Top

Published in:

01-06-2011

Current Perspectives on Gleason Grading of Prostate Cancer

Authors: Kenneth A. Iczkowski, M. Scott Lucia

Published in: Current Urology Reports | Issue 3/2011

Abstract

The 5-tier Gleason grading system for prostate cancer, introduced in 1966, has been proven to be one of the main independent predictors of prostate cancer outcome. This review addresses interobserver concordance in Gleason grading; the persistence of grading discrepancies with frequent upgrading from the biopsy to the prostatectomy specimen; the 2005 International Society of Urologic Pathologists’ modifications to Gleason grading; the impact of this modified grading on grade migration and outcome prediction; and molecular correlates of cancer morphology. Data from the most recent years are emphasized.

Gleason DF. Classification of prostatic carcinomas. Cancer Chemother Rep. 1966;50:125–8.PubMed

Gleason DF, Mellinger GT. and VA Cooperative Urological Research Group: Prediction of prognosis for prostatic adenocarcinoma by combined histological grading and clinical staging. J Urol. 1974;111:58–64.PubMed

Iczkowski KA, Hossain D, Torkko KC, et al. Preoperative prediction of unifocal, unilateral, margin-negative, and small volume prostate cancer. Urology. 2008;71:1166–71.PubMedCrossRef

Guimaraes MS, Quintal MM, Meirelles LR, et al. Gleason score as a predictor of clinicopathologic findings and biochemical (PSA) progression following radical prostatectomy. Int Braz J Urol. 2008;34:23–9.PubMedCrossRef

Partin AW, Kattan MW, Subong EN, et al. Combination of prostate-specific antigen, clinical stage, and Gleason score to predict pathological stage of localized prostate cancer. A multi-institutional update. JAMA. 1997;277:1445–51.PubMedCrossRef

Gleason DF. Histologic grading of prostate cancer: a perspective. Hum Pathol. 1992;23:273–9.PubMedCrossRef

Gilliland FD, Gleason DF, Hunt WC, et al. Trends in Gleason score for prostate cancer diagnosed between 1983 and 1993. J Urol. 2001;165:846–50.PubMedCrossRef

Iczkowski KA, Bostwick DG. The pathologist as optimist: Cancer grade deflation in prostatic needle biopsies [Editorial]. Am J Surg Pathol. 1998;22:1169–70.PubMedCrossRef

Allsbrook WC, Mangold KA, Johnson MH, et al. Interobserver reproducibility of Gleason grading of prostatic carcinoma: general pathologists. Hum Pathol. 2001;32:81–8.PubMedCrossRef

10.

Egevad L. Reproducibility of Gleason grading of prostate cancer can be improved by the use of reference images. Urology. 2001;57:291–5.PubMedCrossRef

11.

Epstein JI. Gleason score 2–4 adenocarcinoma of the prostate on needle biopsy: a diagnosis that should not be made. Am J Surg Pathol. 2000;24:477–8.PubMedCrossRef

12.

Jara-Lazaro AR, Thike AA, Tan PH. Diagnostic issues in second opinion consultations in prostate pathology. Pathology. 2010;42:6–14.PubMedCrossRef

13.

Billis A, Rogerio F, Oliveira RV, et al. The border between low- and high grade Gleason score for prostate carcinoma: 6 or 7a (3 + 4)? Mod Pathol. 2008;21:149A.

14.

Patel AA, Chen M, Renshaw AA, et al. PSA failure following definitive treatment of prostate cancer having biopsy Gleason score 7 with tertiary grade 5. JAMA. 2007;298:1533–8.PubMedCrossRef

15.

Cheng L, Davidson DD, Lin H, et al. Percentage of Gleason pattern 4 and 5 predicts survival after radical prostatectomy. Cancer. 2007;110:1967–72.PubMedCrossRef

16.

D’Ambrosio DJ, Hanlon AL, Al-Saleem T, et al. The proportion of prostate biopsy tissue with Gleason pattern 4 or 5 predicts for biochemical and clinical outcome after radiotherapy for prostate cancer. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2007;67:1082–7.PubMedCrossRef

17.

Stark JR, Perner S, Stampfer MJ, et al. Gleason score and lethal prostate cancer: does 3 + 4 = 4 + 3? J Clin Oncol. 2009;27:3459–64.PubMedCrossRef

18.

Fanning DM, Kay E, Fan Y, et al. Prostate cancer grading: the effect of stratification of needle biopsy Gleason Score 4 + 3 as high or intermediate grade. BJU Int. 2009;105:631–5.PubMedCrossRef

19.

Grignon DJ. Unusual subtypes of prostate cancer. Mod Pathol. 2004;17:316–27.PubMedCrossRef

20.

Bock BJ, Bostwick DG. Does prostatic ductal adenocarcinoma exist? Am J Surg Pathol. 1999;23:781–5.PubMedCrossRef

21.

Brinker DA, Potter SR, Epstein JI. Ductal adenocarcinoma of the prostate diagnosed on needle biopsy: correlation with clinical and radical prostatectomy findings and progression. Am J Surg Pathol. 1999;23:1471–9.PubMedCrossRef

22.

Epstein JI, Allsbrook WC, Amin MB, et al. The 2005 International Society of Urologic Pathology (ISUP) consensus conference on Gleason grading of prostatic carcinoma. Am J Surg Pathol. 2005;29:1228–46.PubMedCrossRef

23.

Iczkowski KA, Ferguson KL, Grier DD, et al. Adenoid cystic carcinoma of the prostate: clinicopathologic findings in 19 cases. Am J Surg Pathol. 2003;27:1523–9.PubMedCrossRef

24.

Epstein JI. Diagnosis and reporting of limited adenocarcinoma of the prostate on needle biopsy. Mod Pathol. 2004;17:292–306.CrossRef

25.

Cheng L, Sebo TJ, Slezak J, et al. Predictors of survival for prostate carcinoma patients treated with salvage radical prostatectomy after radiation therapy. Cancer. 1998;83:2164–71.PubMedCrossRef

26.

Bostwick DG, Qian J, Civantos F, et al. Does finasteride alter the pathology of the prostate and cancer grading? Clin Prostate Cancer. 2004;2:228–35.PubMed

27.

Lucia MS, Epstein JI, Goodman PJ, et al. Finasteride and high-grade prostate cancer in the Prostate Cancer Prevention Trial. J Natl Cancer Inst. 2007;19(99):1375–83.

28.

Barqawi AB, O’Donnell CI, Siomos VJ, How AH. The effect of short-term dutasteride intake in early state prostate cancer: analysis of 148 patients who underwent three-dimensional prostate mapping biopsy. Urology. 2010;76:1067–71. This study demonstrated that a 3-month course of dutasteride could decrease the amount of upgrading in Gleason scores that occurred between the initial 12-core prostate biopsy and subsequent mapping or “saturation” biopsies sampling a median of 60 tissue cores.PubMedCrossRef

29.

Allsbrook WC, Mangold KA, Johnson MH, et al. Interobserver reproducibility of Gleason grading of prostatic carcinoma: urologic pathologists. Hum Pathol. 2001;32:74–80.PubMedCrossRef

30.

Lessells AM, Burnett RA, Howatson SR, et al. Observer variability in the histopathological reporting of needle biopsy specimens of the prostate. Hum Pathol. 1997;28:646–9.PubMedCrossRef

31.

Kronz JD, Silberman MA, Allsbrook WC, Epstein JI. A web-based tutorial improves practicing pathologists’ Gleason grading of images of prostate carcinoma specimens obtained by needle biopsy. Cancer. 2000;89:1818–23.PubMedCrossRef

32.

Bostwick DG. Gleason grading of prostatic needle biopsies. Correlation with grade in 316 matched prostatectomies. Am J Surg Pathol. 1994;18:796–803.PubMedCrossRef

33.

Steinberg DM, Sauvageot J, Piantadosi S, Epstein JI. Correlation of prostate needle biopsy and radical prostatectomy Gleason grade in academic and community settings. Am J Surg Pathol. 1997;21:566–76.PubMedCrossRef

34.

Djavan B, Kadesky K, Klopukh B, et al. Gleason scores from prostate biopsies obtained with 18-gauge biopsy needles poorly predict Gleason scores of radical prostatectomy specimens. Eur Urol. 1998;33:261–70.PubMedCrossRef

35.

Narain V, Bianco FJ, Grignon DJ, et al. How accurately does prostate biopsy Gleason score predict pathologic findings and disease free survival? Prostate. 2001;49:185–90.PubMedCrossRef

36.

Stav K, Judith S, Merald H, et al. Does prostate biopsy Gleason score accurately express the biologic features of prostate cancer? Urol Oncol. 2007;25:383–6.PubMedCrossRef

37.

Hsieh TF, Chang CH, Chen WC, et al. Correlation of Gleason scores between needle-core biopsy and radical prostatectomy specimens in patients with prostate cancer. J Chin Med Assoc. 2005;68:167–71.PubMedCrossRef

38.

Fine SW, Epstein JI. A contemporary study correlating prostate needle biopsy and radical prostatectomy Gleason score. J Urol. 2008;179:1335–8. discussion 8–9.PubMedCrossRef

39.

Kvale R, Moller B, Wahlqvist R, et al. Concordance between Gleason scores of needle biopsies and radical prostatectomy specimens: a population-based study. BJU Int. 2009;103:1647–54.PubMedCrossRef

40.

Kahl P, Wolf S, Adam A, et al. Saturation biopsy improves preoperative Gleason scoring of prostate cancer. Pathol Res Pract. 2009;205:259–64.PubMedCrossRef

41.

Elabbady AA, Khedr MM. Extended 12-core prostate biopsy increases both the detection of prostate cancer and the accuracy of Gleason score. Eur Urol. 2006;49:49–53.PubMedCrossRef

42.

Divrik RT, Eroglu A, Sahin A, et al. Increasing the number of biopsies increases the concordance of Gleason scores of needle biopsies and prostatectomy specimens. Urol Oncol. 2007;25:376–82.PubMedCrossRef

43.

Berney DM. Low Gleason score prostatic adenocarcinomas are no longer viable entities. Histopathology. 2007;50:683–90.PubMedCrossRef

44.

Bailar JC, Mellinger GT, Gleason DF. Survival rates of patients with prostatic cancer, tumor stage, and differentiation—preliminary report. Cancer Chemother Rep. 1966;50:129–36.PubMed

45.

Srigley JR, Amin MB, Bostwick DG, et al. Updated protocol for the examination of specimens from patients with carcinomas of the prostate gland: a basis for checklists. Cancer Committee. Arch Pathol Lab Med. 2000;124:1034–9.PubMed

46.

Zareba P, Zhang J, Yilmaz A, et al. he impact of the 2005 International Society of Urological Pathology (ISUP) consensus on Gleason grading in contemporary practice. Histopathology. 2009;55:384–91. This study demonstrated that the application of modified Gleason grading criteria tends to lead to higher Gleason scores in both biopsy and prostatectomy specimens.PubMedCrossRef

47.

Guimaraes MS, Billis A, Quintal MM, et al. The impact of the 2005 International Society of Urological Pathology (ISUP) consensus conference on standard Gleason grading of prostatic carcinoma. Mod Pathol. 2006;19:139A.

48.

Helpap B, Egevad L. The significance of modified Gleason grading of prostatic carcinoma in biopsy and radical prostatectomy specimens. Virchows Arch. 2006;449:622–7.PubMedCrossRef

49.

Veloso SG, Lima MF, Salles PG, et al. Interobserver agreement of Gleason score and modified Gleason score in needle biopsy and in surgical specimen of prostate cancer. Int Braz J Urol. 2007;33:639–46. discussion 47–51.PubMedCrossRef

50.

Tsivian M, Sun L, Mouraviev V, et al. Changes in Gleason score grading and their effect in predicting outcome after radical prostatectomy. Urology. 2009;74:1090–3.PubMedCrossRef

51.

Billis A, Guimares MS, Freitas LL, et al. The impact of the 2005 International Society of Urological Pathology consensus conference on standard Gleason grading of prostate carcinoma in needle biopsies. J Urol. 2008;180:548–53. This study first demonstrated that revised Gleason grading of prostate biopsy specimens may have advantages over the traditional criteria with regard to association with patient outcome.PubMedCrossRef

52.

Egevad L, Allsbrook Jr WC. Epstein JI: Current practice of Gleason grading among genitourinary pathologists. Hum Pathol. 2005;36:5–9.PubMedCrossRef

53.

Kronz JD, Shaikh AA, Epstein JI. Atypical cribriform lesions on prostate biopsy. Am J Surg Pathol. 2001;25:147–55.PubMedCrossRef

54.

Latour M, Amin MB, Billis A, et al. Grading of invasive cribriform carcinoma on prostate needle biopsy: An interobserver study among experts in genitourinary pathology. Am J Surg Pathol. 2008;32:1532–9. This study highlights the difficulties with grading cribriform cancer (does it behave as Gleason 3, Gleason 4, or maybe Gleason 5?) and the need for definitive outcome-based studies to determine its proper grading.PubMedCrossRef

55.

Iczkowski KA, Torkko KC, Kotnis GR, Wilson RS, Huang W, Wheeler TM, et al. Digital quantification of five high-grade prostate cancer patterns, including the cribriform pattern, and their association with adverse outcome. In press, American Journal of Clinical Pathology, 2011.

Title: Current Perspectives on Gleason Grading of Prostate Cancer
Authors: Kenneth A. Iczkowski
M. Scott Lucia
Publication date: 01-06-2011
Publisher: Current Science Inc.
Published in: Current Urology Reports / Issue 3/2011
Print ISSN: 1527-2737
Electronic ISSN: 1534-6285
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11934-011-0181-5

Keynote webinar | Spotlight on medication adherence

Springer Medicine

Current Perspectives on Gleason Grading of Prostate Cancer

Abstract

Keynote webinar | Spotlight on medication adherence

Springer Medicine

Abstract

Please log in to get access to this content

Other articles of this Issue 3/2011

Update on Prostate Brachytherapy: Long-term Outcomes and Treatment-related Morbidity

Quality of Evidence to Compare Outcomes of Open and Robot-Assisted Laparoscopic Prostatectomy

Current Clinical Trials in Castrate-Resistant Prostate Cancer

Robotic High-intensity Focused Ultrasound for Prostate Cancer: What Have We Learned in 15 Years of Clinical Use?

Complications of Pelvic Lymph Node Dissection for Prostate Cancer

Salvage Cryotherapy for Radiation-Recurrent Prostate Cancer: Outcomes and Complications