Current Urology Reports

, Volume 12, Issue 3, pp 216–222

Current Perspectives on Gleason Grading of Prostate Cancer

Article

Abstract

The 5-tier Gleason grading system for prostate cancer, introduced in 1966, has been proven to be one of the main independent predictors of prostate cancer outcome. This review addresses interobserver concordance in Gleason grading; the persistence of grading discrepancies with frequent upgrading from the biopsy to the prostatectomy specimen; the 2005 International Society of Urologic Pathologists’ modifications to Gleason grading; the impact of this modified grading on grade migration and outcome prediction; and molecular correlates of cancer morphology. Data from the most recent years are emphasized.

Keywords

Pattern Prostate cancer Modified Gleason Grading 

References

  1. 1.
    Gleason DF. Classification of prostatic carcinomas. Cancer Chemother Rep. 1966;50:125–8.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Gleason DF, Mellinger GT. and VA Cooperative Urological Research Group: Prediction of prognosis for prostatic adenocarcinoma by combined histological grading and clinical staging. J Urol. 1974;111:58–64.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Iczkowski KA, Hossain D, Torkko KC, et al. Preoperative prediction of unifocal, unilateral, margin-negative, and small volume prostate cancer. Urology. 2008;71:1166–71.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Guimaraes MS, Quintal MM, Meirelles LR, et al. Gleason score as a predictor of clinicopathologic findings and biochemical (PSA) progression following radical prostatectomy. Int Braz J Urol. 2008;34:23–9.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Partin AW, Kattan MW, Subong EN, et al. Combination of prostate-specific antigen, clinical stage, and Gleason score to predict pathological stage of localized prostate cancer. A multi-institutional update. JAMA. 1997;277:1445–51.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Gleason DF. Histologic grading of prostate cancer: a perspective. Hum Pathol. 1992;23:273–9.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Gilliland FD, Gleason DF, Hunt WC, et al. Trends in Gleason score for prostate cancer diagnosed between 1983 and 1993. J Urol. 2001;165:846–50.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Iczkowski KA, Bostwick DG. The pathologist as optimist: Cancer grade deflation in prostatic needle biopsies [Editorial]. Am J Surg Pathol. 1998;22:1169–70.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Allsbrook WC, Mangold KA, Johnson MH, et al. Interobserver reproducibility of Gleason grading of prostatic carcinoma: general pathologists. Hum Pathol. 2001;32:81–8.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Egevad L. Reproducibility of Gleason grading of prostate cancer can be improved by the use of reference images. Urology. 2001;57:291–5.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Epstein JI. Gleason score 2–4 adenocarcinoma of the prostate on needle biopsy: a diagnosis that should not be made. Am J Surg Pathol. 2000;24:477–8.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Jara-Lazaro AR, Thike AA, Tan PH. Diagnostic issues in second opinion consultations in prostate pathology. Pathology. 2010;42:6–14.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Billis A, Rogerio F, Oliveira RV, et al. The border between low- and high grade Gleason score for prostate carcinoma: 6 or 7a (3 + 4)? Mod Pathol. 2008;21:149A.Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Patel AA, Chen M, Renshaw AA, et al. PSA failure following definitive treatment of prostate cancer having biopsy Gleason score 7 with tertiary grade 5. JAMA. 2007;298:1533–8.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Cheng L, Davidson DD, Lin H, et al. Percentage of Gleason pattern 4 and 5 predicts survival after radical prostatectomy. Cancer. 2007;110:1967–72.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    D’Ambrosio DJ, Hanlon AL, Al-Saleem T, et al. The proportion of prostate biopsy tissue with Gleason pattern 4 or 5 predicts for biochemical and clinical outcome after radiotherapy for prostate cancer. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2007;67:1082–7.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Stark JR, Perner S, Stampfer MJ, et al. Gleason score and lethal prostate cancer: does 3 + 4 = 4 + 3? J Clin Oncol. 2009;27:3459–64.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Fanning DM, Kay E, Fan Y, et al. Prostate cancer grading: the effect of stratification of needle biopsy Gleason Score 4 + 3 as high or intermediate grade. BJU Int. 2009;105:631–5.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Grignon DJ. Unusual subtypes of prostate cancer. Mod Pathol. 2004;17:316–27.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Bock BJ, Bostwick DG. Does prostatic ductal adenocarcinoma exist? Am J Surg Pathol. 1999;23:781–5.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Brinker DA, Potter SR, Epstein JI. Ductal adenocarcinoma of the prostate diagnosed on needle biopsy: correlation with clinical and radical prostatectomy findings and progression. Am J Surg Pathol. 1999;23:1471–9.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Epstein JI, Allsbrook WC, Amin MB, et al. The 2005 International Society of Urologic Pathology (ISUP) consensus conference on Gleason grading of prostatic carcinoma. Am J Surg Pathol. 2005;29:1228–46.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Iczkowski KA, Ferguson KL, Grier DD, et al. Adenoid cystic carcinoma of the prostate: clinicopathologic findings in 19 cases. Am J Surg Pathol. 2003;27:1523–9.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Epstein JI. Diagnosis and reporting of limited adenocarcinoma of the prostate on needle biopsy. Mod Pathol. 2004;17:292–306.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Cheng L, Sebo TJ, Slezak J, et al. Predictors of survival for prostate carcinoma patients treated with salvage radical prostatectomy after radiation therapy. Cancer. 1998;83:2164–71.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Bostwick DG, Qian J, Civantos F, et al. Does finasteride alter the pathology of the prostate and cancer grading? Clin Prostate Cancer. 2004;2:228–35.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Lucia MS, Epstein JI, Goodman PJ, et al. Finasteride and high-grade prostate cancer in the Prostate Cancer Prevention Trial. J Natl Cancer Inst. 2007;19(99):1375–83.Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    Barqawi AB, O’Donnell CI, Siomos VJ, How AH. The effect of short-term dutasteride intake in early state prostate cancer: analysis of 148 patients who underwent three-dimensional prostate mapping biopsy. Urology. 2010;76:1067–71. This study demonstrated that a 3-month course of dutasteride could decrease the amount of upgrading in Gleason scores that occurred between the initial 12-core prostate biopsy and subsequent mapping or “saturation” biopsies sampling a median of 60 tissue cores.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Allsbrook WC, Mangold KA, Johnson MH, et al. Interobserver reproducibility of Gleason grading of prostatic carcinoma: urologic pathologists. Hum Pathol. 2001;32:74–80.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Lessells AM, Burnett RA, Howatson SR, et al. Observer variability in the histopathological reporting of needle biopsy specimens of the prostate. Hum Pathol. 1997;28:646–9.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Kronz JD, Silberman MA, Allsbrook WC, Epstein JI. A web-based tutorial improves practicing pathologists’ Gleason grading of images of prostate carcinoma specimens obtained by needle biopsy. Cancer. 2000;89:1818–23.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Bostwick DG. Gleason grading of prostatic needle biopsies. Correlation with grade in 316 matched prostatectomies. Am J Surg Pathol. 1994;18:796–803.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Steinberg DM, Sauvageot J, Piantadosi S, Epstein JI. Correlation of prostate needle biopsy and radical prostatectomy Gleason grade in academic and community settings. Am J Surg Pathol. 1997;21:566–76.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Djavan B, Kadesky K, Klopukh B, et al. Gleason scores from prostate biopsies obtained with 18-gauge biopsy needles poorly predict Gleason scores of radical prostatectomy specimens. Eur Urol. 1998;33:261–70.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Narain V, Bianco FJ, Grignon DJ, et al. How accurately does prostate biopsy Gleason score predict pathologic findings and disease free survival? Prostate. 2001;49:185–90.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Stav K, Judith S, Merald H, et al. Does prostate biopsy Gleason score accurately express the biologic features of prostate cancer? Urol Oncol. 2007;25:383–6.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Hsieh TF, Chang CH, Chen WC, et al. Correlation of Gleason scores between needle-core biopsy and radical prostatectomy specimens in patients with prostate cancer. J Chin Med Assoc. 2005;68:167–71.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    Fine SW, Epstein JI. A contemporary study correlating prostate needle biopsy and radical prostatectomy Gleason score. J Urol. 2008;179:1335–8. discussion 8–9.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    Kvale R, Moller B, Wahlqvist R, et al. Concordance between Gleason scores of needle biopsies and radical prostatectomy specimens: a population-based study. BJU Int. 2009;103:1647–54.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. 40.
    Kahl P, Wolf S, Adam A, et al. Saturation biopsy improves preoperative Gleason scoring of prostate cancer. Pathol Res Pract. 2009;205:259–64.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. 41.
    Elabbady AA, Khedr MM. Extended 12-core prostate biopsy increases both the detection of prostate cancer and the accuracy of Gleason score. Eur Urol. 2006;49:49–53.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. 42.
    Divrik RT, Eroglu A, Sahin A, et al. Increasing the number of biopsies increases the concordance of Gleason scores of needle biopsies and prostatectomy specimens. Urol Oncol. 2007;25:376–82.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. 43.
    Berney DM. Low Gleason score prostatic adenocarcinomas are no longer viable entities. Histopathology. 2007;50:683–90.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. 44.
    Bailar JC, Mellinger GT, Gleason DF. Survival rates of patients with prostatic cancer, tumor stage, and differentiation—preliminary report. Cancer Chemother Rep. 1966;50:129–36.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  45. 45.
    Srigley JR, Amin MB, Bostwick DG, et al. Updated protocol for the examination of specimens from patients with carcinomas of the prostate gland: a basis for checklists. Cancer Committee. Arch Pathol Lab Med. 2000;124:1034–9.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  46. 46.
    Zareba P, Zhang J, Yilmaz A, et al. he impact of the 2005 International Society of Urological Pathology (ISUP) consensus on Gleason grading in contemporary practice. Histopathology. 2009;55:384–91. This study demonstrated that the application of modified Gleason grading criteria tends to lead to higher Gleason scores in both biopsy and prostatectomy specimens.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. 47.
    Guimaraes MS, Billis A, Quintal MM, et al. The impact of the 2005 International Society of Urological Pathology (ISUP) consensus conference on standard Gleason grading of prostatic carcinoma. Mod Pathol. 2006;19:139A.Google Scholar
  48. 48.
    Helpap B, Egevad L. The significance of modified Gleason grading of prostatic carcinoma in biopsy and radical prostatectomy specimens. Virchows Arch. 2006;449:622–7.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. 49.
    Veloso SG, Lima MF, Salles PG, et al. Interobserver agreement of Gleason score and modified Gleason score in needle biopsy and in surgical specimen of prostate cancer. Int Braz J Urol. 2007;33:639–46. discussion 47–51.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. 50.
    Tsivian M, Sun L, Mouraviev V, et al. Changes in Gleason score grading and their effect in predicting outcome after radical prostatectomy. Urology. 2009;74:1090–3.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. 51.
    Billis A, Guimares MS, Freitas LL, et al. The impact of the 2005 International Society of Urological Pathology consensus conference on standard Gleason grading of prostate carcinoma in needle biopsies. J Urol. 2008;180:548–53. This study first demonstrated that revised Gleason grading of prostate biopsy specimens may have advantages over the traditional criteria with regard to association with patient outcome.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. 52.
    Egevad L, Allsbrook Jr WC. Epstein JI: Current practice of Gleason grading among genitourinary pathologists. Hum Pathol. 2005;36:5–9.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. 53.
    Kronz JD, Shaikh AA, Epstein JI. Atypical cribriform lesions on prostate biopsy. Am J Surg Pathol. 2001;25:147–55.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. 54.
    Latour M, Amin MB, Billis A, et al. Grading of invasive cribriform carcinoma on prostate needle biopsy: An interobserver study among experts in genitourinary pathology. Am J Surg Pathol. 2008;32:1532–9. This study highlights the difficulties with grading cribriform cancer (does it behave as Gleason 3, Gleason 4, or maybe Gleason 5?) and the need for definitive outcome-based studies to determine its proper grading.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. 55.
    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. In press, American Journal of Clinical Pathology, 2011.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2011

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of PathologyUniversity of Colorado Denver School of MedicineAuroraUSA

Personalised recommendations