Adenocarcinoma of the prostate with Gleason pattern 5 on core biopsy: frequency of diagnosis, morphologic subpatterns, and relation to pattern distribution based on the modified Gleason grading system

2014 ◽  
Vol 45 (11) ◽  
pp. 2263-2269 ◽  
Author(s):  
Rajal B. Shah ◽  
Yousef Tadros
Keyword(s):  
Core Biopsy ◽  
Grading System ◽  
Gleason Grading ◽  
Gleason Pattern ◽  
Adenocarcinoma Of The Prostate ◽  
Pattern Distribution ◽  
Modified Gleason Grading

SOCS3 immunohistochemical expression to support the 2005 International Society of Urological Pathology (ISUP) modified Gleason grading system.

2016 ◽  
Vol 34 (2_suppl) ◽  
pp. 216-216
Author(s):  
Gian Luigi Petrone ◽  
Francesco Pierconti ◽  
Maurizio Martini ◽  
Tonia Cenci ◽  
Luigi Maria Larocca
Keyword(s):  
Gleason Score ◽  
International Society ◽  
Consensus Conference ◽  
Point Of View ◽  
Cytokine Signaling ◽  
Grading System ◽  
Exact Tests ◽  
Gleason Grading ◽  
Gleason Pattern ◽  
Modified Gleason Grading

216 Background: In the 2005 International Society of Urological Pathology (ISUP) Consensus Conference, a modified Gleason grading system for prostate cancer was proposed. (Epstein JI et al. Am J Surg Pathol 2005; 29:1228-1242) Afterwards an interobserver study among experts in genitourinary pathology proposed some modifications and refinements to the 2005 ISUP modified grading system concerning the cribriform pattern carcinoma that it should never be diagnosed as Gleason pattern 3, assigning Gleason pattern 4 to cribriform glands (Latour M et al. Am J Surg Pathol 2008; 32: 1532-1539; Epstein J I Journal of Urology 2010: 183:433-440). Methods: The study population consisted of 80 patients undergoing biopsies at the Institute of Urology of our hospital, between February 2012 and January 2013 stratified into 3 different categories on the basis of histologic pattern: 1) 20 patients with classical and modified Gleason score 3+3 = 6; 2) 30 patients with classical Gleason score 3+3 = 6 upgraded to Gleason score 7 according to the ISUP modified grading system; and 3) 30 patients with classical and modified Gleason score 3+4 = 7. We evaluate the immunohistochemical protein expression of the suppressor of cytokine signaling (SOCS) proteins 3 (SOCS3) in these three different group of prostatic cancer biopsies. Results: We found that the SOCS3 pattern staining negative (-) or with SOCS3 negative staining with weak intensity staining in less than 50% of neoplastic glands (+/-) increases progressively in concomitance with the rise of Gleason score and SOCS3 positivity (+), correlates with classical or modified Gleason score 6 (P = 0,0004 Fisher’s exact tests) and with classical Gleason score 3+3 = 6 upgraded to Gleason score 7 (P = 0,0010 Fisher’s exact tests). Conclusions: In conclusion our data seem to support from a molecular point of view the modified criteria by 2005 International Society of Urological Pathology (ISUP) Consensus Conference as well as the hypothesis that the diagnosis of Gleason cribriform pattern 3 virtually does not exist and cribriform glands-regardless of their size-are nearly always considered pattern 4.

MP20-13 VALIDATION OF A MODIFIED GLEASON GRADING SYSTEM IN A CANADIAN COHORT

2017 ◽  
Vol 197 (4S) ◽  
Author(s):  
Marc Zanaty ◽  
Mansour Alnazari ◽  
Mila Mansour ◽  
Pierre Karakiewicz ◽  
Emanuele Zaffuto ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Grading System ◽  
Gleason Grading ◽  
Modified Gleason Grading

SOCS3 Immunohistochemical Expression Seems to Support the 2005 and 2014 International Society of Urological Pathology (ISUP) Modified Gleason Grading System

The Prostate ◽  
2017 ◽  
Vol 77 (6) ◽  
pp. 597-603 ◽  
Author(s):  
Francesco Pierconti ◽  
Maurizio Martini ◽  
Tonia Cenci ◽  
Gian Luigi Petrone ◽  
Riccardo Ricci ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
International Society ◽  
Grading System ◽  
Immunohistochemical Expression ◽  
Gleason Grading ◽  
Modified Gleason Grading

scholarly journals Implications of the International Society of Urological Pathology Modified Gleason Grading System

2012 ◽  
Vol 136 (4) ◽  
pp. 426-434 ◽  
Author(s):  
Lars Egevad ◽  
Roberta Mazzucchelli ◽  
Rodolfo Montironi
Keyword(s):  
International Society ◽  
Personal Experience ◽  
General Trend ◽  
Preoperative Assessment ◽  
Consensus Conference ◽  
Data Sources ◽  
Grading System ◽  
Gleason Grading ◽  
Prognostic Importance ◽  
Modified Gleason Grading

Context.—Histologic grading is the clinically most useful tissue-based predictor of prognosis for prostate cancer. Over the years, there has been a gradual shift in how the Gleason grading is applied in practice, with a general trend toward upgrading. A consensus conference was organized in 2005 by the International Society of Urological Pathology (ISUP) for standardizing both the perception of histologic patterns and how the grade information is compiled and reported. Objective.—To review the implications of the ISUP modified Gleason grading system. Data Sources.—Personal experience and review of the current literature. Conclusions.—The recommendations regarding pattern interpretation and reporting are summarized. The practical consequences of the ISUP modification of the Gleason grading are reported. The prognostic importance of the Gleason score, its reproducibility, and its preoperative assessment are discussed. Subsequent proposals for slight modifications to the ISUP grading system are described.

scholarly journals Understanding the gleason grading system and its changes

2019 ◽  
Vol 9 (2) ◽  
pp. 1580-1585
Author(s):  
Sujata Pudasaini ◽  
Neeraj Subedi
Keyword(s):  
Prostatic Carcinoma ◽  
World Health ◽  
Grading System ◽  
Pathology Report ◽  
Gleason Grade ◽  
High Grade ◽  
Grade Group ◽  
Gleason Grading ◽  
Gleason Pattern ◽  
Health Organization

Gleason Grading System is the most widely used grading system used for prostatic carcinoma. The five basic grade patterns are used to generate a histologic score, which can range from 2 to 10 (including primary and secondary patterns). The original Gleason Grading System was used to grade acinar adenocarcinoma based on architectural features and it has been correlated with excellent clinical outcomes. Since 1960s, after the discovery of the original Gleason Grading System, a modified version of the Gleason Grading System was introduced in the International Society of Urological Pathology 2005 which came up with many changes including elimination of Gleason pattern 1. The ISUP 2005 was further updated in 2014 to provide more accurate stratification of prostatic carcinoma. The new Gleason Grade Group 1 to 5 has been introduced and it has little resemblance to the original Gleason system. This Gleason Grade Group has been accepted by the 2016 World Health Organization classification of tumors of the prostate. For a needle biopsy, high grade component of any quantity should be included in the Gleason score as it indicates a high probability of finding significant high grade tumor in the prostate. By understanding the principles and practice of this grading system, the pathology report has to clearly indicate which system is adopted in the reporting. This review discusses GGS and its recent development focusing on major changes over the years that led to the new Grade Group system proposed by the 2014 ISUP consensus.

Prostate Cancer Grading: A Decade After the 2005 Modified Gleason Grading System

2016 ◽  
Vol 140 (10) ◽  
pp. 1140-1152 ◽  
Author(s):  
Oleksandr N. Kryvenko ◽  
Jonathan I. Epstein
Keyword(s):  
Prostate Cancer ◽  
Radical Prostatectomy ◽  
International Society ◽  
Current Concept ◽  
Johns Hopkins Hospital ◽  
Grading System ◽  
Gleason Grading ◽  
Multiple Cores ◽  
Modified Gleason Grading ◽  
Cancer Grading

Since 1966, when Donald Gleason, MD, first proposed grading prostate cancer based on its histologic architecture, there have been numerous changes in clinical and pathologic practices relating to prostate cancer. Patterns 1 and 2, comprising more than 30% of cases in the original publications by Gleason, are no longer reported on biopsy and are rarely diagnosed on radical prostatectomy. Many of these cases may even have been mimickers of prostate cancer that were described later with the use of contemporary immunohistochemistry. The original Gleason system predated many newly described variants of prostate cancer and our current concept of intraductal carcinoma. Gleason also did not describe how to report prostate cancer on biopsy with multiple cores of cancer or on radical prostatectomy with separate tumor nodules. To address these issues, the International Society of Urological Pathology first made revisions to the grading system in 2005, and subsequently in 2014. Additionally, a new grading system composed of Grade Groups 1 to 5 that was first developed in 2013 at the Johns Hopkins Hospital and subsequently validated in a large multi-institutional and multimodal study was presented at the 2014 International Society of Urological Pathology meeting and accepted both by participating pathologists as well as urologists, oncologists, and radiation therapists. In the present study, we describe updates to the grading of prostate cancer along with the new grading system.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document