What is the clinical significance of a Gleason pattern 4 or 5 tumor found on a prostate needle core biopsy? What impact does a Gleason pattern 4 or 5 tumor have on the prognosis after radical prostatectomy?


The Gleason system of prostate cancer is based on the architectural patterns.1 The primary (predominant) and secondary (second most prevalent) patterns are recognized and assigned a grade from 1 (most differentiated) to 5 (least differentiated). Prostate cancer is noted for its multifocal occurrence of different Gleason grades. Likewise, it is not uncommon to observe more than one histologic pattern in a single mass as a greater amount of tissue is available with a radical prostatectomy specimen than a biopsy. Each tumor is given a score as the sum of two grades of these patterns. If the third most common pattern is of a lower Gleason pattern, it can be ignored. If a higher-grade component (Gleason pattern 4 or 5) is found, its presence must be reported because the tertiary higher-grade component worsens the pathologic stage of otherwise typical Gleason scores 5, 6, and 7 carcinomas and is associated with a higher PSA recurrence rate. With regards to a pattern 4 or 5 carcinoma observed in a prostate needle core biopsy, its presence should be reported as a secondary or tertiary component.


Prostate Cancer Radical Prostatectomy Gleason Score Gleason Grade Prostatectomy Specimen 


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. 1.
    Gleason DF, Mellinger GT, Veterans Administrative Cooperative Urological Research Group (1974) Prediction of prognosis for prostatic adenocarcinoma by combined histologic grading and clinical staging. J Urol 111:58–64.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Garnett JE, Oyasu R, Grayhack JT (1984) The accuracy of diagnostic specimens in predicting tumor grades by Gleason’s classification of radical prostatectomy specimens. J Urol 131:690–693.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Bostwick DG (1994) Gleason grading of prostatic needle biopsies: correlation with grade in 316 matched prostatectomies. Am J Surg Pathol 18:796–803.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Rubin MA, Dunn R, Kambham N, Misick CP, O’Toole KM (2000) Should a Gleason score be assigned to a minute focus of carcinoma on prostate biopsy? Am J Surg Pathol 24:1634–1640.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Steinberg DM, Sauvageot J, Piatadosi S, Epstein JI (1997) Correlation of prostate needle biopsy and radical prostatectomy Gleason grade in academic and community settings. Am J Surg Pathol 21:566–576.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    McNeal JE, Villers AA, Redwine EA, Freiha ES, Stamey TA (1990) Histologic differentiation, cancer volume, and pelvic lymph node metastasis in adenocarcinoma of the prostate. Cancer 66:1225–1233.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Stamey TA, McNeal JE, Yemoto CM, Sigal BM, Johnstone IM (1999) Biological determinants of cancer progression in men with prostate cancer. JAMA 281:1395–1400.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Epstein JI, Carmichael MJ, Partin AW, Walsh PC (1994) Small high grade adenocarcinoma of the prostate in radical prostatectomy specimens performed for nonpalpable disease: pathogenetic and clinical implications. J Urol 151:1587–1592.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Pan C-C, Potter SR, Partin AW, Epstein JI (2000) The prognostic significance of tertiary Gleason patterns of higher grade in radical prostatectomy specimens: a proposal to modify the Gleason grading system. Am J Surg Pathol 24:563–569.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Egevad L, Granfors T, Karlberg L, Bergh A, Stattin P (2002) Percent Gleason grade 4/5 as prognostic factor in prostate cancer diagnosed at transurethral resection. J Urol 168:509–513.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Stamey TA (1995) Making the most out of six systematic sextant biopsies. Urology 45:2–12.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Noguchi M, Stamey TA, McNeal JE, Nolley R (2003) Prognostic factors for multifocal prostate cancer in radical prostatectomy specimens: lack of significance of secondary cancer. J Urol 170:459–463.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Rubin MA, Mucci NR, Manley S, Sanda M, Cushenberry E, Strawderman M (2001) Predictors of Gleason pattern 4/5 prostate cancer on prostatectomy specimens: can high grade tumor be predicted preoperatively? J Urol 165:114–118.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Bismar TA, Lewis JS, Vollmer RT, Humphrey PA (2003) Multiple measures of carcinoma extent versus perineural invasion in prostate needle biopsy tissue in prediction of pathologic stage in a screening population. Am J Surg Pathol 27:432–440.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer 2008

Personalised recommendations