Is there a significant difference in prognosis between Gleason score 3 + 4 and 4 + 3 prostate cancers in radical prostatectomy specimens? What is the prognostic implication of Gleason score 3 + 4 versus 4 + 3 prostate cancer assigned to prostate needle core biopsy specimens?


Gleason score 3 + 4 signifies tumors with Gleason 3 component greater (>50%) than Gleason 4 component. In a Gleason 4 + 3 tumor, Gleason grade 4 component is dominant. In prostatectomy specimens, Gleason score 4 + 3 cancer is associated with a worse clinical outcome than Gleason score 3 + 4 cancer. Dividing a Gleason score 7 tumor to 3 + 4 and 4 + 3 on prostate needle core biopsy is useful only for predicting the final Gleason score in radical prostatectomy specimens. The score, however, does not necessarily correlate with Gleason 3 + 4 or 4 + 3 in the final diagnosis because of sampling issues. Nevertheless, pathologists should attempt to specify Gleason score 7 as either 4 + 3 or 3 + 4 to provide clinically relevant information.


Radical Prostatectomy Seminal Vesicle Gleason Score Needle Core Biopsy Prostatectomy Specimen 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. 1.
    Epstein JI, Carmichael M, Partin AW, Walsh PC (1993) Is tumor volume an independent predictor of progression following radical prostatectomy? A multivariate analysis of 185 clinical stage B adenocarcinoma of the prostate with 5 years of follow-up. J Urol 149:1478–1481.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Epstein JI, Pizov G, Walsh PC (1993) Correlation of pathologic findings with progression after radical retropubic prostatectomy. Cancer 71:3582–3593.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Tefilli MV, Gheiler EL, Tiguert G, Sakr W, Grignon DJ, Banerjee M, Pontes JE, Wood DP (1999) Should Gleason score 7 prostate cancer be considered a unique grade category? Urology 53:372–377.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Makarov DV, Sanderson H, Partin AW, Epstein JI (2002) Gleason score 7 prostate cancer on needle biopsy: is the prognostic difference in Gleason score 4 + 3 and 3 + 4 independent of the number of involved cores? J Urol 167:2440–2442.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Gleason DF (1977) Histologic grading and clinical staging of prostate cancer. In: Tannenbaum M (ed) Urologic Pathology: The Prostate. Lea & Febiger, Philadelphia, pp 171–198.Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Herman CM, Kattan MW, Ohori M, Scardino PT, Wheeler TM (2001) Primary Gleason pattern as a predictor of disease progression in Gleason score 7 prostate cancer: a multivariate analysis of 823 men treated with radical prostatectomy. Am J Surg Pathol 25:657–660.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Chan TY, Partin AW, Walsh PC, Epstein JI (2000) Prognostic significance of Gleason score 3 + 4 versus Gleason score 4 + 3 tumor at radical prostatectomy. Urology 56:823–827.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Sakr WA, Tefilli MV, Grignon DJ, Banerjee M, Dey J, Gheiler El, Tiguert R, Powell IJ, Wood DP Jr (2000) Gleason score 7 prostate cancer: a heterogeneous entity? Correlation with pathologic parameters and disease-free survival. Urology 56:730–734.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Lau WK, Blute ML, Bostwick DG, Weaver AL, Sebo TJ, Zincke H (2001) Prognostic factor for survival of patients with pathological Gleason score 7 prostate cancer: difference in outcome between primary Gleason grades 3 and 4. J Urol 166:1692–1697.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Rubin MA, Dash A, Wei JY, Dunn R, Sanda MG (2004) Prostate cancer staging: recommendation for modifying pathology staging system based on accuracy in reflecting prognosis. Mod Pathol 17(suppl):174A.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer 2008

Personalised recommendations