Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Konsenskonferenz 2014 der ISUP zur Gleason-Graduierung des Prostatakarzinoms

The 2014 consensus conference of the ISUP on Gleason grading of prostatic carcinoma

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

Zusammenfassung

Im Jahr 2005 führte die internationale Gesellschaft für Urologische Pathologie (ISUP) eine Konsenskonferenz zur Gleason-Graduierung durch, um dieses Graduierungssystem auf den Stand der zeitgenössischen Praxis zu aktualisieren. Es stellte sich jedoch heraus, dass es weiteren Modifikationsbedarf zur Prostatakarzinomgraduierung gibt. Die Internationale Gesellschaft für Urologische Pathologie führte daher 2014 eine weitere Konsenskonferenz durch, um diese Punkte anzugehen. In der vorliegenden Arbeit werden die wesentlichen Ergebnisse des Chicagoer Graduierungstreffens vorgestellt.

Abstract

In 2005 the International Society of Urological Pathology (ISUP) held a concensus conference on Gleason grading in order to bring this grading system up to the current state of contemporary practice; however, it became clear that further modifications on the grading of prostatic carcinoma were necessary. The International Society of Urological Pathology therefore held a further consensus conference in 2014 to clarify these points. This article presents the essential results of the Chicago grading meeting.

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. Bailar JC 3rd, Mellinger GT, Gleason DF (1966) Survival rates of patients with prostatic cancer, tumor stage, and differentiation – preliminary report. Cancer Chemother Rep 1(50):129–136

    Google Scholar 

  2. Berman DM, Epstein JI (2014) When is prostate cancer really cancer? Urol Clin North Am 41:339–346

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Bill-Axelson A, Holmberg L, Garmo H et al (2014) Radical prostatectomy or watchful waiting in early prostate cancer. N Engl J Med 370:932–942

    Article  PubMed Central  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Carter HB, Partin AW, Walsh PC et al (2012) Gleason score 6 adenocarcinoma: should it be labeled as cancer? J Clin Oncol 30:4294–4296

    Article  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Chan TY, Partin AW, Walsh PC et al (2000) Prognostic significance of Gleason score 3 + 4 versus Gleason score 4 + 3 tumor at radical prostatectomy. Urology 56:823–827

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  6. D’amico AV, Whittington R, Malkowicz SB et al (1998) Biochemical outcome after radical prostatectomy, external beam radiation therapy, or interstitial radiation therapy for clinically localized prostate cancer. JAMA 280:969–974

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Epstein JI, Allsbrook WC Jr, 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  Google Scholar 

  8. Epstein JI, Feng Z, Trock BJ et al (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 

  9. Epstein JI, Zelefsky MJ, Sjoberg DD et al (2015) A contemporary prostate cancer grading system: a validated alternative to the gleason score. Euro Urol. doi:10.1016/j.eururo.2015.06.046

  10. Esserman LJ, Thompson IM, Reid B et al (2014) Addressing overdiagnosis and overtreatment in cancer: a prescription for change. Lancet Oncol 15:e234–e242

    Article  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Fine SW, Epstein JI (2008) A contemporary study correlating prostate needle biopsy and radical prostatectomy Gleason score. J Urol 179:1335–1338. (discussion 1338–1339)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Ghani KR, Grigor K, Tulloch DN et al (2005) Trends in reporting Gleason score 1991 to 2001: changes in the pathologist’s practice. Eur Urol 47:196–201

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

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

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  14. Gleason DF, Mellinger GT (1974) Prediction of prognosis for prostatic adenocarcinoma by combined histological grading and clinical staging. J Urol 111:58–64

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Gonzalgo ML, Bastian PJ, Mangold LA et al (2006) Relationship between primary Gleason pattern on needle biopsy and clinicopathologic outcomes among men with Gleason score 7 adenocarcinoma of the prostate. Urology 67:115–119

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Grober ED, Tsihlias J, Jewett MA et al (2004) Correlation of the primary Gleason pattern on prostate needle biopsy with clinico-pathological factors in Gleason 7 tumors. Can J Urol 11:2157–2162

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Guo CC, Epstein JI (2006) Intraductal carcinoma of the prostate on needle biopsy: histologic features and clinical significance. Mod Pathol 19:1528–1535

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. 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 

  19. Iczkowski KA, Torkko KC, Kotnis GR et al (2011) Digital quantification of five high-grade prostate cancer patterns, including the cribriform pattern, and their association with adverse outcome. Am J Clin Pathol 136:98–107

    Article  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Kang DE, Fitzsimons NJ, Presti JC Jr et al (2007) Risk stratification of men with Gleason score 7 to 10 tumors by primary and secondary Gleason score: results from the SEARCH database. Urology 70:277–282

    Article  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Khani F, Epstein JI (2015) Prostate Biopsy Specimens with Gleason 3 + 3 = 6 and Intraductal Carcinoma: radical Prostatectomy findings and clinical outcomes. Am J Surg Pathol 39:1383–1389

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Kimura K, Tsuzuki T, Kato M et al (2014) Prognostic value of intraductal carcinoma of the prostate in radical prostatectomy specimens. Prostate 74:680–687

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. Kir G, Sarbay BC, Gumus E et al (2014) The association of the cribriform pattern with outcome for prostatic adenocarcinomas. Pathol Res Pract 210:640–644

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. Kovi J, Jackson MA, Heshmat MY (1985) Ductal spread in prostatic carcinoma. Cancer 56:1566–1573

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  25. Kryvenko ON, Gupta NS, Virani N et al (2013) Gleason score 7 adenocarcinoma of the prostate with lymph node metastases: analysis of 184 radical prostatectomy specimens. Arch Pathol Lab Med 137:610–617

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  26. Kweldam CF, Wildhagen MF, Steyerberg EW et al (2015) Cribriform growth is highly predictive for postoperative metastasis and disease-specific death in Gleason score 7 prostate cancer. Mod Pathol 28:457–464

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  27. Lane BR, Magi-Galluzzi C, Reuther AM et al (2006) Mucinous adenocarcinoma of the prostate does not confer poor prognosis. Urology 68:825–830

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  28. 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 32:1532–1539

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  29. Lau WK, Blute ML, Bostwick DG et al (2001) Prognostic factors for survival of patients with pathological Gleason score 7 prostate cancer: differences in outcome between primary Gleason grades 3 and 4. J Urol 166:1692–1697

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  30. Lotan TL, Epstein JI (2009) Gleason grading of prostatic adenocarcinoma with glomeruloid features on needle biopsy. Hum Pathol 40:471–477

    Article  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  31. Makarov DV, Sanderson H, Partin AW et al (2002) Gleason score 7 prostate cancer on needle biopsy: is the prognostic difference in Gleason scores 4 + 3 and 3 + 4 independent of the number of involved cores? J Urol 167:2440–2442

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  32. Mcneal JE, Yemoto CE (1996) Spread of adenocarcinoma within prostatic ducts and acini. Morphologic and clinical correlations. Am J Surg Pathol 20:802–814

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  33. Mellinger GT (1977) Prognosis of prostatic carcinoma. Recent Results Cancer Res 61–72

  34. Mellinger GT, Gleason D, Bailar J 3rd (1967) The histology and prognosis of prostatic cancer. J Urol 97:331–337

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  35. Merrick GS, Butler WM, Galbreath RW et al (2002) Biochemical outcome for hormone-naive patients with Gleason score 3 + 4 versus 4 + 3 prostate cancer undergoing permanent prostate brachytherapy. Urology 60:98–103

    Article  Google Scholar 

  36. Miyai K, Divatia MK, Shen SS et al (2014) Heterogeneous clinicopathological features of intraductal carcinoma of the prostate: a comparison between „precursor-like“ and „regular type“ lesions. Int J Clin Exper Pathol 7:2518–2526

    Google Scholar 

  37. Osunkoya AO, Nielsen ME, Epstein JI (2008) Prognosis of mucinous adenocarcinoma of the prostate treated by radical prostatectomy: a study of 47 cases. Am J Surg Pathol 32:468–472

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

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

    Article  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  39. Resnick MJ, Koyama T, Fan KH et al (2013) Long-term functional outcomes after treatment for localized prostate cancer. N Engl J Med 368:436–445

    Article  PubMed Central  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  40. Robinson BD, Epstein JI (2010) Intraductal carcinoma of the prostate without invasive carcinoma on needle biopsy: emphasis on radical prostatectomy findings. J Urol 184:1328–1333

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  41. Ross HM, Kryvenko ON, Cowan JE et al (2012) Do adenocarcinomas of the prostate with Gleason score (GS) ≤ 6 have the potential to metastasize to lymph nodes? Am J Surg Pathol 36:1346–1352

    Article  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  42. Sabolch A, Feng FY, Daignault-Newton S et al (2011) Gleason pattern 5 is the greatest risk factor for clinical failure and death from prostate cancer after dose-escalated radiation therapy and hormonal ablation. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 81:e351–e360

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  43. Sakr WA, Tefilli MV, Grignon DJ et al (2000) Gleason score 7 prostate cancer: a heterogeneous entity? Correlation with pathologic parameters and disease-free survival. Urology 56:730–734

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  44. Sarbay BC, Kir G, Topal CS et al (2014) Significance of the cribriform pattern in prostatic adenocarcinomas. Pathol Res Pract 210:554–557

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  45. Spratt DE, Zumsteg Z, Ghadjar P et al (2013) Prognostic importance of Gleason 7 disease among patients treated with external beam radiation therapy for prostate cancer: results of a detailed biopsy core analysis. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 85:1254–1261

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  46. Stark JR, Perner S, Stampfer MJ et al (2009) Gleason score and lethal prostate cancer: does 3 + 4 = 4 + 3? J Clin Oncol 27:3459–3464

    Article  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  47. Steinberg DM, Sauvageot J, Piantadosi S et al (1997) Correlation of prostate needle biopsy and radical prostatectomy Gleason grade in academic and community settings. Am J Surg Pathol 21:566–576

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  48. Stenmark MH, Blas K, Halverson S et al (2011) Continued benefit to androgen deprivation therapy for prostate cancer patients treated with dose-escalated radiation therapy across multiple definitions of high-risk disease. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 81:e335–e344

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  49. Stock RG, Cesaretti JA, Stone NN (2006) Disease-specific survival following the brachytherapy management of prostate cancer. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 64:810–816

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  50. Stone NN, Stone MM, Rosenstein BS et al (2011) Influence of pretreatment and treatment factors on intermediate to long-term outcome after prostate brachytherapy. J Urol 185:495–500

    Article  Google Scholar 

  51. Sylvester JE, Grimm PD, Wong J et al (2011) Fifteen-year biochemical relapse-free survival, cause-specific survival, and overall survival following I(125) prostate brachytherapy in clinically localized prostate cancer: seattle experience. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 81:376–381

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  52. Trudel D, Downes MR, Sykes J et al (2014) Prognostic impact of intraductal carcinoma and large cribriform carcinoma architecture after prostatectomy in a contemporary cohort. Eur J Cancer 50:1610–1616

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  53. Van Der Kwast T, Al Daoud N, Collette L et al (2012) Biopsy diagnosis of intraductal carcinoma is prognostic in intermediate and high risk prostate cancer patients treated by radiotherapy. Eur J Cancer 48:1318–1325

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  54. Watts K, Li J, Magi-Galluzzi C et al (2013) Incidence and clinicopathological characteristics of intraductal carcinoma detected in prostate biopsies: a prospective cohort study. Histopathology 63:574–579

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  55. Wilt TJ, Brawer MK, Jones KM et al (2012) Radical prostatectomy versus observation for localized prostate cancer. N Engl J Med 367:203–213

    Article  PubMed Central  CAS  Google Scholar 

  56. Wright JL, Salinas CA, Lin DW et al (2009) Prostate cancer specific mortality and Gleason 7 disease differences in prostate cancer outcomes between cases with Gleason 4 + 3 and Gleason 3 + 4 tumors in a population based cohort. J Urol 182:2702–2707

    Article  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  57. Zhao T, Liao B, Yao J et al (2015) Is there any prognostic impact of intraductal carcinoma of prostate in initial diagnosed aggressively metastatic prostate cancer? Prostate 75:225–232

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  58. Zumsteg ZS, Spratt DE, Pei I et al (2013) A new risk classification system for therapeutic decision making with intermediate-risk prostate cancer patients undergoing dose-escalated external-beam radiation therapy. Eur Urol 64:895–902

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  59. Epstein JI, Egevad L, Amin MB et al (2016) The 2014 International Society of Urological Pathology (ISUP) Consensus Conference on Gleason Grading of Prostatic Carcinoma: Definition of Grading Patterns and Proposal for a New Grading System. Am J Surg Pathol 40:244-252.

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Institut für Pathologie, Universitätsklinikum Bonn, Sigmund-Freud-Str. 25, Gebäude 329, 53127, Bonn, Deutschland

    G. Kristiansen

  2. Department of Oncology-Pathology, Karolinska Universitetssjukhuset Solna, Stockholm, Schweden

    L. Egevad

  3. Department of Pathology and Laboratory Medicine, Cedars-Sinai Medical Center, Los Angeles, USA

    M. Amin

  4. Department of Pathology and Molecular Medicine, Wellington School of Medicine and Health Sciences, University of Otago, Otago, Neuseeland

    B. Delahunt

  5. Department of Pathology and Molecular Medicine, McMaster University, Hamilton, Ontario, USA

    J. R. Srigley

  6. Yale Pathology, Yale-New Haven Hospital, New Haven, USA

    P. A. Humphrey

  7. Department of Pathology, The Johns Hopkins Hospital, Baltimore, USA

    J. I. Epstein

Authors
  1. G. Kristiansen
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. L. Egevad
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. M. Amin
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. B. Delahunt
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. J. R. Srigley
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. P. A. Humphrey
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  7. J. I. Epstein
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Consortia

Graduierungskommittee

Corresponding author

Correspondence to G. Kristiansen.

Ethics declarations

Interessenkonflikt

G. Kristiansen, L. Egevad, M. Amin, B. Delahunt, J.R. Srigley, P.A. Humphrey, J.I. Epstein und das Graduierungskommittee 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

Bei diesem Beitrag handelt es sich um eine Übersetzung von „The 2014 International Society of Urological Pathology (ISUP) Consensus Conference on Gleason Grading of Prostatic Carcinoma: Definition of Grading Patterns and Proposal for a New Grading System“ [59]. Mit freundlicher Genehmigung von Wolters Kluwer Health, Inc.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Kristiansen, G., Egevad, L., Amin, M. et al. Konsenskonferenz 2014 der ISUP zur Gleason-Graduierung des Prostatakarzinoms. Pathologe 37, 17–26 (2016). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00292-015-0136-6

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00292-015-0136-6

Schlüsselwörter

Keywords

Search

Navigation