Modified gleason grading. An updated review

Histology and Histopathology

Volumn 24, Issue 5, 2009, Pages 661-666

  Helpap, Burkhard ^a   Egevad, Lars ^b  

^a UNIVERSITY OF FREIBURG   (Germany)

^b INTERNATIONAL AGENCY FOR RESEARCH ON CANCER   (France)

Author keywords

Adenocarcinoma of the prostate; Core needle biopsy; Modified Gleason Grading; Radical prostatectomy

Indexed keywords

PROSTATE SPECIFIC ANTIGEN;

ADENOCARCINOMA; AGE; AGED; BLOOD; HUMAN; MALE; MEDICAL SOCIETY; MIDDLE AGED; NEEDLE BIOPSY; PATHOLOGY; PRACTICE GUIDELINE; PROSTATE TUMOR; REPRODUCIBILITY; REVIEW; WORLD HEALTH ORGANIZATION;

ADENOCARCINOMA; AGE FACTORS; AGED; AGED, 80 AND OVER; BIOPSY, NEEDLE; HUMANS; MALE; MIDDLE AGED; PRACTICE GUIDELINES AS TOPIC; PROSTATE-SPECIFIC ANTIGEN; PROSTATIC NEOPLASMS; REPRODUCIBILITY OF RESULTS; SOCIETIES, MEDICAL; WORLD HEALTH ORGANIZATION;

EID: 67149120734     PISSN: 02133911     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: None     Document Type: Review

References (43)

1. Allan R.W., Sanderson H. and Epstein J.I. (2003). Correlations of minute (0.5 mm or less) focus of prostate adenocarcinoma on needle biopsy with radical prostatectomy specimen: role of prostate specific antigen density. J. Urol. 170, 370-372.
2. Amin M., Boccon-Gibod L., Egevad L., Epstein J.I., Humphrey P.A., Mikuz G., Newling D., Nilsson S., Sakr W., Srigley J.R., Wheeler T.M. and Montironi R. (2005). Prognostic and predictive factors and reporting of prostate carcinoma in prostate needle biopsy specimens. Scand. J. Urol. Nephrol. 39,20-337.
3. Bastian P.J., Mangold L.A., Epstein J.I. and Partin A.W. (2004). Characteristics of insignificant clinical T1c prostate tumors. A contemporary analysis. Cancer 101, 2001-2005.
4. Bostwick D.G. (1994). Grading prostate cancer. Am. J. Clin. Pathol. 102, 38-59.
5. Bostwick D.G., Grignon D.J., Hammond M.E., Amin M.B., Cohen M., Crawford D.E., Gospodarowicz M., Kaplan R.S., Miller D.S., Montironi R., Pajak T.F., Pollack A., Srigley J.R. and Yabro J.W. (2000). Prognostic factors in prostate cancer. College of american pathologists consensus statement 1999. Arch. Med. 124, 995-1000.
6. Chan T.Y., Partin A.W., Walsh P.C. and Epstein J.I. (2000). Prognostic significance of Gleason score 3+4 versus Gleason score 4+3 tumor at radical prostatectomy. Urology 56, 823-827.
7. Egevad L., Norbergt M., Mattson S., Norlen B.J. and Busch C. (1998). Estimation of prostate cancer volume by multiple core biopsies before radical prostatectomy. Urology 52, 653-658.
8. Egevad L., Norlen B.J. and Norberg M. (2001). The value of multiple core biopsies for predicting the Gleason score of prostate cancer. B.J.U. Int. 88, 716-721.
9. Egevad L., Granfors T., Karlberg L., Bergh A. and Stattin P. (2002). Prognostic value of the Gleason score in prostate cancer. B.J.U. Int. 89, 538-542.
10. Egevad L., Allsbrook W.C. and Epstein J.I. (2005). Current practice of Gleason grading among genitourinary pathologists. Hum. Pathol. 36, 5-9.
11. Epstein J.I. (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.
12. Epstein J.I., Algaba F. and Allbrooks J. (2004). Acinar adenocarcinoma. In: World health Organization Classification of Tumours. Pathology and Genetics: Tumours of the urinary system and male genital organs. Eble J.N., Sauter G., Epstein J.I. and Sesterhenn I.A. (eds). IARC press. Lyon, France. pp 179-184.
13. Epstein J.I., Allsbrook W.C., Amin M.B., 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, 1228-1242.
14. Gallee M.P., Ten Kate F.J., Mulder P.G., Blom J.H. and van der Heul R.O. (1990). Histological grading of prostatic carcinoma in prostatectomy specimens. Comparison of prognostic accuracy of five grading systems. Br. J. Urol. 65, 368-375.
15. Garnett J.E., Oyasu R. and Grayhack J.T. (1984). The accuracy of diagnostic biopsy specimens in predicting tumor grades by Gleasońs classification of radical prostatectomy specimens. J. Urol. 131, 690-693.
16. Glaessgen A., Hamberg H., Pihl C.G., Sundelin B., Nilsson B. and Egevad L. (2002). Interobserver reproducibility of percent Gleason grade 4/5 in total prostatectomy specimens. J. Urol. 168, 2006-2010.
17. Gleason D.F. (1966). Classification of prostatic carcinomas. Cancer Chemotherapy (Rep Part) 50, 125-128.
18. Gleason D.F. (1977). Histologic grading and clinical staging of prostatic carcinoma. In: Urologic pathology. The prostate. Tannenbaum M. (ed). Lea and Felbiger. Philadelphia. pp 171-198.
19. Gleason D.F. (1992). Histological grading of prostate cancer: a perspective. Hum. Pathol. 23, 273-279.
20. Gleason D. F and Mellinger G.T. (1974). Prediction of pronosis for prostatic adenocarcinoma by combined histological grading and clinical staging. J. Urol. 111, 58-64.
21. Helpap B. (1993). Review of the morphology of prostatic carcinoma with special emphasis on subgrading and prognosis. J. Urol. Pathol. 1, 3-20.
22. Helpap B. and Egevad L. (2006). The significance of modified Gleason grading of prostatic carcinoma in biopsy and radical prostatectomy specimens. Virch. Arch. 449, 622-627.
23. Helpap B. and Egevad L. (2007). The value of the modified Gleason grading system of prostate adenocarcinoma in routine urological diagnostics. Urologe 46, 59-62.
24. Helpap B. and Egevad L. (2008a). Correlations of modified Gleason Grading with pT stage of prostatic ncarcinomas after radical prostatectomy. Analyt. Quant. Cytol. Histol. 30, 1-7.
25. Helpap B. and Egevad L. (2008b). Correlation of modified Gleason grading of prostate carcinoma with serum PSA, age and tumor extent in needle biopsy specimens. Analyt. Quant. Cytol. Histol. 30, 133-138.
26. Helpap B. and Egevad L. (2008c). Clinical insignificance of prostate cancer, are there morphological findings. Urologe 47, (in press). (In German).
27. Helpap B. and Sinicina I. (2002). Diagnostic measures for therapeutic steps of prostate adenocarcinoma. Urologe (B) 42, 121-127.
28. Helpap B., Böcking A., Dhom G., Kastendiek R., Leistenschneider W. and Müller H.A. (1985). Klassifikation, histologisches und zytologisches Grading sowie Regressionsgrading des Prostatakarzinoms. Eine Empfehlung des pathologisch-urologischen Arbeitskreises "Prostatakarzinoms". Pathologe 6, 3-7.
29. Humphrey P.A. (2004). Gleason grading and prognostic factors in carcinoma of the prostate. Mod. Pathol. 17, 292-306.
30. Kramer S.A., Spahr J., Brendler C.B. Glenn J.F. and Paulson D.E.F. (1980). Experience with Gleason's histopathologic grading in prostatic cancer. J. Urol. 124, 223-225.
31. Lang P.H. and Narayan P. (1983). Understaging and undergrading of prostate cancer. Argument for postoperative radiation of adjuvant therapy. Urology 21, 113-118.
32. Lau W.K., Blute M.L., Bostwick D.G., Weaver A.L., Sebo T.J. and Zincke H. (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.
33. Lopez-Beltran A., Mikuz G., Luque R.J., Mazzucchelli R. and Montironi R. (2006). Current practice of Gleason grading of prostate carcinoma. Virchows Arch. 448, 111-118.
34. Melia J., Moseley R., Ball R.Y., Griffiths D.F.R., Grigor K., Harnden P., Jarmulowicz M., McWilliam J., Montironi R., Waller M., Moss S. and Parkinson M.C. (2006). A UK-based investigation of inter-and intraobserver reproducibility of Gleason grading of prostatic biopsies. Histopathology 48, 644-654.
35. Mills S.E. and Fowler J.E. (1986). Gleason histologic grading of prostatic carcinoma. Correlations between biopsy and prostatectomy specimens. Cancer 57, 346-349.
36. Mosse C.A., Magi-Galluzzi C., Tsuzuki T. and Epstein J.I. (2004) The prognostic significance of tertiary Gleason pattern 5 in radical prostatectomy specimens. Am. J. Surg. Pathol. 28, 394-398.
37. Mostofi F.K., Sesterhenn I.A. and Davis C.J. (2002). Histological typing of prostate tumours In World Health Organization International histological classification of tumours. Springer Berlin Heidelberg New York.
38. Pan C.C., Potter S.R., Partin A.W. and Epstein J.I. (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.
39. Partin A.W., Kattan M.W., Subong E.N., Walsh P.C., Wojno K.J., Oesterling J.E., Scardino P.T. and Pearson J.D. (1997). Combination of prostate-specific antigen, clinical stage, and Gleason score to predict pathological stage of localized prostate cancer: a multi-institutional update. J.A.M.A. 277,1445-1451.
40. Raagde H., Korb L.J., Elgamad A.A., Grado G.L. and Nadir B.S. (2000). Modern prostate brachytherapy: prostate specific antigen results in 219 patients with up to 12 years of observed follow-up. Cancer 89, 135-141
41. Sakr W.A., Tefili M.V., Grignon D.J., Banerjee M., Dey J., Gheiler E.L., Tiguert R., Powell I.J. and Wood D.P. (2000). Gleason score 7 prostate cancer: a heterogeneous entity? Correlation with pathologic parameters and disease-free survival. Urology 56, 730-734.
42. Steinberg D.M., Sauvageot J., Piantadosis S. and Epstein J.I. (1997). Correlation of prostate needle biopsy and radical prostatectomy Gleason grade in academic and community settings. Am. J. Surg. Pathol. 21, 566-576.
43. Young R.H., Srigley J.R., Amin M.B., Ulbright T.M. and Cubilla A.L. (2000). Tumors of the prostate gland, seminal vesicles, male urethra, and penis. In: Atlas of tumor pathology. Rosai J. and Sobin L.H. (eds). A.F.I.P. Washington. pp 111-216.