Grading of Prostatic Adenocarcinoma: Current State and Prognostic Implications

Overview

Journal Diagn Pathol

Publisher Biomed Central

Specialty Pathology

Date 2016 Mar 10

PMID 26956509

Citations 93

Authors

Jennifer Gordetsky

Jonathan Epstein

Affiliations

Soon will be listed here.

Abstract

Background: Despite significant changes in the clinical and histologic diagnosis of prostate cancer, the Gleason grading system remains one of the most powerful prognostic predictors in prostate cancer. The correct diagnosis and grading of prostate cancer is crucial for a patient's prognosis and therapeutic options. However, this system has undergone significant revisions and continues to have deficiencies that can potentially impact patient care.

Main Body: We describe the current state of grading prostate cancer, focusing on the current guidelines for the Gleason grading system and recent changes from the 2014 International Society of Urological Pathology Consensus Conference on Gleason Grading of Prostatic Carcinoma. We also explore the limitations of the current Gleason grading system and present a validated alternative to the Gleason score. The new grading system initially described in 2013 in a study from Johns Hopkins Hospital and then validated in a multi-institutional study, includes five distinct Grade Groups based on the modified Gleason score groups. Grade Group 1 = Gleason score ≤6, Grade Group 2 = Gleason score 3 + 4 = 7, Grade Group 3 = Gleason score 4 + 3 = 7, Grade Group 4 = Gleason score 8, Grade Group 5 = Gleason scores 9 and 10.

Conclusion: As this new grading system is simpler and more accurately reflects prostate cancer biology, it is recommended by the World Health Organization (WHO) to be used in conjunction with Gleason grading.

Citing Articles

The number of involved regions by prostate adenocarcinoma predicts histopathology concordance between radical prostatectomy specimens and MRI/ultrasound-fusion targeted prostate biopsy.

Yusim I, Mazor E, Frumkin E, Hefer B, Li S, Novack V Front Oncol. 2024; 14:1496479.

PMID: 39723377 PMC: 11668676. DOI: 10.3389/fonc.2024.1496479.

Artificial Intelligence Algorithms and Their Current Role in the Identification and Comparison of Gleason Patterns in Prostate Cancer Histopathology: A Comprehensive Review.

Khalid U, Gurung J, Doykov M, Kostov G, Hristov B, Uchikov P Diagnostics (Basel). 2024; 14(19).

PMID: 39410530 PMC: 11475684. DOI: 10.3390/diagnostics14192127.

Heterogeneous genetic architectures of prostate cancer susceptibility in sub-Saharan Africa.

Janivara R, Chen W, Hazra U, Baichoo S, Agalliu I, Kachambwa P Nat Genet. 2024; 56(10):2093-2103.

PMID: 39358599 DOI: 10.1038/s41588-024-01931-3.

Evaluation of Machine Learning Classification Models for False-Positive Reduction in Prostate Cancer Detection Using MRI Data.

Rippa M, Schulze R, Kenyon G, Himstedt M, Kwiatkowski M, Grobholz R Diagnostics (Basel). 2024; 14(15).

PMID: 39125553 PMC: 11311676. DOI: 10.3390/diagnostics14151677.

Validation and three years of clinical experience in using an artificial intelligence algorithm as a second read system for prostate cancer diagnosis-real-world experience.

Santa-Rosario J, Gustafson E, Sanabria Bellassai D, Gustafson P, de Socarraz M J Pathol Inform. 2024; 15:100378.

PMID: 38868487 PMC: 11166872. DOI: 10.1016/j.jpi.2024.100378.

References

van der Kwast T, Al Daoud N, Collette L, Sykes J, Thoms J, Milosevic M . Biopsy diagnosis of intraductal carcinoma is prognostic in intermediate and high risk prostate cancer patients treated by radiotherapy. Eur J Cancer. 2012; 48(9):1318-25. DOI: 10.1016/j.ejca.2012.02.003. View

Wilt T, Brawer M, Jones K, Barry M, Aronson W, Fox S . Radical prostatectomy versus observation for localized prostate cancer. N Engl J Med. 2012; 367(3):203-13. PMC: 3429335. DOI: 10.1056/NEJMoa1113162. View

Ross H, Kryvenko O, Cowan J, Simko J, Wheeler T, Epstein J . Do adenocarcinomas of the prostate with Gleason score (GS) ≤6 have the potential to metastasize to lymph nodes?. Am J Surg Pathol. 2012; 36(9):1346-52. PMC: 3421030. DOI: 10.1097/PAS.0b013e3182556dcd. View

Resnick M, Koyama T, Fan K, Albertsen P, Goodman M, Hamilton A . Long-term functional outcomes after treatment for localized prostate cancer. N Engl J Med. 2013; 368(5):436-45. PMC: 3742365. DOI: 10.1056/NEJMoa1209978. View

Turker P, Bas E, Bozkurt S, Gunlusoy B, Sezgin A, Postaci H . Presence of high grade tertiary Gleason pattern upgrades the Gleason sum score and is inversely associated with biochemical recurrence-free survival. Urol Oncol. 2011; 31(1):93-8. DOI: 10.1016/j.urolonc.2010.10.009. View

Pierorazio P, Walsh P, Partin A, Epstein J . Prognostic Gleason grade grouping: data based on the modified Gleason scoring system. BJU Int. 2013; 111(5):753-60. PMC: 3978145. DOI: 10.1111/j.1464-410X.2012.11611.x. View

Watts K, Li J, Magi-Galluzzi C, Zhou M . Incidence and clinicopathological characteristics of intraductal carcinoma detected in prostate biopsies: a prospective cohort study. Histopathology. 2013; 63(4):574-9. DOI: 10.1111/his.12198. View

Bill-Axelson A, Holmberg L, Garmo H, Rider J, Taari K, Busch C . Radical prostatectomy or watchful waiting in early prostate cancer. N Engl J Med. 2014; 370(10):932-42. PMC: 4118145. DOI: 10.1056/NEJMoa1311593. View

Trudel D, Downes M, Sykes J, Kron K, Trachtenberg J, van der Kwast T . Prognostic impact of intraductal carcinoma and large cribriform carcinoma architecture after prostatectomy in a contemporary cohort. Eur J Cancer. 2014; 50(9):1610-6. DOI: 10.1016/j.ejca.2014.03.009. View

10.

Sarbay B, Kir G, Topal C, Gumus E . Significance of the cribriform pattern in prostatic adenocarcinomas. Pathol Res Pract. 2014; 210(9):554-7. DOI: 10.1016/j.prp.2014.03.003. View

11.

Kir G, Sarbay B, Gumus E, Topal C . The association of the cribriform pattern with outcome for prostatic adenocarcinomas. Pathol Res Pract. 2014; 210(10):640-4. DOI: 10.1016/j.prp.2014.06.002. View

12.

Billis A, Guimaraes M, Freitas L, Meirelles L, Magna L, Ferreira U . The impact of the 2005 international society of urological pathology consensus conference on standard Gleason grading of prostatic carcinoma in needle biopsies. J Urol. 2008; 180(2):548-52. DOI: 10.1016/j.juro.2008.04.018. 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.

Kunju L, Daignault S, Wei J, Shah R . Multiple prostate cancer cores with different Gleason grades submitted in the same specimen container without specific site designation: should each core be assigned an individual Gleason score?. Hum Pathol. 2009; 40(4):558-64. DOI: 10.1016/j.humpath.2008.07.020. View

15.

Burdick M, Reddy C, Ulchaker J, Angermeier K, Altman A, Chehade N . Comparison of biochemical relapse-free survival between primary Gleason score 3 and primary Gleason score 4 for biopsy Gleason score 7 prostate cancer. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2008; 73(5):1439-45. DOI: 10.1016/j.ijrobp.2008.07.033. View

16.

Uemura H, Hoshino K, Sasaki T, Miyoshi Y, Ishiguro H, Inayama Y . Usefulness of the 2005 International Society of Urologic Pathology Gleason grading system in prostate biopsy and radical prostatectomy specimens. BJU Int. 2008; 103(9):1190-4. DOI: 10.1111/j.1464-410X.2008.08197.x. View

17.

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

18.

Zhao T, Liao B, Yao J, Liu J, Huang R, Shen P . Is there any prognostic impact of intraductal carcinoma of prostate in initial diagnosed aggressively metastatic prostate cancer?. Prostate. 2014; 75(3):225-32. DOI: 10.1002/pros.22906. View

19.

Kweldam C, Wildhagen M, Steyerberg E, Bangma C, van der Kwast T, van Leenders G . Cribriform growth is highly predictive for postoperative metastasis and disease-specific death in Gleason score 7 prostate cancer. Mod Pathol. 2014; 28(3):457-64. DOI: 10.1038/modpathol.2014.116. View

20.

Khani F, Epstein J . Prostate Biopsy Specimens With Gleason 3+3=6 and Intraductal Carcinoma: Radical Prostatectomy Findings and Clinical Outcomes. Am J Surg Pathol. 2015; 39(10):1383-9. DOI: 10.1097/PAS.0000000000000465. View