Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Prostatakarzinom

Teil 2: Rückblick über die verschiedenen Tumorgradingverfahren der Jahre 1966–2015 und Zukunftsperspektiven des neuen Gradings der International Society of Urological Pathology (ISUP)

Prostate cancer

Part 2: Review of the various tumor grading systems over the years 1966–2015 and future perspectives of the new grading of the International Society of Urological Pathology (ISUP)

  • Schwerpunkt: Uropathologie
  • Published:
Der Pathologe Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Zusammenfassung

Die Fortentwicklung stanzbioptischer und radikal chirurgischer Methoden bei der Behandlung des Prostatakarzinoms hat die Frage nach prognostischer Relevanz der verschiedenen Gradingsysteme beflügelt. Das klassische rein histologische Gradingsystem von Gleason wurde in den letzten Jahrzehnten mehrfach modifiziert und hat mit der prognostischen Graduierung durch Epstein den Weg zu einem neuen Graduierungssystem geebnet. Die Bewertung des alten und ebenfalls modifizierten kombiniert histologischen und zytologischen Gradings von Mostofi, der WHO und des urologisch-pathologischen Arbeitskreises „Prostatakarzinom“ hat in Verbindung mit dem Gleason-Grading zu deutlich verbesserten Übereinstimmungsraten zwischen Biopsie und radikaler Prostatektomie und Prognoseabschätzungen geführt und zur Fortentwicklung eines für die Klinik leichter einzusetzenden Gradingsystems beigetragen.

Abstract

The continued development of methods in needle biopsies and radical prostatectomy for treatment of prostate cancer has given special emphasis to the question of the prognostic relevance of the various systems of grading. The classical purely histological grading system of Gleason has been modified several times in the past decades and cleared the way for a new grading system by the prognostic grading of Epstein. Assessment of the old and also modified combined histological and cytological grading of Mostofi, the World health Organization (WHO) and the urologic-pathological working group of prostate cancer in connection with the Gleason grading (combined Gleason-Helpap grading), has led to considerably improved rates of concordance between biopsy and radical prostatectomy and to improved estimations of prognosis beside its contribution to the development of a more practicable grading system for clinical use.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Abb. 1
Abb. 2
Abb. 3

Literatur

  1. Amin M, Lin DW, Core L et al (2014) The critical role of the pathologist in determining eligibility for active surveillance as a management option in patients with prostate cancer. Arch Pathol Lab Med 138:1387–1405

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Epstein JI (2010) An update of Gleason grading system. J Urol 183:433–440

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Epstein JI, Allsbrook WC Jr, Amin MB, Egevad LL (2005) ISUP grading committee the 2005 International Society of Urological Pathology (ISUP) consensus conference on gleason grading of prostatic carcinoma. Am J Surg Pathol 29:1228–1242

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Epstein JI, Feng Z, Trock BJ, Pierorazio PM (2012) Upgrading and downgrading of prostate cancer from biopsy to radical prostatectomy: incidence and predictive factors using the modified Gleason grading system and factoring in tertiary grades. Eur Urol 61:1019–1024

    Article  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Epstein JI, Zelefsky MJ, Sjoberg DD (2015) A contemporary prostate cancer grading system: a validated alternative to the Gleason score. Eur Urol. doi:10.1016/eururo 2015.06.046

  6. Gleason DE (1966) Classification of prostatic carcinomas. Cancer Chemother Rep 50:125–128

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Griffiths DFR, Melia J, McWilliam LJ, Ball RY, Grigor K, Harnden P, Jarmulowicz M, Montironi R, Moseley R, Waller M, Moss S, Parkinson MC (2006) A study of Gleason score interpretation in different groups of UK pathologists; techniques for improving reproducibility. Histopathology 48:655–662

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Hanke P, Schneider M, Götting B, Jonas D (1988) Prognose und Beurteilung von Prostatakarzinomen – ein Vergleich der Klassifikation nach Dhom und der kombinierten histologisch-zytologischen Klassifikation des onkologischen Arbeitskreises Prostatakarzinom. In: Helpap B, Senge Th, Vahlensieck EW (Hrsg), Die Prostata, 4: Prostataerkrankungen. Pharm und Medical Inform, Frankfurt, S 130–135

    Google Scholar 

  9. Helpap B (1993) Review of the morphology of prostatic carcinoma with special emphasis on subgrading and prognosis. J Urol Pathol 1:3–20

    Google Scholar 

  10. Helpap B, Böcking A, Dhom G, Faul B, Kastendieck H, Leistenschneider W, Müller HA (1985) Klassifikation, histologisches und zytologisches Grading sowie Regressionsgrading des Prostatakarzinoms. Eine Empfehlung des Pathologisch-Urologischen Arbeitskreises „Prostatakarzinom“. Pathologe 6:3–7

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Helpap B, Egevad L (2009) Modified Gleason Grading. An update review. Histol Histopathol 24:661–666

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Helpap B, Egevad L (2006) The significance of modified Gleason grading of prostatic carcinoma in biopsy and radical prostatectomy specimens. Virchows Arch 449:622–627

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Helpap B, Köllermann J (2012) Combined histoarchitectural and cytological biopsy grading improves grading accuracy in low-grade prostate cancer. Int J Urol 19:126–133

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Helpap B, Kristiansen G (2016) Prostata und Samenblasen. In: Amann K, Kain R, Klöppel G (Hrsg) Pathologie. Urogenitale und Endokrine Organe, Gelenke und Skelett. Springer, Berlin, S 139–194

    Google Scholar 

  15. Helpap B, Kristiansen G, Beer M, Köllermann J, Oehler U, Pogrebniak A, Fellbaum Ch (2012) Improving the reproducibility of the Gleason scores in small foci of prostate cancer – Suggestion of diagnostioc criteria for glandular fusion. Pathol Oncol Res 18:615–621

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Helpap B, Kristiansen G, Köllermann J, Shaikhibrahim Z, Wernert N, Oehler U, Fellbaum Ch (2013) Significance of Gleason grading of low grade carcinoma of the prostate with therapeutic option of active surveillance. Urol Int 90:17–23

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Helpap B, Ringli D, Breul J, Tonhauser J, Poser I, Seifert HH (2015) The value of prognostic grouping of prostatic carcinomas for urologists and pathologists. Urol Int. 95:436–444

  18. Helpap B, Ringli D, Gevensleben H (2015) Significance of number and localization of positive core biopsies for the identification of prostate cancer eligible for active surveillance. Analyt Quant Cytopathol Histopathol (submitted)

  19. Helpap B, Ringli D, Shaikhibrahim Z, Wernert N, Kristiansen G (2013) The heterogeneous Gleason 7 carcinoma of the prostate: analyses of low and high grade (risk) carcinomas with criteria of the international society of urological pathology (ISUP). Pathol Res Pract 209:190–194

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Helpap B, Ringli D, Tonhauser J, Poser I, Breul J, Seifert H-H (2015) The significance of accurate determination of different Gleason scores for therapeutic options and prognosis of carcinomas of the prostate after modification of Gleason grading by the International Society of Urological Pathology (ISUP). Pathol Oncol Res (submitted)

  21. Huang CC, Kong MX, Zhou M, Rosenkrantz AB, Taneja SS, Melamed J, Deng FM (2014) Gleason score 3+4=7 prostate cancer with minimal quantity of Gleason pattern 4 on needle biopsy is associated with low risk tumor in radical prostatectomy specimen. Am J Surg Pathol 38:1096–1101

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Kristiansen G, Egevad L, Amin MB et al (2016) Die Konsensuskonferenz 2014 der internationalen Gesellschaft für Urologische Pathologie (ISUP) zur Gleasongraduierung des Prostatakarzinoms. Pathologe 37 doi:10.1007/s00292-015-0136-6

  23. Kulkarni GS, Lockwood G, Evans A, Toi A, Trachtenberg J, Jewett MA et al (2007) Clinical predictors of Gleason score upgrading: implications for patients considering watchful waiting, active surveillance, or brachytherapy. Cancer 109:2432–2438

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. Kväle R, Moller B, Wahlqvist R et al (2009) Concordance between Gleason scores of needle biopsies and radical prostatectomy specimens: a population-based study. BJU Int 103:1647–1654

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. Mahlke U, Ulman A, Kunz J (1993) Prognostic significance of prostatic carcinoma grading according to Helpap. Verh Dtsch Ges Pathol 77:82–85

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  26. Melia J, Moseley R, Griffiths DFR, Grigor K, Harnden P, Jarmulowicz M, McWillam IJ, Montironi R, Waller M, Moss SW, Parkinson MC (2006) A UK-based investigation of inter- and intra-observer reproducibility of Gleason grading of prostatic biopsies. Histopathology 48:644–654

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  27. Montironi R, Hammond EH, Lin DW et al (2014) Consensus statement with recommendations on active surveillance inclusion criteria and definition of progression in men with localized prostate cancer: the critical role of the pathologist. Virchows Arch 465:623–628

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  28. Mostofi FK, Sesterhenn IA, Davis CJ (2002) Histological typing of prostate tumours. World Health Organization. International histological classification of tumours. Springer, Berlin

    Google Scholar 

  29. Mostofi FK, Sesterhenn IA, Sobin LH (1980) Histological typing of prostate tumours. International histological classification of tumours. No 22 World Health Organization, Geneva

    Google Scholar 

  30. Müller HA, Altenähr E, Böcking A, Dhom G, Faul P, Göttinger H, Helpap B, Hohbach CH, Kastendieck H, Leistenschneider G (1980) Über Klassifikation und Grading des Prostatakarzinoms. Verh Dtsch Ges Path 64:609–611

    Google Scholar 

  31. Pierorazio PM, Walsh PC,Partin AW, Epstein JI (2013) Prognostic Gleason grade grouping: data based on the modified Gleason scoring system. BJU Int 111:753–760

  32. Tosoian JJ, JohnBull E, Trock BJ, Landis P, Epstein JI, Partin AW, Walsh PC, Carter HB (2013) Pathological outcomes in men with low risk and very low risk prostate cancer: implications on the practice of active surveillance. J Urol 190:1218–1222

    Article  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  33. Veltri RW, Marlow C, Khan MA, Müller MC, Epstein JI, Partin AQW (2007) Significant variations in nuclear structure occur between and within Gleason grading patterns 3, 4, and 5 determined by digital image analysis. Prostate 67:1202–1210

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Institut für Pathologie, Hegau-Bodensee-Kliniken, Akademisches Lehrkrankenhaus, Universität Freiburg, 78207, Postfach 720, Singen, Deutschland

    B. Helpap

  2. Abteilung Zytopathologie, Institut für Pathologie, Universität Basel, Basel, Schweiz

    L. Bubendorf

  3. Institut für Pathologie, Universität Bonn, Bonn, Deutschland

    G. Kristiansen

Authors
  1. B. Helpap
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. L. Bubendorf
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. G. Kristiansen
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to B. Helpap.

Ethics declarations

Interessenkonflikt

B. Helpap, L. Bubendorf, G. Kristiansen geben an, dass kein Interessenkonflikt besteht.

Dieser Beitrag beinhaltet keine Studien an Menschen oder Tieren.

Additional information

Schwerpunktherausgeber

A. Hartmann, Erlangen

R. Knüchel-Clarke, Aachen

G. Kristiansen, Bonn

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Helpap, B., Bubendorf, L. & Kristiansen, G. Prostatakarzinom. Pathologe 37, 11–16 (2016). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00292-015-0124-x

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00292-015-0124-x

Schlüsselwörter

Keywords

Search

Navigation