Contemporary gleason grading of prostatic carcinoma

American Journal of Surgical Pathology

Volumn 41, Issue 4, 2017, Pages e1-e7

  Epstein, Jonathan I ^a   Amin, Mahul B ^b   Reuter, Victor E ^c   Humphrey, Peter A ^d  

^a DEPARTMENT OF PATHOLOGY   (United States)

^b UNIVERSITY OF TENNESSEE HEALTH SCIENCE CENTER   (United States)

^c MEMORIAL SLOAN KETTERING CANCER CENTER   (United States)

^d YALE UNIVERSITY SCHOOL OF MEDICINE   (United States)

Author keywords

Gleason grade; grade groups; prostate cancer; tertiary grade

Indexed keywords

BIOPSY; CANCER GRADING; CARCINOMA; CLASSIFICATION; CONSENSUS; CONSENSUS DEVELOPMENT; HUMAN; MALE; NOMENCLATURE; PATHOLOGY; PRACTICE GUIDELINE; PREDICTIVE VALUE; PROCEDURES; PROSTATECTOMY; PROSTATIC NEOPLASMS;

BIOPSY; CARCINOMA; CONSENSUS; HUMANS; MALE; NEOPLASM GRADING; PREDICTIVE VALUE OF TESTS; PROSTATECTOMY; PROSTATIC NEOPLASMS; TERMINOLOGY AS TOPIC;

EID: 85011867632     PISSN: 01475185     EISSN: 15320979     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1097/PAS.0000000000000820     Document Type: Article

References (54)

1. Bailar JC III, Mellinger GT, Gleason DF. Survival rates of patients with prostatic cancer, tumor stage, and differentiation-preliminary report. Cancer Chemother Rep. 1966;50:129-136
2. Gleason DF. Histologic grading of prostate cancer: a perspective. Hum Pathol. 1992;23:273-279
3. Gleason DF. Histological grading and staging of prostatic carcinoma. In: Tannenbaum M, ed. Urological Pathology: The Prostate Philadelphia: Lea and Feibiger; 1977:171
4. Gleason DF. Classification of prostatic carcinomas. Cancer Chemother Rep. 1966;50:125-128
5. Gleason DF, Mellinger GT. Prediction of prognosis for prostatic adenocarcinoma by combined histological grading and clinical staging. J Urol. 1974;111:58-64
6. Epstein JI. Gleason score 2-4 adenocarcinoma of the prostate on needle biopsy: a diagnosis that should not be made. Am J Surg Pathol. 2000;24:477-478
7. Epstein JI, Allsbrook WC Jr, Amin MB, et al. ISUP Grading Committee. The 2005 International Society of Urological Pathology (ISUP) Consensus Conference on Gleason Grading of Prostatic Carcinoma. Am J Surg Pathol. 2005;29:1228-1242
8. Moch H, Humphrey PA, Ulbright TM, et al. WHO Classification of Tumours of the Urinary System and Male Genital Organs. Lyon, France: International Agency for Research on Cancer; 2016
9. Amin MB. AJCC Cancer Staging Manual, 8th ed. New York: Springer; 2017
10. Epstein JI, Egevad L, Amin MB, et al. 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. 2016;40:244-252
11. Pierorazio PM, Walsh PC, Partin AW, et al. Prognostic Gleason grade grouping: data based on the modified Gleason scoring system. BJU Int. 2013;111:753-760
12. Morash C, Tey R, Agbassi C, et al. Active surveillance for the management of localized prostate cancer: guideline recommendations. Can Urol Assoc J. 2015;9:171-178
13. Chen RC, Rumble RB, Loblaw DA, et al. Active Surveillance for the Management of Localized Prostate Cancer (Cancer Care Ontario Guideline): American Society of Clinical Oncology Clinical Practice Guideline Endorsement. J Clin Oncol. 2016;34:2182-2190
14. Zumsteg ZS, Spratt DE, Pei I, et al. A new risk classification system for therapeutic decision making with intermediate-risk prostate cancer patients undergoing dose-escalated external-beam radiation therapy. Eur Urol. 2013;64:895-902
15. Egevad L, Granfors T, Karlberg L, et al. Percent Gleason grade 4/5 as prognostic factor in prostate cancer diagnosed at transurethral resection. J Urol. 2002;168:509-513
16. Sadimin ET, Khani F, Diolombi M, et al. Interobserver reproducibility of percent Gleason pattern 4 in prostatic adenocarcinoma on prostate biopsies. Am J Surg Pathol. 2016;40:1686-1692
17. Egevad L, Delahunt B, Samaratunga H, et al. Utility of reporting the percentage of high-grade prostate cancer. Eur Urol. 2016;69:599-600
18. Deng FM, Donin NM, Pe Benito R, et al. Size-adjusted quantitative Gleason score as a predictor of biochemical recurrence after radical prostatectomy. Eur Urol. 2016;70:248-253
19. Sauter G, Steurer S, Clauditz TS, et al. Clinical utility of quantitative Gleason grading in prostate biopsies and prostatectomy specimens. Eur Urol. 2016;69:592-598
20. Choy B, Pearce SM, Anderson BB, et al. Prognostic significance of percentage and architectural types of contemporary Gleason pattern 4 prostate cancer in radical prostatectomy. Am J Surg Pathol. 2016;40:1400-1406
21. Cole AI, Morgan TM, Spratt DE, et al. Prognostic value of percent Gleason grade 4 at prostate biopsy in predicting prostatectomy pathology and recurrence. J Urol. 2016;196:405-411
22. Flood TA, Schieda N, Keefe DT, et al. Utility of Gleason pattern 4 morphologies detected on transrectal ultrasound (TRUS)-guided biopsies for prediction of upgrading or upstaging in Gleason score 3+4=7 prostate cancer. Virchows Arch. 2016;469:313-319
23. Pan CC, Potter SR, Partin AW, et al. 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. 2000;24:563-569
24. Hashine K, Yuasa A, Shinomori K, et al. Tertiary Gleason pattern 5 and oncological outcomes after radical prostatectomy. Jpn J Clin Oncol. 2011;41:571-576
25. Hattab EM, Koch MO, Eble JN, et al. Tertiary Gleason pattern 5 is a powerful predictor of biochemical relapse in patients with Gleason score 7 prostatic adenocarcinoma. J Urol. 2006;175:1695-1699
26. Adam M, Hannah A, Budaus L, et al. A tertiary Gleason pattern in the prostatectomy specimen and its association with adverse outcome after radical prostatectomy. J Urol. 2014;192:97-101
27. Sim HG, Telesca D, Culp SH, et al. Tertiary Gleason pattern 5 in Gleason 7 prostate cancer predicts pathological stage and biochemical recurrence. J Urol. 2008;179:1775-1779
28. Turker P, Bas E, Bozkurt S, et al. Presence of high grade tertiary Gleason pattern upgrades the Gleason sum score and is inversely associated with biochemical recurrence-free survival. Urol Oncol. 2013;31:93-98
29. Trock BJ, Guo CC, Gonzalgo ML, et al. Tertiary Gleason patterns and biochemical recurrence after prostatectomy: proposal for a modified Gleason scoring system. J Urol. 2009;182:1364-1370
30. van Oort IM, Schout BM, Kiemeney LA, et al. Does the tertiary Gleason pattern influence the PSA progression-free interval after retropubic radical prostatectomy for organ-confined prostate cancer? Eur Urol. 2005;48:572-576
31. Whittemore DE, Hick EJ, Carter MR, et al. Significance of tertiary Gleason pattern 5 in Gleason score 7 radical prostatectomy specimens. J Urol. 2008;179:516-522
32. Lucca I, Shariat SF, Briganti A, et al. Validation of tertiary Gleason pattern 5 in Gleason score 7 prostate cancer as an independent predictor of biochemical recurrence and development of a prognostic model. Urol Oncol. 2015;33:71.e21-71.e26
33. Doshi C, Vacchio M, Attwood K, et al. Clinical significance of prospectively assigned Gleason tertiary pattern 4 in contemporary Gleason score 3+3=6 prostate cancer. Prostate. 2016;76:715-721
34. Baras SA, Nelson JB, Han M, et al. The effect of limited (tertiary) Gleason Pattern 5 on the new prostate cancer Grade Groups. Hum Pathol. [In press]
35. Kunz GM Jr, Epstein JI. Should each core with prostate cancer be assigned a separate Gleason score? Hum Pathol. 2003;34: 911-914
36. Park HK, Choe G, Byun SS, et al. Evaluation of concordance of Gleason score between prostatectomy and biopsies that show more than two different Gleason scores in positive cores. Urology. 2006;67:110-114
37. Poulos CK, Daggy JK, Cheng L. Preoperative prediction of Gleason grade in radical prostatectomy specimens: the influence of different Gleason grades from multiple positive biopsy sites. Mod Pathol. 2005;18:228-234
38. Kunju LP, Daignault S, Wei JT, et al. Multiple prostate cancer cores with different Gleason grades submitted in the same specimen container without specific site designation: should each core be assigned an individual Gleason score? Hum Pathol. 2009;40: 558-564
39. Tolonen TT, Kujala PM, Tammela TL, et al. Overall and worst Gleason scores are equally good predictors of prostate cancer progression. BMC Urol. 2011;11:21
40. Berney DM, Beltran L, Fisher G, et al. Validation of a contemporary prostate cancer grading system using prostate cancer death as outcome. Br J Cancer. 2016;114:1078-1083
41. Eifler JB, Feng Z, Lin BM, et al. An updated prostate cancer staging nomogram (Partin tables) based on cases from 2006 to 2011. BJU Int. 2013;111:22-29
42. Ohori M, Kattan MW, Koh H, et al. Predicting the presence and side of extracapsular extension: a nomogram for staging prostate cancer. J Urol. 2004;171:1844-1849
43. Kuroiwa K, Uchino H, Yokomizo A, et al. Impact of reporting rules of biopsy Gleason score for prostate cancer. J Clin Pathol. 2009;62: 260-263
44. Ruijter ET, Van De Kaa CA, Schalken JA, et al. Histological grade heterogeneity in multifocal prostate cancer. Biological and clinical implications. J Pathol. 1996;180:295-299
45. Huang CC, Deng FM, Kong MX, et al. Re-evaluating the concept of dominant/index tumor nodule in multifocal prostate cancer. Virchows Arch. 2014;464:589-594
46. Kir G, Sarbay BC, Gumus E, et al. The association of the cribriform pattern with outcome for prostatic adenocarcinomas. Pathol Res Pract. 2014;210:640-644
47. Sarbay BC, Kir G, Topal CS, et al. Significance of the cribriform pattern in prostatic adenocarcinomas. Pathol Res Pract. 2014;210: 554-557
48. Trudel D, Downes MR, Sykes J, et al. Prognostic impact of intraductal carcinoma and large cribriform carcinoma architecture after prostatectomy in a contemporary cohort. Eur J Cancer. 2014; 50:1610-1616
49. Iczkowski KA, Torkko KC, Kotnis GR, et al. Digital quantification of five high-grade prostate cancer patterns, including the cribriform pattern, and their association with adverse outcome. Am J Clin Pathol. 2011;136:98-107
50. Kweldam CF, Kummerlin IP, Nieboer D, et al. Disease-specific survival of patients with invasive cribriform and intraductal prostate cancer at diagnostic biopsy. Mod Pathol. 2016;29:630-636
51. Kweldam CF, Wildhagen MF, Steyerberg EW, et al. Cribriform growth is highly predictive for postoperative metastasis and diseasespecific death in Gleason score 7 prostate cancer. Mod Pathol. 2015;28:457-464
52. McKenney JK, Wei W, Hawley S, et al. Histologic grading of prostatic adenocarcinoma can be further optimized: analysis of the relative prognostic strength of individual architectural patterns in 1275 patients from the Canary retrospective cohort. Am J Surg Pathol. 2016;40:1439-1456
53. Keefe DT, Schieda N, El Hallani S, et al. Cribriform morphology predicts upstaging after radical prostatectomy in patients with Gleason score 3+4=7 prostate cancer at transrectal ultrasound (TRUS)-guided needle biopsy. Virchows Arch. 2015;467:437-442
54. Dong F, Yang P, Wang C, et al. Architectural heterogeneity and cribriform pattern predict adverse clinical outcome for Gleason grade 4 prostatic adenocarcinoma. Am J Surg Pathol. 2013;37: 1855-1861