Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Gleason grading challenges in the diagnosis of prostate adenocarcinoma: experience of a single institution

  • Original Article
  • Published:
Virchows Archiv Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Gleason score (GS) is an important factor in determining management and outcome of prostate adenocarcinoma. A standard GS scheme was introduced by ISUP 2005 consensus conference, but there is still significant discordance in grading prostate adenocarcinomas among pathologists, especially between genitourinary-trained (GU) and non-GU pathologists. All biopsies from outside institutions referred for definitive treatment in our hospital are reviewed by a GU pathologist for confirmation and quality assurance. From 2011 to 2013, 117 consecutive prostate consults were retrieved and compared with the initial outside reports as well as final radical prostatectomy (RP) results. Follow-up prostate specific antigen (PSA) was assessed pre- and post-RP, and the results were analyzed. The overall initial GS was higher for all specimens (p = 0.007) especially for the RP cases (p = 0.002). Overall, the modal GS on initial diagnosis was GS7(4 + 3) that was downgraded to the modal GS6(3 + 3) upon review. Despite an overall substantial agreement between the non-GU and GU pathologists [ICC = 0.66], GS by GU pathologist had higher correlation with the final GS in the RP specimen [ICC = 0.62] than non-GU pathologist [ICC = 0.48]. GS on all reviewed cases were found to correlate significantly with the pre-operative PSA (p = 0.002) but the same was not true for the initial report. A non-GU pathologist is more likely to assign a higher GS than a GU pathologist, with a trend to overcall Gleason pattern 4. Considering the implications on treatment, close attention must be paid to the ISUP 2005 consensus conference recommendations.

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

Fig. 1

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Gleason DF (1966) Classification of prostatic carcinomas. Cancer Chem Rep 50:125–128

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  2. Epstein JI, Allsbrook WC Jr, Amin MB, Egevad LL, ISUP Grading Committee (2005) The 2005 International Society of Urological Pathology (ISUP) consensus conference on Gleason grading of prostatic carcinoma. Am J Surg Pathol 29(9):1228–1242

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Allsbrook WC Jr, Mangold KA, Johnson MH et al (2001) Interobserver reproducibility of Gleason grading of prostatic carcinoma: general pathologist. Hum Pathol 32(1):81–88

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Egevad L, Allsbrook WC Jr, Epstein JI (2005) Current practice of Gleason grading among genitourinary pathologists. Hum Pathol 36(1):5–9

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Egevad L, Ahmad AS, Algaba F et al (2013) Standardization of Gleason grading among 337 European pathologists. Histopathology 62(2):247–256

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Danneman D, Drevin L, Robinson D et al (2014) Gleason inflation 1998–2011. A registry study of 97 168 men. BJU Int

  7. 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(5):1019–1024

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  8. Kvale 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(12):1647–1654

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Pinthus JH, Witkos M, Fleshner NE et al (2006) Prostate cancers scored as Gleason 6 on prostate biopsy are frequently Gleason 7 tumors at radical prostatectomy: implication on outcome. J Urol 176(3):979–984

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. D’Amico AV, Whittington R, Malkowicz SB et al (1995) A multivariate analysis of clinical and pathological factors that predict for prostate specific antigen failure after radical prostatectomy for prostate cancer. J Urol 154(1):131–138

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Cohen MS, Hanley RS, Kurteva T et al (2008) Comparing the Gleason prostate biopsy and Gleason prostatectomy grading system: the Lahey Clinic Medical Center experience and an international meta-analysis. Eur Urol 54(2):371–381

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Kuroiwa K, Shiraishi T, Naito S, Clinicopathological Research Group for Localized Prostate Cancer Investigators (2001) Gleason score correlation between biopsy and prostatectomy specimens and prediction of high-grade Gleason patterns: significance of central pathologic review. Urology 77(2):407–411

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Djavan B, Kadesky K, Klopukh B et al (1998) Gleason scores from prostate biopsies obtained with 18-gauge biopsy needles poorly predict Gleason scores of radical prostatectomy specimens. Eur Urol 33(3):261–270

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. King CR (2000) Patterns of prostate cancer biopsy grading: trends and clinical implications. Int J Cancer 20; 90(6):305–311

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Majoros A, Szász AM, Nyirády P et al (2014) The influence of expertise of the surgical pathologist to undergrading, upgrading, and understaging of prostate cancer in patients undergoing subsequent radical prostatectomy. Int Urol Nephrol 46(2):371–377

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Tsivian M, Sun L, Mouraviev V et al (2009) Changes in Gleason score grading and their effect in predicting outcome after radical prostatectomy. Urology 74(5):1090–1093

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Amin A, Partin A, Epstein JI (2011) Gleason score 7 prostate cancer on needle biopsy: relation of primary pattern 3 or 4 to pathological stage and progression after radical prostatectomy. J Urol 186(4):1286–1290

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Pierorazio PM, Walsh PC, Partin AW, Epstein JI (2013) Prognostic Gleason grade grouping: data based on the modified Gleason scoring system. BJU Int 111(5):753–760

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  19. Rusthoven CG, Carlson JA, Waxweiler TV et al (2014) The prognostic significance of Gleason scores in metastatic prostate cancer. Urol Oncol 32(5):707–713

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Brimo F, Schultz L, Epstein JI (2010) The value of mandatory second opinion pathology review of prostate needle biopsy interpretation before radical prostatectomy. J Urol 184(1):126–130

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Zhang LM, Jiang HW, Tong SJ et al (2013) Prostate-specific antigen kinetics under androgen deprivation therapy and prostate cancer prognosis. Urol Int 91(1):38–48

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Zhou M, Li J, Cheng L et al (2015) Diagnosis of “poorly formed glands” Gleason pattern 4 prostatic adenocarcinoma on needle biopsy: an interobserver reproducibility study among urologic pathologists with recommendations. Am J Surg Pathol

  23. Glaessgen A, Hamberg H, Pihl CG et al (2004) Interobserver reproducibility of percent Gleason grade 4/5 in prostate biopsies. J Urol 171(2 Pt 1):664–667

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. Latour M, Amin MB, Billis A et al (2008) Grading of invasive cribriform carcinoma on prostate needle biopsy: an interobserver study among experts in genitourinary pathology. Am J Surg Pathol 32(10):1532–1539

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Pathology Department, Warren Alpert Medical School of Brown University, Rhode Island Hospital, 593 Eddy Street, Providence, RI, 02903, USA

    Sonja D. Chen & Ali Amin

  2. Centers for Behavioral and Preventive Medicine, The Miriam Hospital, 164 Summit Ave., Providence, RI, 02906, USA

    Joseph L. Fava

  3. Pathology Department, Warren Alpert Medical School of Brown University, The Miriam Hospital, 164 Summit Ave., Providence, RI, 02906, USA

    Ali Amin

Authors
  1. Sonja D. Chen
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Joseph L. Fava
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Ali Amin
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Ali Amin.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no competing interests.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Chen, S.D., Fava, J.L. & Amin, A. Gleason grading challenges in the diagnosis of prostate adenocarcinoma: experience of a single institution. Virchows Arch 468, 213–218 (2016). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00428-015-1879-4

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00428-015-1879-4

Keywords

Search

Navigation