The Impact of the 2005 International Society of Urological Pathology Consensus Conference on Standard Gleason Grading of Prostatic Carcinoma in Needle Biopsies

Background: Prostatic carcinoma is one of the most common carcinomas among men throughout the world. Gleason score (GS) system is used in reporting and assessing the prognosis of prostatic carcinoma. The GS has undergone modifications. The objective of this study is to evaluate the impact of the new 2014 ISUP Modified Gleason System and Gleason grading (GG) on reporting of prostatic carcinoma. Methodology: This is a retrospective Study. All cases reported as adenocarcinoma prostate from January 2013 to July 2018 were included in the study. The GS done previously as per 2005 criteria was noted. The GS system and GG were done on the microslides retrieved as per 2015 criteria and compared with that of GS already recorded and also with old risk stratification. Results: Comparing the GS of 2005 and 2015 criteria, there was a marked decrease (80%) in Gleason score 6; among these cases, 80% cases were graded as score 7, and 20% cases were graded as score 8. There is also a 28.57% decrease in Gleason score 8 and 60% increase in Gleason score 9 due to the new criteria for pattern 4. The GG 1,2,3,4 and 5 constituted 3.03%, 18.18%, 15.15%, 15.15%, and 48.49% of cases respectively. Conclusion: The new GS and GG has more impact on prognosis of adenocarcinoma prostate as GS 6 has better prognosis and GG gives better risk stratification compared to the previous risk stratification.

Download Full-text

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

Archives of Pathology & Laboratory Medicine ◽

10.5858/arpa.2011-0495-ra ◽

2012 ◽

Vol 136 (4) ◽

pp. 426-434 ◽

Cited By ~ 40

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.

Download Full-text

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

Journal of Clinical Oncology ◽

10.1200/jco.2016.34.2_suppl.216 ◽

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.

Download Full-text