Percent Gleason Pattern 4 in Stratifying the Prognosis of Patients with Intermediate-risk Prostate Cancer

Overview

Journal Transl Androl Urol

Date 2018 Oct 27

PMID 30363387

Citations 8

Authors

Meenal Sharma

Hiroshi Miyamoto

Affiliations

Soon will be listed here.

Abstract

The Gleason score remains the most reliable prognosticator in men with prostate cancer. One of the recent important modifications in the Gleason grading system recommended from the International Society of Urological Pathology consensus conference is recording the percentage of Gleason pattern 4 in the pathology reports of prostate needle biopsy and radical prostatectomy cases with Gleason score 7 prostatic adenocarcinoma. Limited data have indeed suggested that the percent Gleason pattern 4 contributes to stratifying the prognosis of patients who undergo radical prostatectomy. An additional obvious benefit of reporting percent pattern 4 includes providing critical information for treatment decisions. This review summarizes and discusses available studies assessing the utility of the percentage of Gleason pattern 4 in the management of prostate cancer patients.

Citing Articles

The Relationship of the Pathogenic Variant rs721048 in the Intron of the Gene with the Development of Prostate Cancer and Colorectal Cancer in the Kazakh Population.

Romanova M, Abdikerim S, Dauyey K, Gassanov Z, Baltayev N, Satymbayev S Genes (Basel). 2025; 16(2).

PMID: 40004500 PMC: 11855340. DOI: 10.3390/genes16020171.

Clinical characteristics and survival of patients with de novo metastatic prostate cancer treated with androgen deprivation therapy and taxane-based chemotherapy in Uganda: a retrospective study.

Bakenga A, Natukunda B, Okuku F, Mubiru K, Kakungulu E, Kyagulanyi E BMC Cancer. 2024; 24(1):1404.

PMID: 39543506 PMC: 11566626. DOI: 10.1186/s12885-024-13147-z.

Quantification of Gleason Pattern 4 at MRI-Guided Biopsy to Predict Adverse Pathology at Radical Prostatectomy in Intermediate-Risk Prostate Cancer Patients.

Kamecki H, Mielczarek L, Szemplinski S, Debowska M, Rajwa P, Baboudjian M Cancers (Basel). 2023; 15(22).

PMID: 38001723 PMC: 10670701. DOI: 10.3390/cancers15225462.

Characterization of metabolism-associated molecular patterns in prostate cancer.

Yang B, Jiang Y, Yang J, Zhou W, Yang T, Zhang R BMC Urol. 2023; 23(1):104.

PMID: 37280589 PMC: 10243086. DOI: 10.1186/s12894-023-01275-w.

Active Surveillance in Intermediate-Risk Prostate Cancer: A Review of the Current Data.

Blas L, Shiota M, Eto M Cancers (Basel). 2022; 14(17).

PMID: 36077698 PMC: 9454661. DOI: 10.3390/cancers14174161.

References

Epstein J, Egevad L, Amin M, Delahunt B, Srigley J, Humphrey P . The 2014 International Society of Urological Pathology (ISUP) Consensus Conference on Gleason Grading of Prostatic Carcinoma: Definition of Grading Patterns and Proposal for a New Grading System. Am J Surg Pathol. 2015; 40(2):244-52. DOI: 10.1097/PAS.0000000000000530. View

Huang C, Kong M, Zhou M, Rosenkrantz A, Taneja S, Melamed J . Gleason score 3 + 4=7 prostate cancer with minimal quantity of gleason pattern 4 on needle biopsy is associated with low-risk tumor in radical prostatectomy specimen. Am J Surg Pathol. 2014; 38(8):1096-101. DOI: 10.1097/PAS.0000000000000235. View

Cheng L, Davidson D, Lin H, Koch M . Percentage of Gleason pattern 4 and 5 predicts survival after radical prostatectomy. Cancer. 2007; 110(9):1967-72. DOI: 10.1002/cncr.23004. View

Stark J, Perner S, Stampfer M, Sinnott J, Finn S, Eisenstein A . Gleason score and lethal prostate cancer: does 3 + 4 = 4 + 3?. J Clin Oncol. 2009; 27(21):3459-64. PMC: 2717753. DOI: 10.1200/JCO.2008.20.4669. View

Makarov D, Sanderson H, Partin A, Epstein J . Gleason score 7 prostate cancer on needle biopsy: is the prognostic difference in Gleason scores 4 + 3 and 3 + 4 independent of the number of involved cores?. J Urol. 2002; 167(6):2440-2. View

GLEASON D, MELLINGER G . Prediction of prognosis for prostatic adenocarcinoma by combined histological grading and clinical staging. J Urol. 1974; 111(1):58-64. DOI: 10.1016/s0022-5347(17)59889-4. View

Cole A, Morgan T, Spratt D, Palapattu G, He C, Tomlins S . Prognostic Value of Percent Gleason Grade 4 at Prostate Biopsy in Predicting Prostatectomy Pathology and Recurrence. J Urol. 2016; 196(2):405-11. DOI: 10.1016/j.juro.2016.01.120. View

Spratt D, Zumsteg Z, Ghadjar P, Pangasa M, Pei X, Fine S . Prognostic importance of Gleason 7 disease among patients treated with external beam radiation therapy for prostate cancer: results of a detailed biopsy core analysis. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2012; 85(5):1254-61. DOI: 10.1016/j.ijrobp.2012.10.013. View

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

10.

Perlis N, Sayyid R, Evans A, van der Kwast T, Toi A, Finelli A . Limitations in Predicting Organ Confined Prostate Cancer in Patients with Gleason Pattern 4 on Biopsy: Implications for Active Surveillance. J Urol. 2016; 197(1):75-83. DOI: 10.1016/j.juro.2016.07.076. View

11.

Sauter G, Steurer S, Clauditz T, Krech T, Wittmer C, Lutz F . Clinical Utility of Quantitative Gleason Grading in Prostate Biopsies and Prostatectomy Specimens. Eur Urol. 2015; 69(4):592-598. DOI: 10.1016/j.eururo.2015.10.029. View

12.

Sauter G, Clauditz T, Steurer S, Wittmer C, Buscheck F, Krech T . Integrating Tertiary Gleason 5 Patterns into Quantitative Gleason Grading in Prostate Biopsies and Prostatectomy Specimens. Eur Urol. 2017; 73(5):674-683. DOI: 10.1016/j.eururo.2017.01.015. View

13.

Epstein J, Zelefsky M, Sjoberg D, Nelson J, Egevad L, Magi-Galluzzi C . A Contemporary Prostate Cancer Grading System: A Validated Alternative to the Gleason Score. Eur Urol. 2015; 69(3):428-35. PMC: 5002992. DOI: 10.1016/j.eururo.2015.06.046. View

14.

Choy B, Pearce S, Anderson B, Shalhav A, Zagaja G, Eggener S . Prognostic Significance of Percentage and Architectural Types of Contemporary Gleason Pattern 4 Prostate Cancer in Radical Prostatectomy. Am J Surg Pathol. 2016; 40(10):1400-6. DOI: 10.1097/PAS.0000000000000691. View

15.

Amin M, Lin D, Gore J, Srigley J, Samaratunga H, Egevad L . The critical role of the pathologist in determining eligibility for active surveillance as a management option in patients with prostate cancer: consensus statement with recommendations supported by the College of American Pathologists,.... Arch Pathol Lab Med. 2014; 138(10):1387-405. DOI: 10.5858/arpa.2014-0219-SA. View

16.

Epstein J, Allsbrook Jr W, Amin M, Egevad L . The 2005 International Society of Urological Pathology (ISUP) Consensus Conference on Gleason Grading of Prostatic Carcinoma. Am J Surg Pathol. 2005; 29(9):1228-42. DOI: 10.1097/01.pas.0000173646.99337.b1. View

17.

Bittner N, Merrick G, Butler W, Galbreath R, Adamovich E, Wallner K . Gleason score 7 prostate cancer treated with interstitial brachytherapy with or without supplemental external beam radiation and androgen deprivation therapy: is the primary pattern on needle biopsy prognostic?. Brachytherapy. 2012; 12(1):14-8. DOI: 10.1016/j.brachy.2012.05.002. View

18.

Reese A, Cowan J, Brajtbord J, Harris C, Carroll P, Cooperberg M . The quantitative Gleason score improves prostate cancer risk assessment. Cancer. 2012; 118(24):6046-54. DOI: 10.1002/cncr.27670. View

19.

Amin A, Partin A, Epstein J . Gleason score 7 prostate cancer on needle biopsy: relation of primary pattern 3 or 4 to pathological stage and progression after radical prostatectomy. J Urol. 2011; 186(4):1286-90. DOI: 10.1016/j.juro.2011.05.075. View

20.

Mottet N, Bellmunt J, Bolla M, Briers E, Cumberbatch M, De Santis M . EAU-ESTRO-SIOG Guidelines on Prostate Cancer. Part 1: Screening, Diagnosis, and Local Treatment with Curative Intent. Eur Urol. 2016; 71(4):618-629. DOI: 10.1016/j.eururo.2016.08.003. View