Grading of prostatic adenocarcinoma: current state and prognostic implications
- PMID: 26956509
- PMCID: PMC4784293
- DOI: 10.1186/s13000-016-0478-2
Grading of prostatic adenocarcinoma: current state and prognostic implications
Abstract
Background: Despite significant changes in the clinical and histologic diagnosis of prostate cancer, the Gleason grading system remains one of the most powerful prognostic predictors in prostate cancer. The correct diagnosis and grading of prostate cancer is crucial for a patient's prognosis and therapeutic options. However, this system has undergone significant revisions and continues to have deficiencies that can potentially impact patient care.
Main body: We describe the current state of grading prostate cancer, focusing on the current guidelines for the Gleason grading system and recent changes from the 2014 International Society of Urological Pathology Consensus Conference on Gleason Grading of Prostatic Carcinoma. We also explore the limitations of the current Gleason grading system and present a validated alternative to the Gleason score. The new grading system initially described in 2013 in a study from Johns Hopkins Hospital and then validated in a multi-institutional study, includes five distinct Grade Groups based on the modified Gleason score groups. Grade Group 1 = Gleason score ≤6, Grade Group 2 = Gleason score 3 + 4 = 7, Grade Group 3 = Gleason score 4 + 3 = 7, Grade Group 4 = Gleason score 8, Grade Group 5 = Gleason scores 9 and 10.
Conclusion: As this new grading system is simpler and more accurately reflects prostate cancer biology, it is recommended by the World Health Organization (WHO) to be used in conjunction with Gleason grading.
Figures



Similar articles
-
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.Am J Surg Pathol. 2016 Feb;40(2):244-52. doi: 10.1097/PAS.0000000000000530. Am J Surg Pathol. 2016. PMID: 26492179 Review.
-
Contemporary Gleason Grading of Prostatic Carcinoma: An Update With Discussion on Practical Issues to Implement the 2014 International Society of Urological Pathology (ISUP) Consensus Conference on Gleason Grading of Prostatic Carcinoma.Am J Surg Pathol. 2017 Apr;41(4):e1-e7. doi: 10.1097/PAS.0000000000000820. Am J Surg Pathol. 2017. PMID: 28177964
-
A Contemporary Prostate Cancer Grading System: A Validated Alternative to the Gleason Score.Eur Urol. 2016 Mar;69(3):428-35. doi: 10.1016/j.eururo.2015.06.046. Epub 2015 Jul 10. Eur Urol. 2016. PMID: 26166626 Free PMC article.
-
Contemporary Gleason grading and novel Grade Groups in clinical practice.Curr Opin Urol. 2016 Sep;26(5):488-92. doi: 10.1097/MOU.0000000000000320. Curr Opin Urol. 2016. PMID: 27308734 Review.
-
SOCS3 Immunohistochemical Expression Seems to Support the 2005 and 2014 International Society of Urological Pathology (ISUP) Modified Gleason Grading System.Prostate. 2017 May;77(6):597-603. doi: 10.1002/pros.23299. Epub 2017 Feb 1. Prostate. 2017. PMID: 28144985
Cited by
-
Evaluation of Machine Learning Classification Models for False-Positive Reduction in Prostate Cancer Detection Using MRI Data.Diagnostics (Basel). 2024 Aug 2;14(15):1677. doi: 10.3390/diagnostics14151677. Diagnostics (Basel). 2024. PMID: 39125553 Free PMC article.
-
Yet Another Automated Gleason Grading System (YAAGGS) by weakly supervised deep learning.NPJ Digit Med. 2021 Jun 14;4(1):99. doi: 10.1038/s41746-021-00469-6. NPJ Digit Med. 2021. PMID: 34127777 Free PMC article.
-
Germline determinants of aberrant signaling pathways in cancer.NPJ Precis Oncol. 2024 Mar 1;8(1):57. doi: 10.1038/s41698-024-00546-5. NPJ Precis Oncol. 2024. PMID: 38429380 Free PMC article.
-
Metabolomics Contributions to the Discovery of Prostate Cancer Biomarkers.Metabolites. 2019 Mar 8;9(3):48. doi: 10.3390/metabo9030048. Metabolites. 2019. PMID: 30857149 Free PMC article. Review.
-
PTEN and ERG detection in multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging/ultrasound fusion targeted prostate biopsy compared to systematic biopsy.Hum Pathol. 2019 Aug;90:20-26. doi: 10.1016/j.humpath.2019.04.016. Epub 2019 May 7. Hum Pathol. 2019. PMID: 31075299 Free PMC article.
References
-
- Gleason DF, Mellinger GT. Prediction of prognosis for prostatic adenocarcinoma by combined histological grading and clinical staging. J Urol. 1974;111:58–64. - PubMed
-
- Epstein JI, Egevad L, Amin MB, Delahunt B, Srigley JR, Humphrey PA. 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. Am J Surg Pathol. 2016;40(2):244–52. - PubMed
-
- Epstein JI, Zelefsky MJ, Sjoberg DD, Nelson JB, Egevad L, Magi-Galluzzi C, Vickers AJ, Parwani AV, Reuter VE, Fine SW, Eastham JA, Wiklund P, Han M, Reddy CA, Ciezki JP, Nyberg T, Klein EA. A Contemporary Prostate Cancer Grading System: A Validated Alternative to the Gleason Score. Eur Urol. 2016;69(3):428-35. - PMC - PubMed
Publication types
MeSH terms
Substances
LinkOut - more resources
Full Text Sources
Other Literature Sources
Medical
Research Materials