Abstract
Since its inception in 1966 by Dr. Donald Gleason, the Gleason grading system has remained a cornerstone in the diagnosis and management of prostate cancer. With widespread utilization of prostate-specific antigen (PSA) screening, the diagnosis and management of prostate cancer have dramatically changed. Clinical outcomes have also drastically changed over the past several decades. Furthermore, there is a better understanding of the morphological spectrum of prostate cancer. All these changes have prompted two modifications and refinement of the original Gleason grading criteria and reporting for contemporary practice. The most significant changes were introduced in 2005 International Society of Urologic Pathology Consensus Conference, and further modifications were recently introduced in 2014. The resulting grading system has been termed as “modified Gleason grading system.”
This chapter addresses several important definitional and operational changes to the original Gleason grading system in contemporary practice: rare utilization of Gleason patterns 1 and 2; the refinement of histological criteria for Gleason patterns 3 and 4; grading of unusual variant morphologies of prostate cancer; the significance of tertiary pattern 5; and recommendations for reporting in the setting of extended biopsy, reporting percentage pattern 4, and reporting in the setting of multifocal prostate cancers. Finally, the new grading system, which utilizes a novel method of grouping Gleason grades and its impact on outcomes, is also addressed.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
References
Gleason DF. Histologic grading of prostate cancer: a perspective. Hum Pathol. 1992;23:273–9.
Samaratunga H, Delahunt B, Gianduzzo T, Coughlin G, Duffy D, LeFevre I, et al. The prognostic significance of the 2014 International Society of Urological Pathology (ISUP) grading system for prostate cancer. Pathology. 2015;47:515–9.
Shah RB, Zhou M. Recent advances in prostate cancer pathology: Gleason grading and beyond. Pathol Int. 2016;66:260–72.
Amin MB, Lin DW, Gore JL, Srigley JR, Samaratunga H, Egevad L, et al. The critical role of the pathologist in determining eligibility for active surveillance as a management option in patients with prostate cancer: consensus statement with recommendations supported by the College of American Pathologists, International Society of Urological Pathology, Association of Directors of Anatomic and Surgical Pathology, the New Zealand Society of Pathologists, and the Prostate Cancer Foundation. Arch Pathol Lab Med. 2014;138:1387–405.
National Comprehensive Cancer Network. NCCN Clinical Guidelines in Oncology: Prostate Cancer. 2018. Available at: NCCN.org
Kattan MW, Scardino PT. Prediction of progression: nomograms of clinical utility. Clin Prostate Cancer. 2002;1:90–6.
Partin AW, Mangold LA, Lamm DM, Walsh PC, Epstein JI, Pearson JD. Contemporary update of prostate cancer staging nomograms (Partin Tables) for the new millennium. Urology. 2001;58:843–8.
Schwartz E, Albertsen P. Nomograms for clinically localized disease. Part III: watchful waiting. Semin Urol Oncol. 2002;20:140–5.
Moch H, Humphrey PA, Ulbright TM, Reuter VE, editors. WHO classification of tumours of the urinary system and male genital organs. Lyon: International Agency for Research on Cancer; 2016.
Epstein JI, Allsbrook WC Jr, Amin MB, Egevad LL. The 2005 International Society of Urological Pathology (ISUP) consensus conference on Gleason grading of prostatic carcinoma. Am J Surg Pathol. 2005;29:1228–42.
Epstein JI, Egevad L, Amin MB, Delahunt B, Srigley JR, Humphrey PA, Committee G. The 2014 International Society of Urological Pathology (ISUP) consensus conference on Gleason grading of prostatic carcinoma: definition of grading patterns and proposal for a new grading system. Am J Surg Pathol. 2016;40:244–52.
Brimo F, Montironi R, Egevad L, Erbersdobler A, Lin DW, Nelson JB, et al. Contemporary grading for prostate cancer: implications for patient care. Eur Urol. 2013;63:892–901.
Carter HB, Partin AW, Walsh PC, Trock BJ, Veltri RW, Nelson WG, et al. Gleason score 6 adenocarcinoma: should it be labeled as cancer? J Clin Oncol. 2012;30:4294–6.
Gottipati S, Warncke J, Vollmer R, Humphrey PA. Usual and unusual histologic patterns of high Gleason score 8 to 10 adenocarcinoma of the prostate in needle biopsy tissue. Am J Surg Pathol. 2012;36:900–7.
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. Am J Clin Pathol. 2011;136:98–107.
McKenney JK, Wei W, Hawley S, Auman H, Newcomb LF, Boyer HD, et al. Histologic grading of prostatic adenocarcinoma can be further optimized: analysis of the relative prognostic strength of individual architectural patterns in 1275 patients from the canary retrospective cohort. Am J Surg Pathol. 2016;40:1439–56.
Zhou M, Li J, Cheng L, Egevad L, Deng FM, Kunju LP, et al. 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. 2015;39:1331–9.
Al-Hussain TO, Nagar MS, Epstein JI. Gleason pattern 5 is frequently underdiagnosed on prostate needle-core biopsy. Urology. 2012;79:178–81.
Shah RB, Tadros Y. 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. Hum Pathol. 2014 Nov;45(11):2263–9.
Shah RB, Li J, Cheng L, Egevad L, Deng FM, Fine SW, et al. Diagnosis of Gleason pattern 5 prostate adenocarcinoma on core needle biopsy: an interobserver reproducibility study among urologic pathologists. Am J Surg Pathol. 2015;39:1242–9.
Berney DM, Beltran L, Fisher G, North BV, Greenberg D, Møller H, et al. Validation of a contemporary prostate cancer grading system using prostate cancer death as outcome. Br J Cancer. 2016;114:1078–83.
Epstein JI. Prostate cancer grading: a contemporary photomontage. Am J Surg Pathol. 2016;40:137.
Epstein JI, Zelefsky MJ, Sjoberg DD, Nelson JB, Egevad L, Magi-Galluzzi C, et al. A contemporary prostate cancer grading system: a validated alternative to the Gleason score. Eur Urol. 2016;69:428–35.
Pierorazio PM, Walsh PC, Partin AW, Epstein JI. Prognostic Gleason grade grouping: data based on the modified Gleason scoring system. BJU Int. 2013;111:753–60.
Reuter VE. Pathological changes in benign and malignant prostatic tissue following androgen deprivation therapy. Urology. 1997;49:16–22.
Arias-Stella JA 3rd, Shah AB, Montoya-Cerrillo D, Williamson SR, Gupta NS. Prostate biopsy and radical prostatectomy Gleason score correlation in heterogenous tumors: proposal for a composite Gleason score. Am J Surg Pathol. 2015;39:1213–8.
Kunju LP, Daignault S, Wei JT, Shah RB. Multiple prostate cancer cores with different Gleason grades submitted in the same specimen container without specific site designation: should each core be assigned an individual Gleason score? Hum Pathol. 2009;40:558–64.
Cookson MS, Fleshner NE, Soloway SM, Fair WR. (1997) Correlation between Gleason score of needle biopsy and radical prostatectomy specimen: accuracy and clinical implications. J Urol. 1997;157:559–62.
Epstein JI. Prostate cancer grading: a decade after the 2005 modified system. Mod Pathol. 2018;31:S47–63.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2019 Springer Nature Switzerland AG
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Shah, R.B., Zhou, M. (2019). Contemporary Approach to Gleason Grading of Prostate Cancer. In: Prostate Biopsy Interpretation. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-13601-7_5
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-13601-7_5
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Cham
Print ISBN: 978-3-030-13600-0
Online ISBN: 978-3-030-13601-7
eBook Packages: MedicineMedicine (R0)