The prognostic significance of the 2014 International Society of Urological Pathology (ISUP) grading system for prostate cancer

Pathology

Volumn 47, Issue 6, 2015, Pages 515-519

  Samaratunga, Hemamali ^a,b   Delahunt, Brett ^a,d   Gianduzzo, Troy ^c   Coughlin, Geoff ^c   Duffy, David ^b   LeFevre, Ian ^a   Johannsen, Shulammite ^a   Egevad, Lars ^e   Yaxley, John ^c  

^a Aquesta Pathology   (Australia)

^b UNIVERSITY OF QUEENSLAND   (Australia)

^c WESLEY HOSPITAL   (Australia)

^d UNIVERSITY OF OTAGO   (New Zealand)

^e KAROLINSKA INSTITUTE   (Sweden)

Author keywords

Gleason score; ISUP grading; modified Gleason grading system

Indexed keywords

ADULT; AGED; CANCER GRADING; CONSENSUS DEVELOPMENT; DISEASE FREE SURVIVAL; HUMAN; LARGE CORE NEEDLE BIOPSY; MALE; MEDICAL SOCIETY; MIDDLE AGED; MORTALITY; PATHOLOGY; PROCEDURES; PROGNOSIS; PROPORTIONAL HAZARDS MODEL; PROSTATE TUMOR; STANDARDS; UROLOGY;

ADULT; AGED; BIOPSY, LARGE-CORE NEEDLE; CONSENSUS DEVELOPMENT CONFERENCES AS TOPIC; DISEASE-FREE SURVIVAL; HUMANS; MALE; MIDDLE AGED; NEOPLASM GRADING; PATHOLOGY, CLINICAL; PROGNOSIS; PROPORTIONAL HAZARDS MODELS; PROSTATIC NEOPLASMS; SOCIETIES, MEDICAL; UROLOGY;

EID: 84957958888     PISSN: 00313025     EISSN: 14653931     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1097/PAT.0000000000000315     Document Type: Article

References (34)

1. Epstein JI, Allsbrook WC Jr, Amin MB, Egevad L. ISUP Grading Committee. The 2005 International Society of Urological Pathology (ISUP) Consensus Conference on Gleason grading of prostatic carcinoma. Am J Surg Pathol 2005; 29: 1228-42.
2. Gleason DF. Classification of prostatic carcinomas. Cancer Chemother Rep 1966; 50: 125-8.
3. Billis A, Quintal MM, Meirelles L, et al. The value of the 2005 International Society of Urological Pathology (ISUP) modified Gleason grading system as a predictor of biochemical recurrence after radical prostatectomy. Int Urol Nephrol 2014; 46: 935-40.
4. Ozok HU, Sagnak L, Tuygun C, et al. Will the modification of the Gleason grading system affect. Int J Surg Pathol 2010; 18: 248-54.
5. Tsivian M, Sun L, Mouraviev V, et al. Changes in Gleason score grading and their effect in predicting outcome after radical prostatectomy. Urology 2009; 74: 1090-3.
6. Uemura H, Hoshino K, Sasaki T, et al. Usefulness of the 2005 International Society of Urologic Pathology Gleason grading system in prostate biopsy and radical prostatectomy specimens. BJU Int 2009; 103: 1190-4.
7. Billis A, Guimaraes MS, Freitas LL, et al. The impact of the 2005 International Society of Urological Pathology consensus conference on standard Gleason grading of prostatic carcinoma in needle biopsies. JUrol 2008; 180: 548-52.
8. Helpap B, Egevad L. The significance of modified Gleason grading of prostatic carcinoma in biopsy and radical prostatectomy specimens. Virchows Arch 2006; 449: 622-7.
9. Pierorazio PM, Walsh PC, Partin AW, Epstein JI. Prognostic Gleason grade grouping: data based on the modified Gleason scoring system. BJU Int 2013; 111: 753-60.
10. Latour M, Amin MB, Billis A, et al. Grading of invasive cribriform carcinoma on prostate needle biopsy: an interobserver study among experts in genitourinary pathology. Am J Surg Pathol 2008; 32: 1532-9.
11. Sarbay BC, Kir G, Topal CS, Gumus E. Significance of the cribriform pattern in prostatic adenocarcinomas. Pathol Res Pract 2014; 210: 554-7.
12. Kir G, Sarbay BC, Gümüş E, Topal CS. The association of the cribriform pattern with outcome for prostatic adenocarcinomas. Pathol Res Pract 2014; 210: 640-4.
13. Loeb S, Montorsi F, Catto JW. Future-proofing Gleason grading: what to call Gleason 6 prostate cancer? Eur Urol 2015; 68: 1-2.
14. Epstein JI, Egevad L, Amin MB, et al. Consensus conference on Gleason grading of prostatic carcinoma: definition of grading patterns and proposal for a new grading system. Am J Surg Pathol 2015. (in press).
15. Perry-Keene J, Ferguson P, Samaratunga H, Nacey JN, Delahunt B. Total submission of pelvic lymphadenectomy tissues removed during radical prostatectomy for prostate cancer increases lymph node yield and detection of micrometastases. Histopathology 2014; 64: 399-404.
16. Chen ME, Johnston D, Reyes AO, et al. A streamlined three-dimensional volume estimation method accurately classifies prostate tumors by volume. Am J Surg Pathol 2003; 27: 1291-301.
17. Samaratunga H, Montironi R, True L, et al. International Society of Urological Pathology (ISUP) consensus conference on handling and staging of radical prostatectomy specimens. working group 1: specimen handling. Mod Pathol 2011; 24: 6-15.
18. Magi-Galluzzi C, Evans AJ, Delahunt B, et al. International Society of Urological Pathology (ISUP) consensus conference on handling and staging of radical prostatectomy specimens. Working group 3: extraprostatic extension, lymphovascular invasion and locally advanced disease. Mod Pathol 2011; 24: 26-38.
19. Tan PH, Cheng L, Srigley JR, et al. International Society of Urological Pathology (ISUP) consensus conference on handling and staging of radical prostatectomy specimens. Working group 5: surgical margins. Mod Pathol 2011; 24: 48-57.
20. Berney DM, Wheeler TM, Grignon DJ, et al. International Society of Urological Pathology (ISUP) consensus conference on handling and staging of radical prostatectomy specimens. Working group 4: seminal vesicles and lymph nodes. Mod Pathol 2011; 24: 39-47.
21. R Core Team. R: A language and environment for statistical computing. Vienna: R Foundation for Statistical Computing, 2015. http://www.R-project.org/.
22. Therneau TM, Grambsch PM. Modeling Survival Data: Extending the Cox Model. New York: Springer, 2000.
23. Gleason DF, Mellinger GT. Prediction of prognosis for prostatic adenocarcinoma by combined histological grading and clinical staging. J Urol 1974; 11: 58-64.
24. Delahunt B, Lamb DS, Srigley JR, et al. Gleason scoring: a comparison of classical and modified (International Society of Urological Pathology) criteria using nadir PSA as a clinical end point. Pathology 2010; 42: 339-43.
25. Egevad L, Mazzucchelli R, Montironi R. Implications of the International Society of Urological Pathology modified Gleason grading system. Arch Pathol Lab Med 2012; 136: 426-34.
26. Dong F, Wang C, Farris AB, et al. Impact on the clinical outcome of prostate cancer by the 2005 International Society of Urological Pathology modified Gleason grading system. Am J Surg Pathol 2012; 36: 838-43.
27. Delahunt B, Miller RJ, Srigley JR, Evans AJ, Samaratunga H. Gleason grading: past, present and future. Histopathology 2012; 60: 75-86.
28. Amin MB, Lin DW, Gore JL, et al. The critical role of the pathologist in determining eligibility for active surveillance as a management option in patients with prostate cancer: consensus statement with recommendations supported by the College of American Pathologists, International Society of Urological Pathology, Association of Directors of Anatomic and Surgical Pathology, the New Zealand Society of Pathologists, and the Prostate Cancer Foundation. Arch Pathol Lab Med 2014; 138: 1387-405.
29. van As NJ, Parker CC. Active surveillance with selective radical treatment for localized prostate cancer. Cancer 2007; 13: 289-94.
30. Shah RB, Tadros Y. Adenocarcinoma of the prostate with Gleason pattern 5 on core biopsy: frequency of diagnosis, morphologic subpatterns, and relation to pattern distribution based on the modified Gleason grading system. Hum Pathol 2014; 45: 2263-9.
31. Ranaweera M, Samaratunga H, Duffy D, et al. Tertiary Gleason pattern 5 on needle biopsy predicts greater tumour volume on radical prostatectomy. Pathology 2011; 43: 693-6.
32. Trpkov K, Zhang J, Chan M, Eigl BJ, Yilmaz A. Prostate cancer with tertiary Gleason pattern 5 in prostate needle biopsy: clinicopathologic findings and disease progression. Am J Surg Pathol 2009; 33: 233-40.
33. Sabolch A, Feng FY, Daignault-Newton S, et al. 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 2011; 81: e351-60.
34. Epstein JI, Feng Z, Trock BJ, Pierorazio PM. 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 2012; 61: 1019-24.