Skip to main content
Log in

Die Wertigkeit des 2005 modifizierten Gleason-Gradings in der urologischen Diagnostik von Prostatakarzinomen

The value of the modified Gleason grading system of prostate adenocarcinoma in routine urological diagnostics

  • Übersichten
  • Published:
Der Urologe Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Zusammenfassung

In mehreren Konferenzen der „International Society of Uropathology“ (ISUP) wurde das Gleason-Grading der Routinediagnostik von Stanzbiopsien aus der Prostata angepasst. Die wesentlichen Ergebnisse sind die Dokumentation aller vorkommenden Muster (primär, sekundär und tertiär) und eine Verschiebung der maximalen Gleason-Scores bei Biopsien von 6 nach 7a(3+4), bei radikalen Prostatektomien von 6 und 7 nach 7a und 7b(4+3). Die Übereinstimmung zwischen Biopsien und radikalen Prostatektomien beträgt >80%. Score-2- bis -4-Karzinome gibt es nicht in der Peripherie. pT2-Karzinome der Prostata mit guter Prognose haben nach dem modifizierten Grading einen maximalen Score von 7a, pT3-Karzinome mit schlechterer Prognose einen solchen von 7b und höher. Hieraus ist zu folgern, dass der prognostische Wert von Gleason-Score 6 und 7a ähnlich ist, sodass die Grenze von Low- zu High-grade-Karzinomen wahrscheinlich zwischen Gleason-Score 7a und 7b liegt. Bei den verschiedenen Therapieoptionen sollten die Gleason-Scores nach dem modifizierten Gleason-Ggrading berücksichtigt werden.

Abstract

In several consensus conferences of the International Society of Urological Pathology (ISUP), the Gleason grading system of prostatic carcinomas was modified and adapted to the routine histological diagnostics of specimens of core needle biopsies and radical prostatectomies. The main results are the documentation of all histological patterns (primary, secondary, tertiary) and a shifting of the maximal Gleason score of biopsies from 6 to 7a (3+4) and of radical prostatectomies from 6 and 7 to7a and 7b (4+3). Score 2 to 4 carcinomas do not exist in the peripheral prostate. pT2 prostatic carcinomas with good prognosis have a maximal score of 7a; pT3 carcinomas with poor prognosis have a most frequent score of 7b. The agreement of the Gleason scores of core needle biopsies and radical prostatectomy specimens is more than 80%. Inter- and intraobserver reproducibility is better than after the conventional Gleason grading. The prognostic value of scores 6 and 7a may be similar. The border between low- and high-grade prostatic carcinoma may be probably Gleason score 7a and 7b. The prognostic value of score 6 should be changed to score 7a in the different therapeutic options for prostatic carcinomas.

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

Access this article

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

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Abb. 1

Literatur

  1. Amin M, Boccon-Gibod L, Egevad L et al. (2005) Prognostic and predictive factors and reporting of prostate carcinoma in prostate needle biopsy specimens. Scand J Urol Nephrol 39: 20–33

    Google Scholar 

  2. Epstein JI (2000) Gleason score 2–4 adenocarcinoma of the prostate on needle biopsy: a diagnosis that should not be made. Am J Surg Pathol 24: 477–478

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Epstein H, Algaba F, Allbrooks J et al. (2004) Acinar adenocarcinoma. In: Eble JN, Sauter G, Epstein JI (eds) World Health Organization classification of tumors. Pathology and genetics: Tumours of the urinary system and male genital organs. IARC Press, Lyon, pp 179–184

    Google Scholar 

  4. Epstein JI, Allsbrook WC, Amin MB et al. (2005) 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 

  5. Glaessgen A, Hamberg H, Pihl CG et al. (2002) Interobserver reproducibility of percent Gleason grade 4/5 in total prostatectomy specimens. J Urol 168: 2006–2010

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

  7. Helpap B (2002) Fundamentals on the pathology of prostatic ncarcinoma after brachytherapy. World J Urol 20: 207–212

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Helpap, B, Egevad L (2006) The significance of modified Gleason grading of prostatic carcinoma in needle biopsy and radical prostatectomy specimens. Virchows Arch 450

  9. Humphrey PA (2004) Gleason grading and prognostic factors in carcinoma of the prostate. Mod Pathol 17: 292–306

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Lopez-Beltran A, Mikuz G, Luque RJ et al. (2006) Current practice of Gleason grading of prostate carcinoma. Virchows Arch 448: 111–118

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Melia J, Moseley R, Ball RY et al. (2006) A UK-based investigation of inter-and intra-observer reproducibility of Gleason grading of prostatic biopsies. Histopathology 48: 644–654

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Mills SE, Fowler JE (1986) Gleason histologic grading of prostatic carcinoma. Correlations between biopsy and prostatectomy specimens. Cancer 57: 346–349

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Pan CC, 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

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Partin AW, Kattan MW, Subong EN et al. (1997) Combination of prostate-specific antigen, clinical stage, and Gleason score to predict pathological stage of localized prostate cancer: a multi-institutional update JAMA 277: 1445–1451

Download references

Interessenkonflikt

Keine Angaben

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to B. Helpap.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Helpap, B., Egevad, L. Die Wertigkeit des 2005 modifizierten Gleason-Gradings in der urologischen Diagnostik von Prostatakarzinomen. Urologe 46, 59–62 (2007). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00120-006-1238-9

Download citation

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00120-006-1238-9

Keywords

Keywords

Navigation