The impact of the 2005 international society of urological pathology consensus conference on standard Gleason grading of prostatic carcinoma in needle biopsies.

PURPOSE At an International Society of Urological Pathology consensus conference in 2005 the Gleason grading system for prostatic carcinoma underwent its first major revision. We compared the concordance of pattern and change of prognostic groups for the conventional and the modified Gleason grading, and checked the discriminative power of the modified Gleason grading. MATERIALS AND METHODS The grading was based on 172 prostatic needle biopsies of patients subsequently undergoing radical prostatectomy. Four prognostic Gleason grading groups were considered, divided into scores of 2-4, 5-6, 7 and 8-10. To check the discriminative power of the modified Gleason grading we compared the time of biochemical (prostate specific antigen) progression-free outcome according to prognostic groups between standard and revised grading. RESULTS The greatest impact of the International Society of Urological Pathology consensus recommendations for Gleason grading was seen on the secondary pattern which had the lowest percentage of concordance and was reflected in a change toward higher Gleason prognostic groups. Of 172 patients in whom the Gleason prognostic group was changed (to higher grades) based solely on the consensus criteria, 46 (26.7%) had higher preoperative prostate specific antigen, more extensive tumors and positive surgical margins, and higher pathological stage. The revised Gleason grading identified in this series a higher number of patients in the aggressive prognostic group Gleason score 8-10 who had a significantly shorter time to biochemical progression-free outcome after radical prostatectomy (log rank p = 0.011). CONCLUSIONS The findings of this study indicate that the recommendations of the International Society of Urological Pathology are a valuable refinement of the standard Gleason grading system.

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

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

[3]  A Böcking,et al.  Histologic grading of prostatic carcinoma. , 1980, Pathology, research and practice.

[4]  Anthony V D'Amico,et al.  Variation in the definition of biochemical recurrence in patients treated for localized prostate cancer: the American Urological Association Prostate Guidelines for Localized Prostate Cancer Update Panel report and recommendations for a standard in the reporting of surgical outcomes. , 2007, The Journal of urology.

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

[6]  L. Egevad,et al.  The 2005 International Society of Urological Pathology (ISUP) Consensus Conference on Gleason Grading of Prostatic Carcinoma , 2005, The American journal of surgical pathology.

[7]  L. Egevad,et al.  The significance of modified Gleason grading of prostatic carcinoma in biopsy and radical prostatectomy specimens , 2006, Virchows Archiv.

[8]  D. Bostwick,et al.  Evaluating radical prostatectomy specimens: Therapeutic and prognostic importance , 2005, Virchows Archiv.

[9]  R. Zarbo,et al.  Analysis of cribriform morphology in prostatic neoplasia using antibody to high-molecular-weight cytokeratins. , 1994, Archives of pathology & laboratory medicine.

[10]  G. T. Mellinger Prognosis of prostatic carcinoma. , 1977, Recent results in cancer research. Fortschritte der Krebsforschung. Progres dans les recherches sur le cancer.

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

[12]  Lars Egevad,et al.  Current practice of Gleason grading among genitourinary pathologists. , 2005, Human pathology.

[13]  U. Ferreira,et al.  Prostate cancer with bladder neck involvement: Pathologic findings with application of a new practical method for tumor extent evaluation and recurrence-free survival after radical prostatectomy , 2004, International Urology and Nephrology.

[14]  P. Walsh,et al.  Adenocarcinoma of the prostate invading the seminal vesicle: definition and relation of tumor volume, grade and margins of resection to prognosis. , 1993, The Journal of urology.

[15]  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.

[16]  P. Humphrey,et al.  Prognostic and predictive factors and reporting of prostate carcinoma in prostate needle biopsy specimens , 2005, Scandinavian journal of urology and nephrology. Supplementum.

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

[18]  T. Tsuzuki,et al.  The Prognostic Significance of Tertiary Gleason Pattern 5 in Radical Prostatectomy Specimens , 2004, The American journal of surgical pathology.

[19]  M. Terris,et al.  Random systematic versus directed ultrasound guided transrectal core biopsies of the prostate. , 1989, The Journal of urology.

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