involving needle biopsy specimens. But the trend toward doing more biopsies and finding smaller cancers has led to an increase in atypical diagnoses. Studies have shown that nearly half of the men who receive such an atypical diagnosis initially will find they have prostate cancer during a follow-up biopsy. This happens regardless of PSA levels or results of a digital rectal exam (DRE), which appear to be unrelated. In addition, compared to other pathologic diagnoses, atypical findings have the highest likelihood of being changed on expert review, usually to a diagnosis of cancer.

High-grade PIN, short for prostatic intraepithelial neoplasia, is another broad diagnostic category. This finding involves a subjective reading of the pathology slides and also generates debate about follow-up and treatment. It is now thought that high-grade PIN might increase a man’s risk of developing cancer, but because the steps involved in cancer progression are still elusive, the degree of risk remains unclear. It is usually not considered an important factor when associated with a definitive diagnosis of cancer.

Beyond these basic distinctions, and sometimes even within them, things can get hazy. The pathologist weighs numerous complex factors when making these broad diagnostic statements, and if you have been given a prostate cancer diagnosis, the report usually contains descriptive information about the type, amount, and grade of cancer found. All of these factors can affect risks and influence treatment decisions.

For all these reasons, your pathology report is not something you should skim but rather scrutinize. It is important to understand every component, discuss how the pathologist arrived at his or her conclusions (or lack thereof), and share the details with every physician involved in your care. The major components of a good pathology report are reviewed here briefly.

Gleason score

If your biopsy finds cancer, the first piece of information you’ll want to note is the Gleason score. This numerical value grades prostate tumor cells according to how they look compared with normal cells and how mutated they appear under a microscope, a quality known as differentiation. (Normal cells are well differentiated and cancer cells are not.) Because tumors often consist of multiple cell types, the pathologist assigns two values between 1 and 5: the first to the predominant cell type, and the second to the next-most-prevalent cell type (see Figure 1). The sum, ranging from 2 to 10, is the Gleason score; the higher the number, the more aggressive the cancer.

Figure 1: The Gleason score

The Gleason score is a numerical value that grades prostate tumor cells according to how they appear compared to normal prostate cells (a quality known as differentiation). Because tumors often consist of multiple types of cells, the pathologist assigns two values: the first to the predominant cell type, and the second to the next-most-prevalent cell type. These two values are added to come up with the Gleason score.

Well differentiated

The Gleason score: Well differentiated

  1. Glandular cells are small, of fairly uniform shape, and tightly packed together.
  2. Cells display more varied and irregular shapes and are loosely packed.

Moderately differentiated

The Gleason score: Moderately differentiated

  1. Cells are even more irregular in size and shape and are more dispersed; some cells are fused, and cell borders are less distinct.

Poorly differentiated

The Gleason score: Poorly differentiated

  1. Many cells are fused into irregular masses; some cells (see those darkly shaded) have begun to invade the connective tissue that separates cells.
  2. Most of the tumor consists of irregular masses that have invaded the connective tissue.

The Gleason score is one of the most important factors in determining whether the cancer is likely confined to the prostate and how aggressive it is (see Table 1 for a quick guide to what the scores mean).

Table 1: Gleason score risk assessments

Total Gleason score Simple risk assessment Points to consider when assessing risk
2 to 4 Lower risk
  • Total Gleason scores of 2 to 4 are rare. Less than 2% of men who undergo a prostate biopsy have a score in this range.
  • Pay attention to the first value assigned, as this is based on the preponderant area of cancer. That is why a Gleason score of 7 has a worse prognosis if it is based on the values 4 + 3 than if it is based on the values 3 + 4.
  • Most cancers detected as a result of PSA screening are Gleason 6 (3 + 3) or 7 (3 + 4).
5 to 6

7 (if 3 + 4)

Moderate risk
7 (if 4 + 3)

8 to 10

Higher risk

Number of cores

An ideal report also specifies how many samples, or cores, were removed during the biopsy. The standard number of cores used to be six: three from the right side of the prostate and three from the left. However, this limited sampling meant that cancerous portions of the prostate, if there were any, might be missed. As a result, as many as one in four patients eventually diagnosed with prostate cancer was told, on the basis of the initial biopsy, that he did not have cancer — meaning that the test provided a false-negative finding.

Today, most doctors agree that an initial biopsy should include at least 10 to 12 core samples. In certain situations, some doctors recommend doing a saturation biopsy, which typically removes 12 to 14 cores — and sometimes as many as 20 or more — but less agreement exists about this practice.

Anatomic location

Ideally, the pathologist who prepares your report will have separated and labeled the core samples according to what part of the prostate they came from. This labeling will tell you and your doctors whether the cells came from the right or left side and whether they were drawn from the apex (counterintuitively, at the bottom), mid zone (middle), or base (top) of the prostate. In a saturation biopsy you may see even more detailed labels, such as RMA and RMB to differentiate between the right mid zone near the apex and the right mid zone closer to the base. Similarly, the report may refer to three zones: the peripheral, central, and transition zones (see Figure 2). All of this information can be invaluable in helping to determine the general location of the tumor, which helps guide treatment decisions.

Figure 2: Zones of the prostate

Zones of the prostate

To help your doctor more precisely determine the location of prostate cancer or another condition, such as high-grade PIN, your pathology report may name specific areas. For example, it may refer to the apex, located at the bottom of the prostate; the base, at the top; or the mid zone, the area between the apex and base. Alternatively, it may note three zones: the peripheral zone (1), the central zone (2), and the transition zone (3). Seventy percent of prostate cancers arise in the peripheral zone. Few arise in the anterior prostate.

Extent of cancer

In addition to paying attention to the number of cores taken, you’ll want to look at how much cancer was found. This information may be provided as the number of positive cores, the length of cancer in millimeters among all cores, the percentage of cancer per core, the fraction of positive cores, or the total percentage of cancer in the entire specimen. Regardless of the type of measurement, your doctor can use this information to determine the likelihood that the cancer is confined to the prostate or has spread.

Clinical data

In the clinical portion of the report, you may see notes from your physician to the pathologist offering any relevant information about why the biopsy was performed and what the physician is looking for.

Gross description

Your pathology report should also include a gross description with such important identifying information as the container in which the tissue was shipped to the department, length of various pieces of tissue, their color, and how the tissue is labeled.

Don’t be alarmed if you see mention of rectal or colonic tissue. Small fragments of bowel lining (colonic mucosa) are common in needle core biopsy specimens since the needle has to poke through this tissue to get to the prostate.


Sometimes, you will find notes to your physician or urologist in a section labeled “Comments.” This may be an important source of additional information such as whether the pathologist has found high-grade PIN or any atypical tissue. This section may also describe various features of the tissue and offer clues about the pathologist’s thinking, especially if the final diagnosis is not entirely clear.

Identifying details

Last, the report should include identifying information such as your name, age, and patient number, and the date, as well as the name and signature of the pathologist who prepared the report, the name of the person who performed the biopsy, and the name and address of the laboratory.

Figure 3: An ideal pathology report

City Hospital
Department of Pathology
123 Main Street
One City, Anystate USA


Patient Name: John Doe

Medical Record #: 01020304

Date of Birth: 04/01/26 (Age: 81) Sex: Male

Procedure performed by: Dr. I. M. Best

Specimen #: S00-9999

Procedure date: 07/15/07

Report date: 07/16/07

Gross description by: Dr. Eagle Eye


Prostate needle biopsies: 21

A) R5A: Fibromuscular tissue only; no prostatic epithelium seen.

B) R5MA: Atypical glandular focus suspicious for adenocarcinoma.

C) R5M: No malignancy identified.

D) R5MB: No malignancy identified.

E) R5B: No malignancy identified; focal chronic inflammation.

F) R4A: No malignancy identified.

G) R4MA: No malignancy identified; focal chronic inflammation.

H) R4M: No malignancy identified.

I) R4MB: No malignancy identified.

J) R4B: No malignancy identified; focal chronic inflammation.

K) L5A: Fibromuscular tissue and colonic mucosa; no prostatic epithelium seen.

L) L5MA: Adenocarcinoma, Gleason score 7 (3 + 4), involving 50% of core.

M) L5M: Adenocarcinoma, Gleason score 8 (4 + 4), involving 70% of core.

N) L5MB: Adenocarcinoma, Gleason score 8 (4 + 4), involving 80% of core.

O) L5B: Adenocarcinoma, Gleason score 8 (4 + 4), involving 80% of core.

P) L4A: No malignancy identified.

Q) L4MA: Adenocarcinoma, Gleason score 7 (4 + 3), involving 80% of core.

R) L4M: Adenocarcinoma, Gleason score 8 (4 + 4), involving 80% of core.

S) L4MB: Adenocarcinoma, Gleason score 8 (4 + 4), involving 80% of core.

T) L4B: Adenocarcinoma, Gleason score 8 (4 + 4), involving 70% of core.

U) L seminal vesicle: Seminal vesicle, no malignancy identified.

Note: Perineural invasion is seen. Focally, a tertiary Gleason 5 pattern is noted.

Clinical Data: None given.

Gross Description: Received in 21 formalin containers labeled with the patient’s name, “John Doe,” the medical record number, and additionally labeled “R5 apex,” “R5 mid-apex,” “R5 mid,” “R5 mid base,” “R5 base,” “R4 apex,” “R4 mid apex,” “R4 mid,” “R4 mid base,” “R4 base,” “L5 apex,” “L5 mid apex,” “L5 mid,” “L5 mid base,” “L5 base,” “L4 apex,” “L4 mid apex,” “L4 mid,” “L4 mid base,” “L4 base,” and “left seminal vesicle” are multiple prostate cores measuring up to 2.5 cm, entirely submitted in cassettes A–U respectively.

Report Electronically Signed Out — Eagle Eye, M.D. 07/16/07

Figure 4: A less-than-helpful pathology report

State Hospital
Department of Pathology
123 Elm Street
Another City, Anystate USA


Patient Name: John Doe

Medical Record #: 01234567

Date of Birth: 04/01/26 Age: 81

Sex: Male

Specimen #: S2007-X123

Procedure date: 06/11/07

Report date: 06/12/07

Gross description by: Dr. I.M. Brief


Prostate needle biopsies:

#2, right prostate: Adenocarcinoma, Gleason score 3 + 3 = 6, present in <5% of one of seven cores

Clinical Data: Prostate cancer.

Gross Description: Received from outside institution — three (3) H & E stained glass slides labeled “S2007-X123” and sub-labeled “2-1,” “2-3,” and “2-5” from procedure dated 06/11/07.

Originally published Oct. 1, 2007; last reviewed April 27, 2011.

gerald mcbride

my overall gleason score is 3+5=8 comment: shows a moderate to poorly differentiated adenocarcinoma 10% of care #2, 25 % pf core #5 20 % of core #6 50 % of core #10 and 10 % of core #11 focal atypical glands are presented in core #3. what does this mean?

John Davies

A biopsy of my prostate was performed on June 18, 2014, followed by the pathology consultation report on June 23, 2014, which provided the following information:

Needle biopsy of prostate x 8:

1. Right mid medial: 4mm length of Gleason 3+4=7/10 adenocarcinoma
2. Right mid lateral: 2mm length of Gleason 3+4=7/10 adenocarcinoma
3.Right apex: 2mm length of Gleason 3+3=6/10 adenocarcinoma
4.No evidence of extraprostatic extension
5.Left base: microscopic focus of high grade PIN
6.Remaining cores show benign prostatic tissue

My radiation oncologist discussed the results of the biopsy with me in general terms,and recommended continuing with my active surveillance program for at least the next year to ascertain whether or not there has been any significant changes in my PSA and a DRE.

I am 75 years old and in good health. I was diagnosed with prostatic cancer in 2005 based on an initial Gleason score of 3+3=6 in the right apex, at which time I was put on an active surveillance program. Bi-annual PSA tests and annual DRE’s have been performed, with biopsies every second year. This last biopsy was the first time I had a Gleason score of 3+4=7. I have never had any adverse effects in respect to my prostate gland over this 9-year period.

Any feedback in respect to the foregoing would be much appreciated.

Richard LaBarca

I’m 65 yrs old.I am in good health. I work out 4-5 times a week eat a healthy diet and keep my weight down. On 03/24/14 my total PSA was 3.3 —04/15/14 it was 2.4 —07/28/14 it was 2.5. At the same time the PSA’s were taken they also had 2, PCH-3 tests done. On 03/31/14 the score was 133 —on 08/07/14 it was 178. a biopsy was recommended. I just got the results this week. 12 samples were taken, eight of the 12 showed cancer. One sample showed 20% another showed 10% and 6 showed 5%. My Gleason score is 6. I have had a full body PET scan and a CT scan on 10/23 to determine if it is anywhere else and the results were negative. On this call he mentioned that my biopsy also detected PIN. My question is now that PIN was detected can I be a candidate for cyberknife, which I was seriously considering.

gus kennedy

I had my annual done at a urologist office. My PSA was a 4.5. I was told that I had a rating of 16 from a number 25. I was told I should have a biopsy done. my question is this: after a rectal and blood/urine sample I have a 4.5. I am 65 year’s old. Do I have a problem?


Gus, I’m 54 ye old Caucasian in very good health. Had a PSA of 3.9. Just had the biopsy done with a diagnosis of cancer. Gleason score 6. I’m now deciding on robotic surgery. Don’t know your age, but I suggest you get a biopsy. It’s an easy procedure if you ask to be unconscious for it. Good luck buddy.


Hi Frank,
Not sure if you had your surgery yet but your diagnosis sounds like you would be an excellent candidate for active surveillance. I don’t know where you live but larger institutions like Memorial Sloan Kettering in NYC has a very large active surveillance program for Gleason 6 patients. Good luck.


2013, my PSA was 3.3, within the “normal” 0-4 range, no nodule felt. 2015, a few weeks ago, I went to a urologist for unrelated discussion, and blood test showed PSA up to 4.5, now considered high. DRE performed, nodule felt. Biopsy recommended. Got a 2nd opinion, same results, went ahead with biopsy. 12 samples taken, 4 of which were on the nodules, and these 4 came back as cancerous. One had Gleason of 3+4, the other 4+3. Unfortunately, I also got a blood infection from biopsy, and bacteria found in blood was impervious to Cipro (primary anti-biotic for prostate biopsy). Still battling infection, hope to be done with that by next week, at which time I need to decide on treatment plan. Recommendation from my general doctor and urologist is to have prostate removed.

Pathology report seemed like the “good kind” in terms of details, but has anyone ever ordered a 2nd read of the samples? I realize we always wish it was anything but cancer, and I’m sure that plays into this, but I still have to wonder how often these reports could be in error.


my report states:
prostatic adenocarcinoma gleason score 6 involving both lobes.the apex in the right lobe is involved including focally the margin.other focally positive margins are in the left lobre.extensive perineural invasion is noted.
no signs of extraprostatic extension are present.the base and seminal testicles are free of tumor.

my question-from the above are you able to say whay stage t(tnm) is diagnosed?
is it t2 ?thank you


At age 54 years old on my biopsy report they had the following:focus of perineural invasion, prostatic adenocarcinoma grade (3+3)score 6, high prostatic intraepithelin neoplasia indentified. Malignant neoplasm of the prostate. Does this mean I have aggressive prostate cancer.

Diane Ortez

My husband Richard’s Urologist says his prostrate cancer is 10% in the prostate and 90% hiding somewhere in the body. All cat scans and lung biopsy are clear…he is 78 and was told no treatment..we asked for hormone shot that was said would weaken him and it hasn’t. What we are doing is building his immune system with a healthy diet..no sugar, white flour, etc. He has lost 20 pounds and is feeling great. Don’t understand the 10%/90% hiding in body. Are we doing the right thing?


Hi Harry, good news is Gleason 6 prostrate cancer is not an aggressive form of prostate cancer. While your report states you do have perineural invasion, the word “focus” implies a localized spot and does not seem to indicate extensive perineural invasion. The high grade PIN(prostatic intraepithelial neoplasia) is insignificant given that you have confirmed cancer in your prostate. PIN would be an important finding in a case where no obvious cancer cells were identified, as high grade PIN does raise suspicion of cancer being present somewhere, though it is not diagnostic of it. Hope this helps.

Sam, given that there is cancer in both sides of your prostate. That would indeed indicate T2 disease. The positive margins are a bit worrisome, however your report states that there is no extra prostatic extension(cancer that has escaped the gland) and no involvement of the seminal vesicles is good. It said there was focal involvement at the margins, and focal means localized and not widespread, so while perhaps the fact the margins are positive is concerning, it would seem the degree to which they are involved is limited, and that is certainly a good thing. I have heard of cases of focally or minimally positive margins being considered insignificant becauSe there is thought in cases like these that once the prostate has been removed, those cells at the margins have lost their source of nutrients and ultimately die off without means of sustainment. If your report had said something like “significant margin involvement” and/or seminal vesicles involvement, I’d be far more concerned, as this would indicate a likely more aggressive cancer and one more likely to spread.

John Jarvis

Had biopsy mid April 2015 (71cores taken) which demonstrated very small volume of Gleason 3+3 in one core. PSA was 4.8 and MRI clear. Have been on active surveillance and just had result of first follow-up PSA today. Has gone up to 11. Should I be worried? My consultant says the increase may be due to the trauma caused to the prostate by the large number of template biopsies and proposes another PSA follow up in 3 months. Any advice or comment?

marie mallery

HI, My fiancee just had a biopsy done a week ago. He’s had 3 severe infection with his prostate. After almost 4 yrs with his first attack he finally had biopsy done. His doctor let his nurse assist him with the procedure. She used the 12 needle while the doctor watched the screen. Is this normal for the urologist to let his nurse do the procedure. My fiancee goes to the bathroom a lot he has blood in his urine at times. He has pains on the side where his testicle swells ip the size of a small orange. Well we went for his results . Listen well to what I’m about to say. He had no file in his handfrom the lab results. All he said was no cancer . It was inflamation. When he asjed the doctor what is causing this inflamation. He said he didn’t know. What is your take on these results. Should we get a second opinion


Yikes! This must have given a fright. Good luck on your rvreoecy!I was just reading how often breast and prostate cancer are misdiagnosed; during my mom’s cancer much was learned about this disease, not the least of which is there is indeed a conspiracy to hide all, but the poisonous cancer treatments.Cats Claw is good for the prostate and is quite amazing at fixing, within days, any pain that emanates from that region. A good Milk Thistle source, Vit C and a Glutithion (sp) enhancer like whey is a solid regimine too is important. Before any surgery major doses of C will greatly decrease inflamation/pain and decrease down time; a naturopathic doctor with an MD informed me of this when her husband needed major surgery. (They resisted and she threatened to SUE if they did not give HUGE C doses IV.); N.D. #2 who was the Green party candidate at one point, told me this also and that 1000mg/hr will cure cancer . Detoxing and taking good care of your liver to aid your body in this area is key to activating your immune system. See Gerson Therapy for extensive research on organic juicing and coffee enema effects; quite impressive what adding concentrated nutrients can do for some, but the coffee enemas are not optional to get the toxins GUSHING out of your body!Take care!

Bob s

I have a psa of 13, on Dec. 2, 15, I had a 12 point biopsy. The right side was neg
Left side shows some cancer. My Gleason score is 4 plus 4=8 I have 2 procedure ct body scan. Pelvic and then a full body scan. I am looking at advice to what would be the best procedure recommended I am 59 very active work 80hr week.
A week

Sen Incavo

I had a biopsy on Jan. 18, 2016 because my PSA was 40.5. The result of the biopsy (12 cores) 11 were benign and the right apex show Gleason 6 and 10% of the core was cancer.

My doctor is concerned with WHAT is causing the high PSA. So am I. He’s scheduled an MRI to look at lymph system and bones.

I’m just curious as to what is the best course of action. I am 62 years old, diabetic and 233 lbs. on a 5’9″ frame.


I guess by now Sen, you have found out more results. There are a number of treatment options depending on what they find, age, etc. I opted for radical prostate surgery. From my understanding it is an excellent option given that it is conducive to other therapy if needed. I’m old school get the darned cells out of my body. Many talk about over-diagnosis and over-treatment. Mine was a Gleason 6 until the post-surgery pathology report. Then it was scored Gleason 7. That is something a biopsy may not show. Also, the extent of the cancer isn’t really known until it’s looked at under a microscope. I am really an advocate for rip ‘er out – even though that comes with lifestyle changes. Prostate cancer is a good reminder to all of us that life doesn’t go on forever. We don’t stay 20 throughout our lives. I’m thankful for the 53 years I have had up to this point. Blessings on all.

Dina Wyrick

My father has his prostate removed in 6/2013 the pathology report indicates the following.
Gleason score:8
Primary pattern grade 3
Secondary pattern grade 5 (approx. 35%)
Tertiary pattern 4 (approx. 5%)
Percentage of prostate involved by tumor 30%
seminal vesicle invasion present right
Lymph-Vascular invasion present
perineural invasion present multifocal
Primary tumor pT3b

His PCA score last year was .02
This year PCA is 20

What does this mean? How long is the life expectancy? What can we do?


My father 65 years age has gone through prostate surgery 2 months back and Doctor recommended Biopsy report.. Biopsy report shows 3+3. Now the doctor is asking for removal of testicles to remove the cancer.. Can he go for surgery immediately or need to wait for a gap as he had surgery just 2 months back.
Also he developed a leakage problem after the prostate surgery.

thank you for your advice.

Vedran Vidic


I am interested in second opinion about my father’s results (65 years old) regarding prostate biopsy. It was performed about a month ago in Croatia at Medical institute “Rebro,” Zagreb. Surgery is scheduled for the end of this month. What we could expect from values listed whether this is an aggressive type of prostate cancer, has spread already outside of prostate or not if possible to read. Values are as the following for 12 needle biopsies:
1. Cylinder 1.2cm length, histology benign prostate
2. Cylinder 1 cm length, histology benign prostate
3. Fragmented cylinder total length 1.2 cm, histology adenocarcinoma Gleason 7 (3+4) involving 20% of core
4. Cylinder 1.2cm length, histology benign prostate
5. Cylinder 1 cm length, histology benign prostate
6. Thin cylinder length 0.7 cm histology benign prostate
7. Cylinder length 1.2 cm, histology adenocarcinoma Gleason 7 (3+4) involving 90% of core
8. Cylinder length 1.8 cm, histology adenocarcinoma Gleason 7 (3+4) involving 80% of core
9. Cylinder length 1.3 cm, histology discontinues focal adenocarcinoma Gleason 7 (3+4) involving 90% of core
10. Cylinder length 1.2 cm, histology adenocarcinoma Gleason 7 (3+4) involving 25% of core
11. Cylinder length 1.3 cm, histology adenocarcinoma Gleason 7 (3+4) involving 70% of core
12. Fragmented cylinder total length 0.6 cm, histology fibromuscular stroma.

Thank you very much,

Vedran Vidic

Kay Schubert

My Husbands PSA was 10.5 and we just got his results back and awaiting our appointment to go over results in two weeks. I was concerned about waiting two weeks but the information above was extremely helpful in reading his biopsy report and realizing the two weeks is not a big deal. He only had one of 12 come back with a adenocarcinoma Gleason 3+3=6 5% core on the left med lateral. He had a colonoscopy scheduled way before this was done and the doctor saw multiple nodules on the left lobe saying he had an extremely large prostrate. It will be interesting to see what the doctor will decide is our next step.


This article was written before newer treatments became available. Lower grade prostate cancers can now be treated with far less risk of side effects (incontinence or impotence) through Focal Laser Therapy and Cryo (freezing) therapy. Check out those options through web research, as they are opening up a whole new range of decisions.

Peter Serawicz

In addition to the comment above, there are several new treatments as Rezum and Urolift. And even a new product called Spanner stent that substitutes the catheter

Carmen Basso

In 2013, my husband’s(age 57 at the time) PSA levels were 4.2 and he underwent 12 random biopsies sampling all of which came back benign. In 2014 during fup his psa levels were higher 5.4, but right before the fup appt, he was diagnosed and was treated for Squamous Cell Carnicoma in the Head and Neck with unknown primary. He underwent radical dissection adn 26 lymph nodes were removed including the mass (6cm, they also excised a piece of the back of his tongue and his right tonsil. He underwent 32 sessions of radiation as well as chemo once a week. The PSA took a back seat. 2016 and he is doing good from H&N, however, during an annual visit his psa levels came back @ 10.9. He underwent an MRI Dyna Cad and today the doctor informed us that 2 lesions were found, the Pi rads are 4 and 3. They are scheduling guided biopsy. My question is: Is it possible that the unknown primary cancer was the prostate and it was too small to show up on MRI or PET scans back in 2014? Could it have metastasized through the lymph nodes? What should i be concerned with and discuss with his doctors after the biospy?

Jim Shelton

66 yr old male with following score: 3=3 adenocarcinoma right base
involving 5% of cores 1 and 2

3=4 right mid gland core up to 0.7cm and 0.8 cm

MD recommends surgery.
Unsure of which type is best

I am type II diabetic, 6’1 and 223 lbs. No other medical problems

Thank you


My husbands diagnosis was


1. Tru-cut prostrate biopsies : No Pin or Carcinoma identified

2. Transrectal prostate biopsied: Acinar Adenocarcinoma (Gleason 3+3=6) / Grade Group 1)
NO pin or Perineuural indentified

WE would like to know what this means exactly in layman terms..

Post a Comment

This blog aims to provide reliable information as well as healthy dialog about the topics covered. We reserve the right to remove comments for any reason, particularly those that do not relate directly to the contents of this post, are commercial in nature, contain objectionable or inappropriate material, or otherwise violate our Privacy Policy. Comments on this blog do not represent the views of our editors or Harvard University, and have not been checked for accuracy. All comments submitted to this site become the non-exclusive property of Harvard University.