The evolving Gleason grading system.

The Gleason grading system for prostate adenocarcinoma has evolved from its original scheme established in the 1960s-1970s, to a significantly modified system after two major consensus meetings conducted by the International Society of Urologic Pathology (ISUP) in 2005 and 2014, respectively. The Gleason grading system has been incorporated into the WHO classification of prostate cancer, the AJCC/UICC staging system, and the NCCN guidelines as one of the key factors in treatment decision. Both pathologists and clinicians need to fully understand the principles and practice of this grading system. We here briefly review the historical aspects of the original scheme and the recent developments of Gleason grading system, focusing on major changes over the years that resulted in the modern Gleason grading system, which has led to a new "Grade Group" system proposed by the 2014 ISUP consensus, and adopted by the 2016 WHO classification of tumours of the prostate.

[1]  U. Ferreira,et al.  The value of the 2005 International Society of Urological Pathology (ISUP) modified Gleason grading system as a predictor of biochemical recurrence after radical prostatectomy , 2014, International Urology and Nephrology.

[2]  R Montironi,et al.  Gleason grading of prostate cancer. Contemporary approach. , 2005, Pathologica.

[3]  R Y Ball,et al.  A study of Gleason score interpretation in different groups of UK pathologists; techniques for improving reproducibility , 2006, Histopathology.

[4]  S. Raab A Contemporary Study Correlating Prostate Needle Biopsy and Radical Prostatectomy Gleason Score , 2009 .

[5]  J. Epstein,et al.  Clinical implications of changing definitions within the Gleason grading system , 2010, Nature Reviews Urology.

[6]  B. Delahunt,et al.  Gleason scoring: a comparison of classical and modified (International Society of Urological Pathology) criteria using nadir PSA as a clinical end point , 2010, Pathology.

[7]  Hilla Peretz,et al.  Ju n 20 03 Schrödinger ’ s Cat : The rules of engagement , 2003 .

[8]  P. Stattin,et al.  Gleason inflation 1998–2011: a registry study of 97 168 men , 2015, BJU international.

[9]  P. Humphrey,et al.  Gleason grading and prognostic factors in carcinoma of the prostate , 2004, Modern Pathology.

[10]  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.

[11]  L. Egevad,et al.  Correlation of modified Gleason grading with pT stage of prostatic carcinoma after radical prostatectomy. , 2008, Analytical and quantitative cytology and histology.

[12]  Alberto G. Ayala,et al.  Prostate pathology , 2004 .

[13]  M.,et al.  Changes [I] , 2018, The Complete Poems of William Barnes, Vol. 2: Poems in the Modified Form of the Dorset Dialect.

[14]  L. Egevad,et al.  Modified Gleason grading. An updated review. , 2009, Histology and histopathology.

[15]  Jonathan I. Epstein,et al.  WHO Classification of of Tumours of the Urinary System and Male Genital Organs , 2016 .

[16]  Athanase Billis,et al.  The impact of the 2005 international society of urological pathology consensus conference on standard Gleason grading of prostatic carcinoma in needle biopsies. , 2008, The Journal of urology.

[17]  A. Osunkoya Update on prostate pathology , 2012, Pathology.

[18]  Antonio Lopez-Beltran,et al.  Current practice of Gleason grading of prostate carcinoma , 2006, Virchows Archiv.

[19]  P. Walsh The Gleason Grading System: A Complete Guide for Pathologists and Clinicians , 2013 .

[20]  L. Egevad,et al.  Implications of the International Society of Urological Pathology modified Gleason grading system. , 2012, Archives of pathology & laboratory medicine.

[21]  K. Trpkov,et al.  The impact of the 2005 International Society of Urological Pathology (ISUP) consensus on Gleason grading in contemporary practice , 2009, Histopathology.

[22]  B. Sarbay,et al.  The association of the cribriform pattern with outcome for prostatic adenocarcinomas. , 2014, Pathology, research and practice.

[23]  N. Kinukawa,et al.  Validation of Partin tables and development of a preoperative nomogram for Japanese patients with clinically localized prostate cancer using 2005 International Society of Urological Pathology consensus on Gleason grading: data from the Clinicopathological Research Group for Localized Prostate Cancer , 2008, The Journal of urology.

[24]  J. Epstein,et al.  A contemporary study correlating prostate needle biopsy and radical prostatectomy Gleason score. , 2008, The Journal of urology.

[25]  I. Sesterhenn,et al.  World health organization classifications of tumours. pathology and genetics of tumours of the urinary system and male genital organs , 2005 .

[26]  Mahul B Amin,et al.  Update on the Gleason Grading System for Prostate Cancer: Results of an International Consensus Conference of Urologic Pathologists , 2006, Advances in anatomic pathology.

[27]  Fang-Ming Deng,et al.  Gleason Score 3 + 4=7 Prostate Cancer With Minimal Quantity of Gleason Pattern 4 on Needle Biopsy Is Associated With Low-risk Tumor in Radical Prostatectomy Specimen , 2014, The American journal of surgical pathology.

[28]  J. Epstein,et al.  Changes in prostate cancer grading: Including a new patient‐centric grading system , 2016, The Prostate.

[29]  Chin-Lee Wu,et al.  Impact on the Clinical Outcome of Prostate Cancer by the 2005 International Society of Urological Pathology Modified Gleason Grading System , 2012, The American journal of surgical pathology.

[30]  Ximing J. Yang,et al.  Grading of Invasive Cribriform Carcinoma on Prostate Needle Biopsy: An Interobserver Study among Experts in Genitourinary Pathology , 2008, The American journal of surgical pathology.

[31]  J. Epstein An update of the Gleason grading system. , 2010, The Journal of urology.

[32]  Andrew J. Evans,et al.  Interactive digital slides with heat maps: a novel method to improve the reproducibility of Gleason grading , 2011, Virchows Archiv.

[33]  S. Moss,et al.  A UK‐based investigation of inter‐ and intra‐observer reproducibility of Gleason grading of prostatic biopsies , 2006, Histopathology.

[34]  B. Delahunt,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 , 2015, The American journal of surgical pathology.

[35]  Y. Inayama,et al.  Usefulness of the 2005 International Society of Urologic Pathology Gleason grading system in prostate biopsy and radical prostatectomy specimens , 2009, BJU international.

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

[37]  P. Humphrey,et al.  Tumors of the Prostate Gland, Seminal Vesicles, Penis, and Scrotum , 2011 .

[38]  Brett Delahunt,et al.  Gleason grading: past, present and future , 2012, Histopathology.

[39]  R. Shah,et al.  Current perspectives on the Gleason grading of prostate cancer. , 2009, Archives of pathology & laboratory medicine.

[40]  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.

[41]  Jennifer L. Beebe-Dimmer,et al.  Prognostic Gleason grade grouping : data based on the modified Gleason scoring system , 2013 .