Advertisement
You are prohibited from using or uploading content you accessed through this website into external applications, bots, software, or websites, including those using artificial intelligence technologies and infrastructure, including deep learning, machine learning and large language models and generative AI.
Advertisement

Purpose:

An update is provided of the Gleason grading system, which has evolved significantly since its initial description.

Materials and Methods:

A search was performed using the MEDLINE® database and referenced lists of relevant studies to obtain articles concerning changes to the Gleason grading system.

Results:

Since the introduction of the Gleason grading system more than 40 years ago many aspects of prostate cancer have changed, including prostate specific antigen testing, transrectal ultrasound guided prostate needle biopsy with greater sampling, immunohistochemistry for basal cells that changed the classification of prostate cancer and new prostate cancer variants. The system was updated at a 2005 consensus conference of international experts in urological pathology, under the auspices of the International Society of Urological Pathology. Gleason score 2–4 should rarely if ever be diagnosed on needle biopsy, certain patterns (ie poorly formed glands) originally considered Gleason pattern 3 are now considered Gleason pattern 4 and all cribriform cancer should be graded pattern 4. The grading of variants and subtypes of acinar adenocarcinoma of the prostate, including cancer with vacuoles, foamy gland carcinoma, ductal adenocarcinoma, pseudohyperplastic carcinoma and small cell carcinoma have also been modified. Other recent issues include reporting secondary patterns of lower and higher grades when present to a limited extent, and commenting on tertiary grade patterns which differ depending on whether the specimen is from needle biopsy or radical prostatectomy. Whereas there is little debate on the definition of tertiary pattern on needle biopsy, this issue is controversial in radical prostatectomy specimens. Although tertiary Gleason patterns are typically added to pathology reports, they are routinely omitted in practice since there is no simple way to incorporate them in predictive nomograms/tables, research studies and patient counseling. Thus, a modified radical prostatectomy Gleason scoring system was recently proposed to incorporate tertiary Gleason patterns in an intuitive fashion. For needle biopsy with different cores showing different grades, the current recommendation is to report the grades of each core separately, whereby the highest grade tumor is selected as the grade of the entire case to determine treatment, regardless of the percent involvement. After the 2005 consensus conference several studies confirmed the superiority of the modified Gleason system as well as its impact on urological practice.

Conclusions:

It is remarkable that nearly 40 years after its inception the Gleason grading system remains one of the most powerful prognostic factors for prostate cancer. This system has remained timely because of gradual adaptations by urological pathologists to accommodate the changing practice of medicine.

References

  • 1 : The histology and prognosis of prostatic cancer. J Urol1967; 97: 331. LinkGoogle Scholar
  • 2 : Prediction of prognosis for prostatic adenocarcinoma by combined histological grading and clinical staging. J Urol1974; 111: 58. AbstractGoogle Scholar
  • 3 : Prognosis of prostatic carcinoma. Recent Results Cancer Res1977; 60: 61. Google Scholar
  • 4 : Analysis of cribriform morphology in prostatic neoplasia using antibody to high-molecular-weight cytokeratins. Arch Pathol Lab Med1994; 118: 260. Google Scholar
  • 5 : The 2005 International Society of Urological Pathology (ISUP) Consensus Conference on Gleason Grading of Prostatic Carcinoma. Am J Surg Pathol2005; 29: 1228. Google Scholar
  • 6 : Gleason score 2–4 adenocarcinoma of the prostate on needle biopsy: a diagnosis that should not be made. Am J Surg Pathol2000; 24: 477. Google Scholar
  • 7 : Trends in reporting Gleason score 1991 to 2001: changes in the pathologist's practice. Eur Urol2005; 47: 196. Google Scholar
  • 8 : The significance of modified Gleason grading of prostatic carcinoma in biopsy and radical prostatectomy specimens. Virchows Arch2006; 449: 622. Google Scholar
  • 9 : Prognosis of untreated stage A1 prostatic carcinoma: a study of 94 cases with extended followup. J Urol1986; 136: 837. LinkGoogle Scholar
  • 10 : The case for modifying the Gleason grading system. BJU Int2007; 100: 725. Google Scholar
  • 11 : Grading of invasive cribriform carcinoma on prostate needle biopsy: an interobserver study among experts in genitourinary pathology. Am J Surg Pathol2008; 32: 1532. Google Scholar
  • 12 : The impact of the 2005 International Society of Urological Pathology consensus conference on standard Gleason grading of prostatic carcinoma in needle biopsies. J Urol2008; 180: 548. LinkGoogle Scholar
  • 13 : The Will Rogers phenomenon in urological oncology. J Urol2008; 179: 28. LinkGoogle Scholar
  • 14 : A pathological reassessment of organ-confined, Gleason score 6 prostatic adenocarcinomas that progress after radical prostatectomy. Hum Pathol2009; . Epub ahead of print. Google Scholar
  • 15 : Natural history of pathologically organ-confined (pT2), Gleason score 6 or less, prostate cancer after radical prostatectomy. Urology2008; 72: 172. Google Scholar
  • 16 : High-grade foamy gland prostatic adenocarcinoma on biopsy or transurethral resection: a morphologic study of 55 cases. Am J Surg Pathol2009; 33: 583. Google Scholar
  • 17 : Prostatic carcinoma with abundant xanthomatous cytoplasm: Foamy gland carcinoma. Am J Surg Pathol1996; 20: 419. Google Scholar
  • 18 : Pseudohyperplastic prostatic adenocarcinoma on needle biopsy and simple prostatectomy. Am J Surg Pathol2000; 24: 1039. Google Scholar
  • 19 : Ductal adenocarcinoma of the prostate diagnosed on needle biopsy: correlation with clinical and radical prostatectomy findings and progression. Am J Surg Pathol1999; 23: 1471. Google Scholar
  • 20 : High-grade prostatic intraepithelial neoplasia-like ductal adenocarcinoma of the prostate: a clinicopathologic study of 28 cases. Am J Surg Pathol2008; 32: 1060. Google Scholar
  • 21 : Genitourinary small cell carcinoma: determination of clinical and therapeutic factors associated with survival. J Urol1998; 159: 1624. LinkGoogle Scholar
  • 22 : Small cell carcinoma of prostate associated with myasthenic (Eaton-Lambert) syndrome. Urology1989; 33: 148. Google Scholar
  • 23 : PSA failure following definitive treatment of prostate cancer having biopsy Gleason score 7 with tertiary grade 5. JAMA2007; 298: 1533. Google Scholar
  • 24 : Prostate cancer with tertiary Gleason pattern 5 in prostate needle biopsy: clinicopathologic findings and disease progression. Am J Surg Pathol2009; 33: 233. Google Scholar
  • 25 : Residual tumor potentially left behind after local ablation therapy in prostate adenocarcinoma. J Urol2008; 179: 2203. LinkGoogle Scholar
  • 26 : Grading prostate cancer. In: Pathology of the Prostate. Edited by . Philadelphia: WB Saunders1998: 191. Google Scholar
  • 27 : Does the tertiary Gleason pattern influence the PSA progression-free interval after retropubic radical prostatectomy for organ-confined prostate cancer?. Eur Urol2005; 48: 572. Google Scholar
  • 28 : The prognostic significance of tertiary Gleason patterns of higher grade in radical prostatectomy specimens: a proposal to modify the Gleason grading system. Am J Surg Pathol2000; 24: 563. Google Scholar
  • 29 : The prognostic significance of tertiary Gleason pattern 5 in radical prostatectomy specimens. Am J Surg Pathol2004; 28: 394. Google Scholar
  • 30 : Tertiary Gleason pattern 5 in Gleason 7 prostate cancer predicts pathological stage and biochemical recurrence. J Urol2008; 179: 1775. LinkGoogle Scholar
  • 31 : Significance of tertiary Gleason pattern 5 in Gleason score 7 radical prostatectomy specimens. J Urol2008; 179: 516. LinkGoogle Scholar
  • 32 : Tertiary Gleason patterns and biochemical recurrence after radical prostatectomy: proposal for a modified Gleason scoring system. J Urol2009; 182: 1364. LinkGoogle Scholar
  • 33 : Biological determinants of cancer progression in men with prostate cancer. JAMA1999; 281: 1395. Crossref, MedlineGoogle Scholar
  • 34 : Should the Gleason grading system for prostate cancer be modified to account for high-grade tertiary components?: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Lancet Oncol2007; 8: 411. Google Scholar
  • 35 : Tertiary Gleason pattern 5 is a powerful predictor of biochemical relapse in patients with Gleason score 7 prostatic adenocarcinoma. J Urol2006; 175: 1695. LinkGoogle Scholar
  • 36 : Prognostic significance of Gleason pattern in patients with Gleason score 7 prostate carcinoma. Cancer2003; 98: 2560. Google Scholar
  • 37 : 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?. Am J Surg Pathol2004; 28: 946. Google Scholar
  • 38 : What information are urologists extracting from prostate needle biopsy reports and what do they need for clinical management of prostate cancer?. Eur Urol2005; 48: 911. Google Scholar
  • 39 : Should each core with prostate cancer be assigned a separate gleason score?. Hum Pathol2003; 34: 911. Google Scholar
  • 40 : Preoperative prediction of Gleason grade in radical prostatectomy specimens: the influence of different Gleason grades from multiple positive biopsy sites. Mod Pathol2005; 18: 228. Google Scholar
  • 41 : Evaluation of concordance of Gleason score between prostatectomy and biopsies that show more than two different Gleason scores in positive cores. Urology2006; 67: 110. Google Scholar
  • 42 : Impact of reporting rules of biopsy Gleason score for prostate cancer. J Clin Pathol2009; 62: 260. Google Scholar
  • 43 : Usefulness of the 2005 International Society of Urologic Pathology Gleason grading system in prostate biopsy and radical prostatectomy specimens. BJU Int2009; 103: 1190. Google Scholar

Departments of Pathology, Urology and Oncology, The Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, The James Brady Urological Institute, The Johns Hospital, Baltimore, Maryland