PURPOSE: At an International Society of Urological Pathology consensus conference in 2005 the Gleason grading system for prostatic carcinoma underwent its first major revision. We compared the concordance of pattern and change of prognostic groups for the conventional and the modified Gleason grading, and checked the discriminative power of the modified Gleason grading. MATERIALS AND METHODS: The grading was based on 172 prostatic needle biopsies of patients subsequently undergoing radical prostatectomy. Four prognostic Gleason grading groups were considered, divided into scores of 2-4, 5-6, 7 and 8-10. To check the discriminative power of the modified Gleason grading we compared the time of biochemical (prostate specific antigen) progression-free outcome according to prognostic groups between standard and revised grading. RESULTS: The greatest impact of the International Society of Urological Pathology consensus recommendations for Gleason grading was seen on the secondary pattern which had the lowest percentage of concordance and was reflected in a change toward higher Gleason prognostic groups. Of 172 patients in whom the Gleason prognostic group was changed (to higher grades) based solely on the consensus criteria, 46 (26.7%) had higher preoperative prostate specific antigen, more extensive tumors and positive surgical margins, and higher pathological stage. The revised Gleason grading identified in this series a higher number of patients in the aggressive prognostic group Gleason score 8-10 who had a significantly shorter time to biochemical progression-free outcome after radical prostatectomy (log rank p = 0.011). CONCLUSIONS: The findings of this study indicate that the recommendations of the International Society of Urological Pathology are a valuable refinement of the standard Gleason grading system.
PURPOSE: At an International Society of Urological Pathology consensus conference in 2005 the Gleason grading system for prostatic carcinoma underwent its first major revision. We compared the concordance of pattern and change of prognostic groups for the conventional and the modified Gleason grading, and checked the discriminative power of the modified Gleason grading. MATERIALS AND METHODS: The grading was based on 172 prostatic needle biopsies of patients subsequently undergoing radical prostatectomy. Four prognostic Gleason grading groups were considered, divided into scores of 2-4, 5-6, 7 and 8-10. To check the discriminative power of the modified Gleason grading we compared the time of biochemical (prostate specific antigen) progression-free outcome according to prognostic groups between standard and revised grading. RESULTS: The greatest impact of the International Society of Urological Pathology consensus recommendations for Gleason grading was seen on the secondary pattern which had the lowest percentage of concordance and was reflected in a change toward higher Gleason prognostic groups. Of 172 patients in whom the Gleason prognostic group was changed (to higher grades) based solely on the consensus criteria, 46 (26.7%) had higher preoperative prostate specific antigen, more extensive tumors and positive surgical margins, and higher pathological stage. The revised Gleason grading identified in this series a higher number of patients in the aggressive prognostic group Gleason score 8-10 who had a significantly shorter time to biochemical progression-free outcome after radical prostatectomy (log rank p = 0.011). CONCLUSIONS: The findings of this study indicate that the recommendations of the International Society of Urological Pathology are a valuable refinement of the standard Gleason grading system.
Authors: Sabine Brookman-May; Matthias May; Wolf-Ferdinand Wieland; Steffen Lebentrau; Sven Gunia; Stefan Koch; Christian Gilfrich; Jan Roigas; Bernd Hoschke; Maximilian Burger Journal: World J Urol Date: 2010-12-30 Impact factor: 4.226
Authors: Brian V Le; Christopher R Griffin; Stacy Loeb; Gustavo F Carvalhal; Donghui Kan; Nikola A Baumann; William J Catalona Journal: J Urol Date: 2010-02-19 Impact factor: 7.450
Authors: Hillary M Ross; Oleksandr N Kryvenko; Janet E Cowan; Jeffry P Simko; Thomas M Wheeler; Jonathan I Epstein Journal: Am J Surg Pathol Date: 2012-09 Impact factor: 6.394
Authors: Lars Egevad; Ferran Algaba; Daniel M Berney; Liliane Boccon-Gibod; Eva Compérat; Andrew J Evans; Rainer Grobholz; Glen Kristiansen; Cord Langner; Gina Lockwood; Antonio Lopez-Beltran; Rodolfo Montironi; Pedro Oliveira; Matthias Schwenkglenks; Ben Vainer; Murali Varma; Vincent Verger; Philippe Camparo Journal: Virchows Arch Date: 2011-06-23 Impact factor: 4.064
Authors: Scott E Eggener; Ketan Badani; Daniel A Barocas; Glen W Barrisford; Jed-Sian Cheng; Arnold I Chin; Anthony Corcoran; Jonathan I Epstein; Arvin K George; Gopal N Gupta; Matthew H Hayn; Eric C Kauffman; Brian Lane; Michael A Liss; Moben Mirza; Todd M Morgan; Kelvin Moses; Kenneth G Nepple; Mark A Preston; Soroush Rais-Bahrami; Matthew J Resnick; M Minhaj Siddiqui; Jonathan Silberstein; Eric A Singer; Geoffrey A Sonn; Preston Sprenkle; Kelly L Stratton; Jennifer Taylor; Jeffrey Tomaszewski; Matt Tollefson; Andrew Vickers; Wesley M White; William T Lowrance Journal: J Urol Date: 2015-04-04 Impact factor: 7.450
Authors: John R Srigley; Brett Delahunt; Lars Egevad; Hemamali Samaratunga; John Yaxley; Andrew J Evans Journal: Can Urol Assoc J Date: 2016 Sep-Oct Impact factor: 1.862
Authors: Athanase Billis; Maisa M Q Quintal; Luciana Meirelles; Leandro L L Freitas; Larissa B E Costa; João F L Bonfitto; Betina L Diniz; Paola H Poletto; Luís A Magna; Ubirajara Ferreira Journal: Int Urol Nephrol Date: 2013-10-06 Impact factor: 2.370