Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

The significance of modified Gleason grading of prostatic carcinoma in biopsy and radical prostatectomy specimens

  • Letter to the Editor
  • Published:
Virchows Archiv Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

At an International Society of Urological Pathology consensus conference in 2005, the Gleason grading system for prostatic carcinoma underwent its first major revision. Gleason pattern 4 now includes most cribriform patterns and also fused and poorly formed glands. Our aims were to compare the grade distributions and assess the agreement between biopsy and radical prostatectomy specimens for the modified and conventional Gleason grading. More than 3,000 radical prostatectomy (RP), needle biopsies (NB) and transurethral resection specimens were assigned modified Gleason score (GS). In NB, modified GS 3 + 3 = 6 and 3 + 4 = 7a were almost equally common, while in RP, 3 + 4 = 7a was most common followed by 4 + 3 = 7b. After application of the modified GS on NB, a substantial shift in GS distribution occurred: The proportion of GS 6 and 7 were 48 and 26%, respectively, with conventional Gleason grading as compared to 22 and 68%, respectively, with modified grading. In 368 men, the agreement between NB and RP with a modified GS 6, 7a, 7b and 8–10 in NB was 28, 88, 68 and 64–100%, respectively. The overall agreement improved from 58 to 72% (p < 0.001) compared to conventional GS. The higher agreement with modified Gleason grading may facilitate therapeutic decisions.

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
Fig. 2
Fig. 3

References

  1. Amin M, Boccon-Gibod L, Egevad L, Epstein JI, Humphrey PA, Mikuz G, Newling D, Nilsson S, Sakr W, Srigley JR, Wheeler TM, Montironi R (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. Bonkhoff H (2005) Gleason grading: diagnostic criteria and clinical implications. Pathologe 26:422–432

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  3. Bostwick DG (1994) Gleason grading of prostatic needle biopsies. Correlation with grade in 316 matched prostatectomies. Am J Surg Pathol 18:796–803

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  4. Bostwick DG (1994) Grading prostate cancer. Am J Clin Pathol 102:38–59

    Google Scholar 

  5. Carlson GD, Calvanese CB, Kahane H, Epstein JI (1998) Accuracy of biopsy Gleason scores from a large uropathology laboratory: use of a diagnostic protocol to minimize observer variability. Urology 51:525–529

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  6. Cookson MS, Fleshner NE, Soloway SM, Fair WR (1997) Correlation between Gleason score of needle biopsy and radical prostatectomy specimen: accuracy and clinical implications. J Urol 157:559–562

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  7. Dunn RL, Shah R, Zhou M (2002) Global Gleason score, highest Gleason score, or weighted Gleason score: what Gleason score should be reported in prostate needle biopsies. Mod Pathol 15:161A–669A

    Google Scholar 

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

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Egevad L, Granfors T, Karlberg L, Bergh A, Stattin P (2002) Percent gleason grade 4/5 as prognostic factor in prostate cancer diagnosed at transurethral resection. J Urol 168:509–513

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Egevad L, Granfors T, Karlberg L, Bergh A, Stattin P (2002) Prognostic value of the Gleason score in prostate cancer. BJU Int 89:538–542

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  11. Egevad L, Norlen BJ, Norberg M (2001) The value of multiple core biopsies for predicting the Gleason score of prostate cancer. BJU Int 88:716–721

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  12. 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  CAS  Google Scholar 

  13. Epstein H, Algaba F, Allbrook WC et al (2004) Acinar adenocarcinoma. In: Eble JN, Sauter G, Epstein JI, Sesterhenn IA (eds) World Health Organization classification of tumors. Pathology and genetics: tumours of the urinary system and male genital organs. IARC, Lyon, France, pp 179–184

    Google Scholar 

  14. Epstein JI, Allsbrook WC, Amin MB, Egevad L, and the 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 

  15. Gallee MP, Ten Kate FJ, Mulder PG, Blom JH, van der Heul RO (1990) Histological grading of prostatic carcinoma in prostatectomy specimens. Comparison of prognostic accuracy of five grading systems. Br J Urol 65:368–375

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  16. Garnett JE, Oyasu R, Grayhack JT (1984) The accuracy of diagnostic biopsy specimens in predicting tumor grades by Gleason’s classification of radical prostatectomy specimens. J Urol 131:690–693

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  17. Gaudin PB, Epstein JI (1995) Adenosis of the prostate. Histologic features in needle biopsy specimens. Am J Surg Pathol 19:737–747

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  18. Glaessgen A, Hamberg H, Pihl CG, Sundelin B, Nilsson B, Egevad L (2002) Interobserver reproducibility of percent Gleason grade 4/5 in total prostatectomy specimens. J Urol 168:2006–2010

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

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

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  20. Gleason DF (1977) Histologic grading and clinical staging of prostatic carcinoma. In: Tannenbaum M (ed) Urologic Pathology: the prostate. Lea and Felbiger, Philadelphia, pp 171–198

    Google Scholar 

  21. Gleason DF (1992) Histological grading of prostate cancer: a perspective. Hum Pathol 23:273–279

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

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

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  23. 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 

  24. Helpap B (2005) Small suggestive lesions of the prostate. Histological and immunohistochemical analyses—report of the uropathology consultation service. Pathologe 26:398–404

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  25. Helpap B, Böcking A, Dhom G, Kastendiek R, Leistenschneider W, Müller HA (1985) Klassifikation, histologisches und zytologisches Grading sowie Regressionsgrading des Prostatakarzinoms. Eine Empfehlung des pathologisch-urologischen Arbeitskreises “Prostatakarzinoms”. Pathologe 6:3–7

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  26. Herman CM, Kattan MW, Scardino PT, Wheeler TW (1999) Predominant Gleason pattern is a significant predictor of disease progression in Gleason score 7 prostate cancer. Mod Pathol 12:97A

    Google Scholar 

  27. Kramer SA, Spahr J, Brendler CB, Glenn JF, Paulson DF (1980) Experience with Gleason’s histopathologic grading in prostatic cancer. J Urol 124:223–225

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  28. Lang PH, Narayan P (1983) Understaging and undergrading of prostate cancer. Argument for postoperative radiation of adjuvant therapy. Urology 21:113–118

    Article  Google Scholar 

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

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

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

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

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  32. Mosse CA, Magi-Galluzzi C, Tsuzuki T, Epstein JI (2004) The prognostic significance of tertiary Gleason pattern 5 in radical prostatectomy specimens. Am J Surg Pathol 28:394–398

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  33. Mostofi FK, Sesterhenn IA, Davis CJ (2002) Histological typing of prostate tumours. In: World Health Organization international histological classification of tumours. Springer, Berlin Heidelberg New York

    Google Scholar 

  34. Partin AW, Kattan MW, Subong EN, Walsh PC, Wojno KJ, Oesterling JE, Scardino PT, Pearson JD (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

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  35. Spires SE, Cibull ML, Wood DP Jr, Miller S, Spires SM, Banks ER (1994) Gleason histologic grading in prostatic carcinoma. Correlation of 18-gauge core biopsy with prostatectomy. Arch Pathol Lab Med 118:705–708

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  36. Stamey TA, McNeal JE, Freiha FS, Redwine E (1988) Morphometric and clinical studies on 68 consecutive radical prostatectomies. J Urol 139:1235–1241

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

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

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  38. Young RH, Srigley JR, Amin MB, Ulbright TM, Cubilla AL (2000) Tumors of the prostate gland, seminal vesicles, male urethra, and penis. In: Rosai J, Sobin LH (eds) Atlas of tumor pathology. AFIP, Washington, pp 111–216

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Pathology, Center of Uropathology, General Hospital Hegau-Bodensee-Klinikum Singen, Academic Hospital of the University of Freiburg, P.O. Box 720, 78207, Singen, Germany

    Burkhard Helpap

  2. Department of Pathology and Cytology, Karolinska Hospital, Stockholm, Sweden

    Lars Egevad

  3. International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC), Lyons, France

    Lars Egevad

Authors
  1. Burkhard Helpap
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Lars Egevad
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Burkhard Helpap.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Helpap, B., Egevad, L. The significance of modified Gleason grading of prostatic carcinoma in biopsy and radical prostatectomy specimens. Virchows Arch 449, 622–627 (2006). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00428-006-0310-6

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00428-006-0310-6

Keywords

Search

Navigation