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

2017 ◽  
Vol 141 (2) ◽  
pp. 182-183 ◽  
Author(s):  
Brett Delahunt ◽  
David J. Grignon ◽  
Hemamali Samaratunga ◽  
John R. Srigley ◽  
Katia R. M. Leite ◽  
...  
2016 ◽  
Vol 140 (10) ◽  
pp. 1140-1152 ◽  
Author(s):  
Oleksandr N. Kryvenko ◽  
Jonathan I. Epstein

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.


2018 ◽  
Vol 33 (4) ◽  
pp. 331-334 ◽  
Author(s):  
Rodolfo Montironi ◽  
Alessia Cimadamore ◽  
Liang Cheng ◽  
Antonio Lopez-Beltran ◽  
Marina Scarpelli

The Gleason grading system is among the most important prognostic factors in patients with prostate cancer. From the 2005 to the 2014 consensus conferences, organized by the International Society of Urological Pathology, the morphologic criteria for the identification of the Gleason patterns were redefined, thus resulting in the shrinkage of the Gleason pattern 3. This led to the expansion of the Gleason pattern 4. The newly proposed grade group system reduces the Gleason scores of prostate cancer to the lowest number, each associated with a unique behavior from the prognostic point of view. The advantage is that the simplified system with five groups allows for a more accurate stratification of the patients in comparison with the Gleason system. Cribriform, fused, ill-defined and glomeruloid glands are part of the histologic spectrum of the Gleason pattern 4. Cribriform morphology has a prognosis that is worse in comparison with the other non-cribriform Gleason 4 patterns. One of the major implications of the cribriform growth is that it precludes a patient from choosing active surveillance.


2017 ◽  
Vol 71 (6) ◽  
pp. 907-912 ◽  
Author(s):  
Won Sik Ham ◽  
Heather J. Chalfin ◽  
Zhaoyong Feng ◽  
Bruce J. Trock ◽  
Jonathan I. Epstein ◽  
...  

The Prostate ◽  
2015 ◽  
Vol 76 (5) ◽  
pp. 427-433 ◽  
Author(s):  
Oleksandr N. Kryvenko ◽  
Jonathan I. Epstein

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document