Skip to main content
Top
Published in: Virchows Archiv 2/2016

01-02-2016 | Original Article

Gleason grading challenges in the diagnosis of prostate adenocarcinoma: experience of a single institution

Authors: Sonja D. Chen, Joseph L. Fava, Ali Amin

Published in: Virchows Archiv | Issue 2/2016

Login to get access

Abstract

Gleason score (GS) is an important factor in determining management and outcome of prostate adenocarcinoma. A standard GS scheme was introduced by ISUP 2005 consensus conference, but there is still significant discordance in grading prostate adenocarcinomas among pathologists, especially between genitourinary-trained (GU) and non-GU pathologists. All biopsies from outside institutions referred for definitive treatment in our hospital are reviewed by a GU pathologist for confirmation and quality assurance. From 2011 to 2013, 117 consecutive prostate consults were retrieved and compared with the initial outside reports as well as final radical prostatectomy (RP) results. Follow-up prostate specific antigen (PSA) was assessed pre- and post-RP, and the results were analyzed. The overall initial GS was higher for all specimens (p = 0.007) especially for the RP cases (p = 0.002). Overall, the modal GS on initial diagnosis was GS7(4 + 3) that was downgraded to the modal GS6(3 + 3) upon review. Despite an overall substantial agreement between the non-GU and GU pathologists [ICC = 0.66], GS by GU pathologist had higher correlation with the final GS in the RP specimen [ICC = 0.62] than non-GU pathologist [ICC = 0.48]. GS on all reviewed cases were found to correlate significantly with the pre-operative PSA (p = 0.002) but the same was not true for the initial report. A non-GU pathologist is more likely to assign a higher GS than a GU pathologist, with a trend to overcall Gleason pattern 4. Considering the implications on treatment, close attention must be paid to the ISUP 2005 consensus conference recommendations.
Literature
1.
go back to reference Gleason DF (1966) Classification of prostatic carcinomas. Cancer Chem Rep 50:125–128 Gleason DF (1966) Classification of prostatic carcinomas. Cancer Chem Rep 50:125–128
2.
go back to reference Epstein JI, Allsbrook WC Jr, Amin MB, Egevad LL, ISUP Grading Committee (2005) The 2005 International Society of Urological Pathology (ISUP) consensus conference on Gleason grading of prostatic carcinoma. Am J Surg Pathol 29(9):1228–1242CrossRefPubMed Epstein JI, Allsbrook WC Jr, Amin MB, Egevad LL, ISUP Grading Committee (2005) The 2005 International Society of Urological Pathology (ISUP) consensus conference on Gleason grading of prostatic carcinoma. Am J Surg Pathol 29(9):1228–1242CrossRefPubMed
3.
go back to reference Allsbrook WC Jr, Mangold KA, Johnson MH et al (2001) Interobserver reproducibility of Gleason grading of prostatic carcinoma: general pathologist. Hum Pathol 32(1):81–88CrossRefPubMed Allsbrook WC Jr, Mangold KA, Johnson MH et al (2001) Interobserver reproducibility of Gleason grading of prostatic carcinoma: general pathologist. Hum Pathol 32(1):81–88CrossRefPubMed
4.
go back to reference Egevad L, Allsbrook WC Jr, Epstein JI (2005) Current practice of Gleason grading among genitourinary pathologists. Hum Pathol 36(1):5–9CrossRefPubMed Egevad L, Allsbrook WC Jr, Epstein JI (2005) Current practice of Gleason grading among genitourinary pathologists. Hum Pathol 36(1):5–9CrossRefPubMed
5.
go back to reference Egevad L, Ahmad AS, Algaba F et al (2013) Standardization of Gleason grading among 337 European pathologists. Histopathology 62(2):247–256CrossRefPubMed Egevad L, Ahmad AS, Algaba F et al (2013) Standardization of Gleason grading among 337 European pathologists. Histopathology 62(2):247–256CrossRefPubMed
6.
go back to reference Danneman D, Drevin L, Robinson D et al (2014) Gleason inflation 1998–2011. A registry study of 97 168 men. BJU Int Danneman D, Drevin L, Robinson D et al (2014) Gleason inflation 1998–2011. A registry study of 97 168 men. BJU Int
7.
go back to reference Epstein JI, Feng Z, Trock BJ, Pierorazio PM (2012) Upgrading and downgrading of prostate cancer from biopsy to radical prostatectomy: incidence and predictive factors using the modified Gleason grading system and factoring in tertiary grades. Eur Urol 61(5):1019–1024CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral Epstein JI, Feng Z, Trock BJ, Pierorazio PM (2012) Upgrading and downgrading of prostate cancer from biopsy to radical prostatectomy: incidence and predictive factors using the modified Gleason grading system and factoring in tertiary grades. Eur Urol 61(5):1019–1024CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
8.
go back to reference Kvale R, Moller B, Wahlqvist R et al (2009) Concordance between Gleason scores of needle biopsies and radical prostatectomy specimens: a population-based study. BJU Int 103(12):1647–1654CrossRefPubMed Kvale R, Moller B, Wahlqvist R et al (2009) Concordance between Gleason scores of needle biopsies and radical prostatectomy specimens: a population-based study. BJU Int 103(12):1647–1654CrossRefPubMed
9.
go back to reference Pinthus JH, Witkos M, Fleshner NE et al (2006) Prostate cancers scored as Gleason 6 on prostate biopsy are frequently Gleason 7 tumors at radical prostatectomy: implication on outcome. J Urol 176(3):979–984CrossRefPubMed Pinthus JH, Witkos M, Fleshner NE et al (2006) Prostate cancers scored as Gleason 6 on prostate biopsy are frequently Gleason 7 tumors at radical prostatectomy: implication on outcome. J Urol 176(3):979–984CrossRefPubMed
10.
go back to reference D’Amico AV, Whittington R, Malkowicz SB et al (1995) A multivariate analysis of clinical and pathological factors that predict for prostate specific antigen failure after radical prostatectomy for prostate cancer. J Urol 154(1):131–138CrossRefPubMed D’Amico AV, Whittington R, Malkowicz SB et al (1995) A multivariate analysis of clinical and pathological factors that predict for prostate specific antigen failure after radical prostatectomy for prostate cancer. J Urol 154(1):131–138CrossRefPubMed
11.
go back to reference Cohen MS, Hanley RS, Kurteva T et al (2008) Comparing the Gleason prostate biopsy and Gleason prostatectomy grading system: the Lahey Clinic Medical Center experience and an international meta-analysis. Eur Urol 54(2):371–381CrossRefPubMed Cohen MS, Hanley RS, Kurteva T et al (2008) Comparing the Gleason prostate biopsy and Gleason prostatectomy grading system: the Lahey Clinic Medical Center experience and an international meta-analysis. Eur Urol 54(2):371–381CrossRefPubMed
12.
go back to reference Kuroiwa K, Shiraishi T, Naito S, Clinicopathological Research Group for Localized Prostate Cancer Investigators (2001) Gleason score correlation between biopsy and prostatectomy specimens and prediction of high-grade Gleason patterns: significance of central pathologic review. Urology 77(2):407–411CrossRef Kuroiwa K, Shiraishi T, Naito S, Clinicopathological Research Group for Localized Prostate Cancer Investigators (2001) Gleason score correlation between biopsy and prostatectomy specimens and prediction of high-grade Gleason patterns: significance of central pathologic review. Urology 77(2):407–411CrossRef
13.
go back to reference Djavan B, Kadesky K, Klopukh B et al (1998) Gleason scores from prostate biopsies obtained with 18-gauge biopsy needles poorly predict Gleason scores of radical prostatectomy specimens. Eur Urol 33(3):261–270CrossRefPubMed Djavan B, Kadesky K, Klopukh B et al (1998) Gleason scores from prostate biopsies obtained with 18-gauge biopsy needles poorly predict Gleason scores of radical prostatectomy specimens. Eur Urol 33(3):261–270CrossRefPubMed
14.
go back to reference King CR (2000) Patterns of prostate cancer biopsy grading: trends and clinical implications. Int J Cancer 20; 90(6):305–311CrossRef King CR (2000) Patterns of prostate cancer biopsy grading: trends and clinical implications. Int J Cancer 20; 90(6):305–311CrossRef
15.
go back to reference Majoros A, Szász AM, Nyirády P et al (2014) The influence of expertise of the surgical pathologist to undergrading, upgrading, and understaging of prostate cancer in patients undergoing subsequent radical prostatectomy. Int Urol Nephrol 46(2):371–377CrossRefPubMed Majoros A, Szász AM, Nyirády P et al (2014) The influence of expertise of the surgical pathologist to undergrading, upgrading, and understaging of prostate cancer in patients undergoing subsequent radical prostatectomy. Int Urol Nephrol 46(2):371–377CrossRefPubMed
16.
go back to reference Tsivian M, Sun L, Mouraviev V et al (2009) Changes in Gleason score grading and their effect in predicting outcome after radical prostatectomy. Urology 74(5):1090–1093CrossRefPubMed Tsivian M, Sun L, Mouraviev V et al (2009) Changes in Gleason score grading and their effect in predicting outcome after radical prostatectomy. Urology 74(5):1090–1093CrossRefPubMed
17.
go back to reference Amin A, Partin A, Epstein JI (2011) 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 186(4):1286–1290CrossRefPubMed Amin A, Partin A, Epstein JI (2011) 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 186(4):1286–1290CrossRefPubMed
18.
go back to reference Pierorazio PM, Walsh PC, Partin AW, Epstein JI (2013) Prognostic Gleason grade grouping: data based on the modified Gleason scoring system. BJU Int 111(5):753–760CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral Pierorazio PM, Walsh PC, Partin AW, Epstein JI (2013) Prognostic Gleason grade grouping: data based on the modified Gleason scoring system. BJU Int 111(5):753–760CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
19.
go back to reference Rusthoven CG, Carlson JA, Waxweiler TV et al (2014) The prognostic significance of Gleason scores in metastatic prostate cancer. Urol Oncol 32(5):707–713CrossRefPubMed Rusthoven CG, Carlson JA, Waxweiler TV et al (2014) The prognostic significance of Gleason scores in metastatic prostate cancer. Urol Oncol 32(5):707–713CrossRefPubMed
20.
go back to reference Brimo F, Schultz L, Epstein JI (2010) The value of mandatory second opinion pathology review of prostate needle biopsy interpretation before radical prostatectomy. J Urol 184(1):126–130CrossRefPubMed Brimo F, Schultz L, Epstein JI (2010) The value of mandatory second opinion pathology review of prostate needle biopsy interpretation before radical prostatectomy. J Urol 184(1):126–130CrossRefPubMed
21.
go back to reference Zhang LM, Jiang HW, Tong SJ et al (2013) Prostate-specific antigen kinetics under androgen deprivation therapy and prostate cancer prognosis. Urol Int 91(1):38–48CrossRefPubMed Zhang LM, Jiang HW, Tong SJ et al (2013) Prostate-specific antigen kinetics under androgen deprivation therapy and prostate cancer prognosis. Urol Int 91(1):38–48CrossRefPubMed
22.
go back to reference Zhou M, Li J, Cheng L et al (2015) Diagnosis of “poorly formed glands” Gleason pattern 4 prostatic adenocarcinoma on needle biopsy: an interobserver reproducibility study among urologic pathologists with recommendations. Am J Surg Pathol Zhou M, Li J, Cheng L et al (2015) Diagnosis of “poorly formed glands” Gleason pattern 4 prostatic adenocarcinoma on needle biopsy: an interobserver reproducibility study among urologic pathologists with recommendations. Am J Surg Pathol
23.
go back to reference Glaessgen A, Hamberg H, Pihl CG et al (2004) Interobserver reproducibility of percent Gleason grade 4/5 in prostate biopsies. J Urol 171(2 Pt 1):664–667CrossRefPubMed Glaessgen A, Hamberg H, Pihl CG et al (2004) Interobserver reproducibility of percent Gleason grade 4/5 in prostate biopsies. J Urol 171(2 Pt 1):664–667CrossRefPubMed
24.
go back to reference Latour M, Amin MB, Billis A et al (2008) Grading of invasive cribriform carcinoma on prostate needle biopsy: an interobserver study among experts in genitourinary pathology. Am J Surg Pathol 32(10):1532–1539CrossRefPubMed Latour M, Amin MB, Billis A et al (2008) Grading of invasive cribriform carcinoma on prostate needle biopsy: an interobserver study among experts in genitourinary pathology. Am J Surg Pathol 32(10):1532–1539CrossRefPubMed
Metadata
Title
Gleason grading challenges in the diagnosis of prostate adenocarcinoma: experience of a single institution
Authors
Sonja D. Chen
Joseph L. Fava
Ali Amin
Publication date
01-02-2016
Publisher
Springer Berlin Heidelberg
Published in
Virchows Archiv / Issue 2/2016
Print ISSN: 0945-6317
Electronic ISSN: 1432-2307
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1007/s00428-015-1879-4

Other articles of this Issue 2/2016

Virchows Archiv 2/2016 Go to the issue