Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
. 2020 Aug;44(8):e87-e99.
doi: 10.1097/PAS.0000000000001497.

The 2019 International Society of Urological Pathology (ISUP) Consensus Conference on Grading of Prostatic Carcinoma

Geert J L H van Leenders  1 , Theodorus H van der Kwast  2 , David J Grignon  3 , Andrew J Evans  4 , Glen Kristiansen  5 , Charlotte F Kweldam  1 , Geert Litjens  6 , Jesse K McKenney  7 , Jonathan Melamed  8 , Nicholas Mottet  9   10 , Gladell P Paner  11 , Hemamali Samaratunga  12 , Ivo G Schoots  13 , Jeffry P Simko  14 , Toyonori Tsuzuki  15 , Murali Varma  16 , Anne Y Warren  17 , Thomas M Wheeler  18 , Sean R Williamson  19 , Kenneth A Iczkowski  20 ; ISUP Grading Workshop Panel Members
Affiliations

The 2019 International Society of Urological Pathology (ISUP) Consensus Conference on Grading of Prostatic Carcinoma

Geert J L H van Leenders et al. Am J Surg Pathol. 2020 Aug.

Abstract

Five years after the last prostatic carcinoma grading consensus conference of the International Society of Urological Pathology (ISUP), accrual of new data and modification of clinical practice require an update of current pathologic grading guidelines. This manuscript summarizes the proceedings of the ISUP consensus meeting for grading of prostatic carcinoma held in September 2019, in Nice, France. Topics brought to consensus included the following: (1) approaches to reporting of Gleason patterns 4 and 5 quantities, and minor/tertiary patterns, (2) an agreement to report the presence of invasive cribriform carcinoma, (3) an agreement to incorporate intraductal carcinoma into grading, and (4) individual versus aggregate grading of systematic and multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging-targeted biopsies. Finally, developments in the field of artificial intelligence in the grading of prostatic carcinoma and future research perspectives were discussed.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

Conflicts of Interest and Source of Funding: The authors have disclosed that they have no significant relationships with, or financial interest in, any commercial companies pertaining to this article.

Figures

FIGURE 1
FIGURE 1
Cribriform epithelial proliferations showing overlap between IDC and invasive cribriform Gleason pattern 4. A and B, Two adjacent cribriform proliferations, one (left) having scattered basal cells, the other (right) without basal cell layer. The left structure fulfills the criteria of IDC. The right structure may represent either invasive cribriform carcinoma, or IDC without basal cells due to sampling artifact in this section. C and D, Cribriform proliferation with a basal cell layer compatible with IDC with irregular tubular outgrowths. Classification of outgrowth is unclear as either IDC, IDC transitioning to Gleason pattern 3, or IDC and invasive cribriform carcinoma. A and C, hematoxylin-eosin; B and D, high molecular weight cytokeratin.
FIGURE 2
FIGURE 2
Schematic overview of reporting systematic and mpMRI-targeted biopsies. GP indicates Gleason pattern.
See this image and copyright information in PMC

Comment in

References

    1. Epstein JI, Egevad L, Amin MB, 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. Am J Surg Pathol. 2016;40:244–252. - PubMed
    1. Moch H, Humphrey PA, Ulbright TM, Reuter VE, eds. WHO Classification of Tumours of the Urinary System and Male Genital Organs, 4th ed Lyon, France: IARC; 2016. - PubMed
    1. Srigley JR, Delahunt B, Samartunga H, et al. Controversial issues in Gleason and International Society of Urological Pathology (ISUP) prostate cancer grading: proposed recommendations for international implementation. Pathology. 2019;51:463–473. - PubMed
    1. Cheng L, Davidson DD, Lin H, et al. Percentage of Gleason pattern 4 and 5 predicts survival after radical prostatectomy. Cancer. 2007;110:1967–1972. - PubMed
    1. Sakr WA, Tefilli MV, Grignon DJ, et al. Gleason score 7 prostate cancer: a heterogeneous entity? Correlation with pathologic parameters and disease-free survival. Urology. 2000;56:730–734. - PubMed

Publication types