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

Virchows Archiv

Volumn 468, Issue 2, 2016, Pages 213-218

  Chen, Sonja D ^a   Fava, Joseph L ^b   Amin, Ali ^a  

^a BROWN UNIVERSITY   (United States)

^b MIRIAM HOSPITAL   (United States)

Author keywords

Expert opinion; Gleason score; Overgrading; Prostate adenocarcinoma; Undergrading

Indexed keywords

PROSTATE SPECIFIC ANTIGEN;

ADULT; AGED; ANDROGEN DEPRIVATION THERAPY; ARTICLE; CONTROLLED STUDY; GLEASON SCORE; HUMAN; MAJOR CLINICAL STUDY; MALE; NEEDLE BIOPSY; PATHOLOGIST; PRIORITY JOURNAL; PROSTATE ADENOCARCINOMA; PROSTATE BIOPSY; PROSTATECTOMY; QUALITY CONTROL; ADENOCARCINOMA; BIOPSY; CANCER GRADING; METABOLISM; MIDDLE AGED; PATHOLOGY; PATIENT REFERRAL; PROCEDURES; PROSTATIC NEOPLASMS; VERY ELDERLY;

ADENOCARCINOMA; AGED; AGED, 80 AND OVER; BIOPSY; HUMANS; MALE; MIDDLE AGED; NEOPLASM GRADING; PROSTATE-SPECIFIC ANTIGEN; PROSTATECTOMY; PROSTATIC NEOPLASMS; REFERRAL AND CONSULTATION;

EID: 84959460507     PISSN: 09456317     EISSN: 14322307     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1007/s00428-015-1879-4     Document Type: Article

References (24)

1. Gleason DF (1966) Classification of prostatic carcinomas. Cancer Chem Rep 50:125–128
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
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
4. Egevad L, Allsbrook WC Jr, Epstein JI (2005) Current practice of Gleason grading among genitourinary pathologists. Hum Pathol 36(1):5–9
5. Egevad L, Ahmad AS, Algaba F et al (2013) Standardization of Gleason grading among 337 European pathologists. Histopathology 62(2):247–256
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
14. King CR (2000) Patterns of prostate cancer biopsy grading: trends and clinical implications. Int J Cancer 20; 90(6):305–311
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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