Current practice of Gleason grading among genitourinary pathologists.

There is consensus that the Gleason system should be used for grading of prostate cancer. However, a number of controversial issues remain as regards how this grading is applied. A questionnaire was sent to 91 genitourinary pathologists in countries around the world with the purpose to survey current practice of Gleason grading. The response rate was 74%, including 43 North American pathologists and 24 from other continents. Of all participants, only 13% and 36%, respectively, ever diagnosed a Gleason score (GS) of 2 to 3 or 4 on needle biopsies (NBX), and 88% of those who did so assigned a GS 4 to <1% of cancers. Cribriform Gleason pattern (GP) 3 was acknowledged by 88% but a majority of them would classify < or =20% of cribriform patterns as GP 3. One third only accepted cribriform or fusion patterns as GP 4, but two thirds also included incomplete or poorly defined glands. For GP 5 to be identified on NBX, 83% required clusters of individual cells, strands, or nests seen at less than x40 lens magnification. Only 26% defined GS on NBX as primary + tertiary GP, and a majority would mention a tertiary pattern separately. For NBX, global or highest GS was reported by 40% and 10%, respectively, whereas 46% only gave a separate GS for each individual NBX core. In conclusion, there is a need to standardize practical application of Gleason grading both in terms of interpretation of patterns as well as how grading is reported. Our survey data provide information to general pathologists about the most common grading practices among genitourinary pathologists.

[1]  D. Gleason,et al.  Histologic grading of prostate cancer: a perspective. , 1992, Human pathology.

[2]  L. Egevad,et al.  Percent Gleason grade 4/5 as prognostic factor in prostate cancer diagnosed at transurethral resection. , 2002, The Journal of urology.

[3]  C. Busch,et al.  Histopathology of localized prostate cancer. Consensus Conference on Diagnosis and Prognostic Parameters in Localized Prostate Cancer. Stockholm, Sweden, May 12-13, 1993. , 1994, Scandinavian journal of urology and nephrology. Supplementum.

[4]  J. Epstein,et al.  Gleason score 2-4 adenocarcinoma of the prostate on needle biopsy: a diagnosis that should not be made. , 2000, The American journal of surgical pathology.

[5]  Gleason Df Classification of prostatic carcinomas. , 1966 .

[6]  J. Epstein,et al.  Adenosis of the prostate. Histologic features in needle biopsy specimens. , 1995, The American journal of surgical pathology.

[7]  L. Egevad,et al.  Interobserver reproducibility of percent Gleason grade 4/5 in total prostatectomy specimens. , 2002, The Journal of urology.

[8]  Gleason Df,et al.  Survival rates of patients with prostatic cancer, tumor stage, and differentiation--preliminary report. , 1966 .

[9]  C. Pan,et al.  The prognostic significance of tertiary Gleason patterns of higher grade in radical prostatectomy specimens: a proposal to modify the Gleason grading system. , 2000, The American journal of surgical pathology.

[10]  C. Busch,et al.  Histopathology of localized prostate cancer , 1994 .

[11]  M. Rubin,et al.  Cribriform carcinoma of the prostate and cribriform prostatic intraepithelial neoplasia: incidence and clinical implications. , 1998, The American journal of surgical pathology.

[12]  D. Bostwick,et al.  Architectural patterns of high-grade prostatic intraepithelial neoplasia. , 1993, Human pathology.

[13]  T. Wheeler,et al.  Heterogeneity of prostate cancer in radical prostatectomy specimens. , 1994, Urology.

[14]  Myron Tanncnbaum,et al.  Urologic pathology: The prostate , 1977 .