Advertisement

Contemporary Approach to Gleason Grading of Prostate Cancer

  • Rajal B. ShahEmail author
  • Ming Zhou
Chapter

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.

Keywords

Gleason grading system Gleason pattern Gleason score Prostate-specific antigen International Society of Urologic Pathologists (ISUP) consensus recommendations Modified Gleason grading system Partin table Han table Nomograms NCCN recurrence risk categories Cribriform carcinoma Grade group Percentage pattern 4 tertiary pattern Glomeruloid pattern Active surveillance Mucinous fibroplasia Collagenous micronodule Poorly formed gland Gleason pattern 4 Transurethral resection of the prostate (TURP) Cribriform architecture Intraductal carcinoma IDC-P 

References

  1. 1.
    Gleason DF. Histologic grading of prostate cancer: a perspective. Hum Pathol. 1992;23:273–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Shah RB, Zhou M. Recent advances in prostate cancer pathology: Gleason grading and beyond. Pathol Int. 2016;66:260–72.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    National Comprehensive Cancer Network. NCCN Clinical Guidelines in Oncology: Prostate Cancer. 2018. Available at: NCCN.org
  6. 6.
    Kattan MW, Scardino PT. Prediction of progression: nomograms of clinical utility. Clin Prostate Cancer. 2002;1:90–6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Schwartz E, Albertsen P. Nomograms for clinically localized disease. Part III: watchful waiting. Semin Urol Oncol. 2002;20:140–5.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    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.Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    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.PubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Al-Hussain TO, Nagar MS, Epstein JI. Gleason pattern 5 is frequently underdiagnosed on prostate needle-core biopsy. Urology. 2012;79:178–81.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Epstein JI. Prostate cancer grading: a contemporary photomontage. Am J Surg Pathol. 2016;40:137.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Reuter VE. Pathological changes in benign and malignant prostatic tissue following androgen deprivation therapy. Urology. 1997;49:16–22.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Epstein JI. Prostate cancer grading: a decade after the 2005 modified system. Mod Pathol. 2018;31:S47–63.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Robert J Tomsich Pathology and Laboratory Medicine InstituteCleveland ClinicClevelandUSA
  2. 2.Tufts Medical CenterBostonUSA

Personalised recommendations