Gleason grading and prognostic factors in carcinoma of the prostate

Gleason grade of adenocarcinoma of the prostate is an established prognostic indicator that has stood the test of time. The Gleason grading method was devised in the 1960s and 1970s by Dr Donald F Gleason and members of the Veterans Administration Cooperative Urological Research Group. This grading system is based entirely on the histologic pattern of arrangement of carcinoma cells in H&E-stained sections. Five basic grade patterns are used to generate a histologic score, which can range from 2 to 10. These patterns are illustrated in a standard drawing that can be employed as a guide for recognition of the specific Gleason grades. Increasing Gleason grade is directly related to a number of histopathologic end points, including tumor size, margin status, and pathologic stage. Indeed, models have been developed that allow for pretreatment prediction of pathologic stage based upon needle biopsy Gleason grade, total serum prostate-specific antigen level, and clinical stage. Gleason grade has been linked to a number of clinical end points, including clinical stage, progression to metastatic disease, and survival. Gleason grade is often incorporated into nomograms used to predict response to a specific therapy, such as radiotherapy or surgery. Needle biopsy Gleason grade is routinely used to plan patient management and is also often one of the criteria for eligibility for clinical trials testing new therapies. Gleason grade should be routinely reported for adenocarcinoma of the prostate in all types of tissue samples. Experimental approaches that could be of importance in the future include determination of percentage of high-grade Gleason pattern 4 or 5, and utilization of markers discovered by gene expression profiling or by genetic testing for DNA abnormalities. Such markers would be of prognostic usefulness if they provided added value beyond the established indicators of Gleason grade, serum prostate-specific antigen, and stage. Currently, established prognostic factors for prostatic carcinoma recommended for routine reporting are TNM stage, surgical margin status, serum prostate-specific antigen, and Gleason grade.

[1]  A. Partin,et al.  Prediction of progression following radical prostatectomy. A multivariate analysis of 721 men with long-term follow-up. , 1996, The American journal of surgical pathology.

[2]  T. Stamey,et al.  Biological determinants of cancer progression in men with prostate cancer. , 1999, JAMA.

[3]  A. Renshaw,et al.  Updated protocol for the examination of specimens from patients with carcinomas of the prostate gland. , 2000, Archives of pathology & laboratory medicine.

[4]  A. Thor,et al.  The art and science of cytopathology: Richard M. DeMay, MD. Chicago IL, ASCP Press, 1996, 2 vol set, 1,289 pages, $285 , 1996 .

[5]  D. Bostwick,et al.  Interobserver reproducibility of Gleason grading of prostatic carcinoma: urologic pathologists. , 2001, Human pathology.

[6]  P. Humphrey,et al.  Prospective characterization of pathological features of prostatic carcinomas detected via serum prostate specific antigen based screening. , 1996, The Journal of urology.

[7]  H. G. van der Poel,et al.  Quantitative light microscopy in urological oncology. , 1992, The Journal of urology.

[8]  J. Epstein,et al.  Pseudohyperplastic prostatic adenocarcinoma on needle biopsy and simple prostatectomy. , 2000, The American journal of surgical pathology.

[9]  P. Humphrey,et al.  Multiple Measures of Carcinoma Extent Versus Perineural Invasion in Prostate Needle Biopsy Tissue in Prediction of Pathologic Stage in a Screening Population , 2003, The American journal of surgical pathology.

[10]  R. Demay The art & science of cytopathology , 1996 .

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

[12]  A W Partin,et al.  Combination of prostate-specific antigen, clinical stage, and Gleason score to predict pathological stage of localized prostate cancer. A multi-institutional update. , 1997, JAMA.

[13]  Daniel S. Miller,et al.  Prognostic factors in prostate cancer. College of American Pathologists Consensus Statement 1999. , 2000, Archives of pathology & laboratory medicine.

[14]  L. Egevad,et al.  Prognostic value of the Gleason score in prostate cancer , 2002, BJU international.

[15]  R. Cohen,et al.  Gleason Grading of Prostate Cancer: A Contemporary Approach , 2004 .

[16]  J. Epstein,et al.  A web‐based tutorial improves practicing pathologists' Gleason grading of images of prostate carcinoma specimens obtained by needle biopsy , 2000, Cancer.

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

[18]  M E Hammond,et al.  Prognostic factors in colorectal cancer. College of American Pathologists Consensus Statement 1999. , 2000, Archives of pathology & laboratory medicine.

[19]  F. Mostofi,et al.  Grading of prostatic carcinoma. , 1975, Cancer chemotherapy reports.

[20]  P. Humphrey,et al.  Pseudohyperplastic prostatic adenocarcinoma. , 1998, The American journal of surgical pathology.

[21]  T. Stamey,et al.  Relationship between systematic biopsies and histological features of 222 radical prostatectomy specimens: lack of prediction of tumor significance for men with nonpalpable prostate cancer. , 2001, The Journal of urology.

[22]  Bostwick Dg,et al.  Predictive factors in prostate cancer: current concepts from the 1999 College of American Pathologists Conference on Solid Tumor Prognostic Factors and the 1999 World Health Organization Second International Consultation on Prostate Cancer. , 1999 .

[23]  C. Sheehan,et al.  Morphologic and Molecular Prognostic Markers in Prostate Cancer , 2002, Advances in anatomic pathology.

[24]  T. Stamey,et al.  Making the most out of six systematic sextant biopsies. , 1995, Urology.

[25]  C. Sheehan,et al.  Prognostic factors in prostate cancer. , 2003, American journal of clinical pathology.

[26]  P. Humphrey,et al.  The relative importance of anatomic and PSA factors to outcomes after radical prostatectomy for prostate cancer. , 2001, American journal of clinical pathology.

[27]  S. Dhanasekaran,et al.  Delineation of prognostic biomarkers in prostate cancer , 2001, Nature.

[28]  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.

[29]  Squamous cell epithelioma of the lower lip. , 1946 .

[30]  W. A. Gardner,et al.  Histologic grading of prostate cancer: A retrospective and prospective overview , 1982, The Prostate.

[31]  D. Gleason,et al.  Prediction of prognosis for prostatic adenocarcinoma by combined histological grading and clinical staging. , 1974, The Journal of urology.

[32]  D G McGowan,et al.  Evaluation of histological grading (Gleason) in carcinoma of the prostate: Adverse influence of highest grade , 1983, The Prostate.

[33]  Lesley Brown,et al.  The new shorter Oxford English dictionary on historical principles , 1993 .

[34]  J. Epstein,et al.  Interobserver reproducibility of Gleason grading of prostatic carcinoma: general pathologist. , 2001, Human pathology.

[35]  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.

[36]  D J Ruiter,et al.  HISTOLOGICAL GRADE HETEROGENEITY IN MULTIFOCAL PROSTATE CANCER. BIOLOGICAL AND CLINICAL IMPLICATIONS , 1996, The Journal of pathology.

[37]  E. Lander,et al.  Gene expression correlates of clinical prostate cancer behavior. , 2002, Cancer cell.

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

[39]  D. Bostwick,et al.  Recommendations for the reporting of resected prostate carcinomas. Association of Directors of Anatomic and Surgical Pathology. , 1996, American journal of clinical pathology.

[40]  J. McNeal,et al.  Spread of adenocarcinoma within prostatic ducts and acini. Morphologic and clinical correlations. , 1996, The American journal of surgical pathology.

[41]  J. Eble Pathology of the Prostate , 1998 .

[42]  R. Bast,et al.  Tumor marker utility grading system: a framework to evaluate clinical utility of tumor markers. , 1996, Journal of the National Cancer Institute.

[43]  M. Kattan,et al.  Postoperative nomogram for disease recurrence after radical prostatectomy for prostate cancer. , 1999, Journal of clinical oncology : official journal of the American Society of Clinical Oncology.

[44]  M E Hammond,et al.  Updated protocol for the examination of specimens from patients with carcinomas of the prostate gland: a basis for checklists. Cancer Committee. , 2000, Archives of pathology & laboratory medicine.

[45]  D. Bostwick Grading prostate cancer. , 1994, American journal of clinical pathology.

[46]  L. Sobin,et al.  Histological Typing of Prostate Tumours , 2002, World Health Organization.

[47]  J. Hanley,et al.  Competing risk analysis of men aged 55 to 74 years at diagnosis managed conservatively for clinically localized prostate cancer. , 1999, JAMA.

[48]  E. Bergstralh,et al.  Outcomes for men with clinically nonmetastatic prostate carcinoma managed with radical prostactectomy, external beam radiotherapy, or expectant management , 2001, Cancer.

[49]  J. Epstein,et al.  Workgroup 5: Assessment of prostate carcinoma in core needle biopsy‐‐Definition of minimal criteria for the diagnosis of cancer in biopsy material , 1996, Cancer.

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

[51]  The Gleason Grading System: An Overview , 1999 .

[52]  L. Egevad Reproducibility of Gleason grading of prostate cancer can be improved by the use of reference images. , 2001, Urology.

[53]  D. Lubeck,et al.  Patterns of treatment of patients with prostate cancer initially managed with surveillance: results from The CaPSURE database. Cancer of the Prostate Strategic Urological Research Endeavor. , 2000, The Journal of urology.

[54]  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.

[55]  J. Bailar,et al.  The histology and prognosis of prostatic cancer. , 1967, The Journal of urology.

[56]  J. Epstein,et al.  Should each core with prostate cancer be assigned a separate gleason score? , 2003, Human pathology.

[57]  P. Humphrey,et al.  Intraglandular tumor extent and prognosis in prostatic carcinoma: application of a grid method to prostatectomy specimens. , 1990, Human pathology.

[58]  P. Humphrey,et al.  Carcinoma extent in prostate needle biopsy tissue in the prediction of whole gland tumor volume in a screening population. , 2002, American journal of clinical pathology.

[59]  M. Rubin,et al.  Predictors of Gleason pattern 4/5 prostate cancer on prostatectomy specimens: can high grade tumor be predicted preoperatively? , 2001, The Journal of urology.

[60]  D. Bostwick,et al.  Predictive factors in prostate cancer: current concepts from the 1999 College of American Pathologists Conference on Solid Tumor Prognostic Factors and the 1999 World Health Organization Second International Consultation on Prostate Cancer. , 1999, Seminars in urologic oncology.

[61]  [Histologic grading of primary prostatic carcinoma--study of Gleason histologic grading]. , 1987, Hinyokika kiyo. Acta urologica Japonica.

[62]  A. Billis Percent Gleason grade (4/5) as prognostic factor in prostate cancer diagnosed at transurethral resection. , 2002, International braz j urol : official journal of the Brazilian Society of Urology.

[63]  S. Piantadosi,et al.  Correlation of prostate needle biopsy and radical prostatectomy Gleason grade in academic and community settings. , 1997, The American journal of surgical pathology.

[64]  P. Humphrey,et al.  Minimal carcinoma in prostate needle biopsy specimens: diagnostic features and radical prostatectomy follow-up. , 1998, Modern pathology : an official journal of the United States and Canadian Academy of Pathology, Inc.