Current practice of Gleason grading of prostate carcinoma

The Gleason grading system remains one of the most powerful prognostic factors in prostate cancer and is the dominant method around the world in daily practice. It is based solely on the glandular architecture performed at low magnification. The Gleason grading system should be performed in needle core biopsies and radical prostatectomy specimens where it shows a reasonable degree of correlation between both specimens, and most importantly, it remains vital in the treatment decision-making process. This review summarizes the current status of Gleason grading in prostate cancer, incorporating recent proposals for the best contemporary practice of prostate cancer grading.

[1]  Alan W Partin,et al.  Gleason score 7 prostate cancer on needle biopsy: is the prognostic difference in Gleason scores 4 + 3 and 3 + 4 independent of the number of involved cores? , 2002, The Journal of urology.

[2]  Pierre I Karakiewicz,et al.  Comparison of accuracy between the Partin tables of 1997 and 2001 to predict final pathological stage in clinically localized prostate cancer. , 2004, The Journal of urology.

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

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

[5]  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.

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

[7]  Hartwig Huland,et al.  Counseling men with prostate cancer: a nomogram for predicting the presence of small, moderately differentiated, confined tumors. , 2003, The Journal of urology.

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

[9]  S. Mills,et al.  Gleason histologic grading of prostatic carcinoma. Correlations between biopsy and prostatectomy specimens , 1986, Cancer.

[10]  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.

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

[12]  D. Ornstein.  Pathology and Genetics: Tumours of the Urinary System and Male Genital Organs , 2004 .

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

[14]  D. Gleason,et al.  Histologic Grading and Staging of Prostatic Carcinoma , 1981 .

[15]  T. H. van der Kwast,et al.  Handling and pathology reporting of prostate biopsies. , 2004, European urology.

[16]  Rodolfo Montironi,et al.  Handling and pathology reporting of radical prostatectomy specimens. , 2003, European urology.

[17]  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.

[18]  Sten Nilsson,et al.  Prognostic factors and reporting of prostate carcinoma in radical prostatectomy and pelvic lymphadenectomy specimens , 2005, Scandinavian journal of urology and nephrology. Supplementum.

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

[20]  D. Johnston,et al.  Analysis of clinicopathologic factors predicting outcome after radical prostatectomy , 2001, Cancer.

[21]  R. Montironi,et al.  Carcinoma of the prostate: inherited susceptibility, somatic gene defects and androgen receptors , 2004, Virchows Archiv.

[22]  A. Evans,et al.  Correlation of the primary Gleason pattern on prostate needle biopsy with clinico-pathological factors in Gleason 7 tumors. , 2004, The Canadian journal of urology.

[23]  P. Humphrey,et al.  Prognostic and predictive factors in prostate cancer: Historical perspectives and recent international consensus initiatives , 2005, Scandinavian journal of urology and nephrology. Supplementum.

[24]  D. Bostwick,et al.  Atypical Adenomatous Hyperplasia (Adenosis) of the Prostate: DNA Ploidy Analysis and Immunophenotype , 2005, International journal of surgical pathology.

[25]  Liang Cheng,et al.  The combined percentage of Gleason patterns 4 and 5 is the best predictor of cancer progression after radical prostatectomy. , 2005, Journal of clinical oncology : official journal of the American Society of Clinical Oncology.

[26]  C. Pan,et al.  Tubulocystic clear cell adenocarcinoma arising within the prostate. , 2000, The American journal of surgical pathology.

[27]  D. Bostwick,et al.  Prostatic adenocarcinoma with glomeruloid features. , 1998, Human pathology.

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

[29]  M. Rubin,et al.  Prostate Needle Biopsy Reporting: How Are the Surgical Members of the Society of Urologic Oncology Using Pathology Reports to Guide Treatment of Prostate Cancer Patients? , 2004, The American journal of surgical pathology.

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

[31]  R. Montironi,et al.  Predictive factors in prostate needle biopsy. , 2002, Pathologica.

[32]  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.

[33]  R. Montironi,et al.  Evaluation of Prognostic Factors in Radical Prostatectomy Specimens with Cancer , 2002, Urologia Internationalis.

[34]  Ximing J. Yang,et al.  Prostatic Foamy Gland Carcinoma With Aggressive Behavior: Clinicopathologic, Immunohistochemical, and Ultrastructural Analysis , 2001, The American journal of surgical pathology.

[35]  Morphological assessment of radical prostatectomy specimens. A protocol with clinical relevance , 2003, Virchows Archiv.

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

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

[38]  D. Bostwick,et al.  Basal cell hyperplasia and basal cell carcinoma of the prostate: a comprehensive review and discussion of a case with c-erbB-2 expression , 2005, Journal of Clinical Pathology.

[39]  D. Bostwick,et al.  Prostatic adenocarcinoma with atrophic features: malignancy mimicking a benign process. , 1997, The American journal of surgical pathology.

[40]  D. Bostwick,et al.  Gleason grading of prostatic needle biopsies. Correlation with grade in 316 matched prostatectomies. , 1994, The American journal of surgical pathology.

[41]  M. Rubin,et al.  Should a Gleason Score Be Assigned to a Minute Focus of Carcinoma on Prostate Biopsy? , 2000, The American journal of surgical pathology.

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

[43]  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.

[44]  Ferran Algaba,et al.  Gleason grading of prostate cancer in needle biopsies or radical prostatectomy specimens: contemporary approach, current clinical significance and sources of pathology discrepancies , 2005, BJU international.

[45]  Y. Collan,et al.  Prognostic factors in prostate cancer , 2006, Diagnostic pathology.

[46]  M. Banerjee,et al.  Gleason score 7 prostate cancer: a heterogeneous entity? Correlation with pathologic parameters and disease-free survival. , 2000, Urology.

[47]  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.

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

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

[50]  D. Johnston,et al.  Outcome of patients with Gleason score 8 or higher prostate cancer following radical prostatectomy alone. , 2002, The Journal of urology.

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

[52]  A W Partin,et al.  Prognostic significance of Gleason score 3+4 versus Gleason score 4+3 tumor at radical prostatectomy. , 2000, Urology.

[53]  D. Bostwick,et al.  Pleomorphic giant cell carcinoma of the prostate. , 2005, Archives of pathology & laboratory medicine.

[54]  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.