Clinical Implications of Changing Definitions Within the Gleason Grading System

Overview

Journal Nat Rev Urol

Specialty Urology

Date 2010 Feb 17

PMID 20157302

Citations 17

Authors

Tamara L Lotan

Jonathan I Epstein

Affiliations

Soon will be listed here.

Abstract

Remarkably, more than 40 years after the inception of the Gleason grading system, it remains one of the most powerful prognostic predictors in prostate cancer. Gleason's original grading system, however, has undergone significant revision over the years, first by Gleason and his colleagues, and most recently at the 2005 International Society of Urological Pathology Consensus Conference. The consensus conference and subsequent articles proposing further modifications have helped pathologists to adapt the Gleason grading system to current urologic practice in a uniform manner. The changing definitions of Gleason pattern 3 and 4 prostatic adenocarcinoma have tended to narrow the scope of pattern 3 carcinoma and widen the scope of pattern 4 carcinoma. These modifications have had an important role in improving the inter-observer reproducibility of the Gleason system. Whether these changes have a significant impact on the clinical treatment of prostate cancer remains to be seen. However, as many of these modifications are supported only by a few studies, long-term follow-up studies with clinical end points are essential to validate these recommendations.

Citing Articles

Spatial transcriptomics identifies RBM39 as a gene a Gleason score progression in prostate cancer.

Quan Y, Wang M, Zhang H, Lu D, Ping H iScience. 2024; 27(12):111351.

PMID: 39650727 PMC: 11625293. DOI: 10.1016/j.isci.2024.111351.

Visium spatial transcriptomics reveals intratumor heterogeneity and profiles of Gleason score progression in prostate cancer.

Quan Y, Zhang H, Wang M, Ping H iScience. 2023; 26(12):108429.

PMID: 38077153 PMC: 10698261. DOI: 10.1016/j.isci.2023.108429.

Chronic hypoxia favours adoption to a castration-resistant cell state in prostate cancer.

Cameron S, Deblois G, Hawley J, Qamra A, Zhou S, Madani Tonekaboni S Oncogene. 2023; 42(21):1693-1703.

PMID: 37020039 PMC: 10202808. DOI: 10.1038/s41388-023-02680-z.

Grade group system and plasma androgen receptor status in the first line treatment for metastatic castration resistant prostate cancer.

Cursano M, Conteduca V, Scarpi E, Gurioli G, Casadei C, Gargiulo S Sci Rep. 2022; 12(1):7319.

PMID: 35513478 PMC: 9072417. DOI: 10.1038/s41598-022-10751-6.

No significant difference in intermediate key outcomes in men with low- and intermediate-risk prostate cancer managed by active surveillance.

Cyll K, Loffeler S, Carlsen B, Skogstad K, Plathan M, Landquist M Sci Rep. 2022; 12(1):6743.

PMID: 35468921 PMC: 9039068. DOI: 10.1038/s41598-022-10741-8.

References

Gofrit O, Zorn K, Steinberg G, Zagaja G, Shalhav A . The Will Rogers phenomenon in urological oncology. J Urol. 2007; 179(1):28-33. DOI: 10.1016/j.juro.2007.08.125. View

Berglund R, Stephen Jones J, Ulchaker J, Fergany A, Gill I, Kaouk J . Radical prostatectomy as primary treatment modality for locally advanced prostate cancer: a prospective analysis. Urology. 2006; 67(6):1253-6. DOI: 10.1016/j.urology.2005.12.003. View

MELLINGER G, Gleason D, Bailar 3rd J . The histology and prognosis of prostatic cancer. J Urol. 1967; 97(2):331-7. DOI: 10.1016/S0022-5347(17)63039-8. View

Frank S, Grimm P, Sylvester J, Merrick G, Davis B, Zietman A . Interstitial implant alone or in combination with external beam radiation therapy for intermediate-risk prostate cancer: a survey of practice patterns in the United States. Brachytherapy. 2007; 6(1):2-8. DOI: 10.1016/j.brachy.2006.09.004. View

Steinberg D, Sauvageot J, Piantadosi S, Epstein J . Correlation of prostate needle biopsy and radical prostatectomy Gleason grade in academic and community settings. Am J Surg Pathol. 1997; 21(5):566-76. DOI: 10.1097/00000478-199705000-00010. View

Yossepowitch O, Eggener S, Serio A, Carver B, Bianco Jr F, Scardino P . Secondary therapy, metastatic progression, and cancer-specific mortality in men with clinically high-risk prostate cancer treated with radical prostatectomy. Eur Urol. 2007; 53(5):950-9. PMC: 2637146. DOI: 10.1016/j.eururo.2007.10.008. View

Loeb S, Schaeffer E, Trock B, Epstein J, Humphreys E, Walsh P . What are the outcomes of radical prostatectomy for high-risk prostate cancer?. Urology. 2009; 76(3):710-4. PMC: 2889156. DOI: 10.1016/j.urology.2009.09.014. View

Allsbrook Jr W, Mangold K, Johnson M, LANE R, LANE C, Epstein J . Interobserver reproducibility of Gleason grading of prostatic carcinoma: general pathologist. Hum Pathol. 2001; 32(1):81-8. DOI: 10.1053/hupa.2001.21135. View

San Francisco I, DeWolf W, Rosen S, Upton M, Olumi A . Extended prostate needle biopsy improves concordance of Gleason grading between prostate needle biopsy and radical prostatectomy. J Urol. 2002; 169(1):136-40. DOI: 10.1016/S0022-5347(05)64053-0. View

10.

Mills S, Fowler Jr J . Gleason histologic grading of prostatic carcinoma. Correlations between biopsy and prostatectomy specimens. Cancer. 1986; 57(2):346-9. DOI: 10.1002/1097-0142(19860115)57:2<346::aid-cncr2820570226>3.0.co;2-e. View

11.

GLEASON D . Classification of prostatic carcinomas. Cancer Chemother Rep. 1966; 50(3):125-8. View

12.

Amin M, Schultz D, Zarbo R . Analysis of cribriform morphology in prostatic neoplasia using antibody to high-molecular-weight cytokeratins. Arch Pathol Lab Med. 1994; 118(3):260-4. View

13.

Lotan T, Epstein J . Gleason grading of prostatic adenocarcinoma with glomeruloid features on needle biopsy. Hum Pathol. 2009; 40(4):471-7. PMC: 3484379. DOI: 10.1016/j.humpath.2008.10.002. View

14.

Gaeta J, Asirwatham J, Miller G, Murphy G . Histologic grading of primary prostatic cancer: a new approach to an old problem. J Urol. 1980; 123(5):689-93. DOI: 10.1016/s0022-5347(17)56093-0. View

15.

Ward J, Slezak J, Blute M, Bergstralh E, Zincke H . Radical prostatectomy for clinically advanced (cT3) prostate cancer since the advent of prostate-specific antigen testing: 15-year outcome. BJU Int. 2005; 95(6):751-6. DOI: 10.1111/j.1464-410X.2005.05394.x. View

16.

Brawn P, Ayala A, Von Eschenbach A, Hussey D, Johnson D . Histologic grading study of prostate adenocarcinoma: the development of a new system and comparison with other methods--a preliminary study. Cancer. 1982; 49(3):525-32. DOI: 10.1002/1097-0142(19820201)49:3<525::aid-cncr2820490321>3.0.co;2-m. View

17.

Fine S, Epstein J . A contemporary study correlating prostate needle biopsy and radical prostatectomy Gleason score. J Urol. 2008; 179(4):1335-8. DOI: 10.1016/j.juro.2007.11.057. View

18.

Helpap B, Egevad L . The significance of modified Gleason grading of prostatic carcinoma in biopsy and radical prostatectomy specimens. Virchows Arch. 2006; 449(6):622-7. DOI: 10.1007/s00428-006-0310-6. View

19.

Helpap B, Egevad L . Modified Gleason grading. An updated review. Histol Histopathol. 2009; 24(5):661-6. DOI: 10.14670/HH-24.661. View

20.

Epstein J . Gleason score 2-4 adenocarcinoma of the prostate on needle biopsy: a diagnosis that should not be made. Am J Surg Pathol. 2000; 24(4):477-8. DOI: 10.1097/00000478-200004000-00001. View