Literature DB >> 22212079

Gleason grading: past, present and future.

Brett Delahunt1, Rose J Miller, John R Srigley, Andrew J Evans, Hemamali Samaratunga.   

Abstract

In 1966 Donald Gleason developed his grading and scoring system for prostatic adenocarcinoma. This classification was refined in 1974 and gained almost universal acceptance, being classified as a category 1 prognostic parameter by the College of American Pathologists. Modifications to the classification were recommended at a conference convened by the International Society of Urological Pathology (ISUP) in 2005. This modified classification has resulted in a significant upgrading of tumours, although some studies have shown a greater concordance between needle biopsy and radical prostatectomy scores when compared to classical Gleason (CG) grading. The ISUP consensus conference recommended that for needle biopsies higher tertiary patterns should be incorporated into the final Gleason score, and this has been correlated with biochemical failure, tumour volume and mortality. Recently the validity of including cribriform glands as a component of Gleason pattern 3 has been questioned and it has been recommended that all tumours showing cribriform architecture should be classified as Gleason pattern 4. The recommendations arising from the 2005 Consensus Conference were largely unsupported by validating data, yet this new grading system has achieved widespread usage. It is unfortunate that recent suggestions for further modification are similarly lacking in supporting evidence. In view of this it is recommended that the Modified Gleason Scoring Classification should continue to be utilized in its original (2005) format and that any future alterations should be implemented only when mandated by tumour-related outcome studies.
© 2011 Blackwell Publishing Limited.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2012        PMID: 22212079     DOI: 10.1111/j.1365-2559.2011.04003.x

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Histopathology        ISSN: 0309-0167            Impact factor:   5.087


  17 in total

1.  Final pathohistology after radical prostatectomy in patients eligible for active surveillance (AS).

Authors:  Ekaterina Lellig; Christian Gratzke; Alexander Kretschmer; Christian Stief
Journal:  World J Urol       Date:  2015-06-06       Impact factor: 4.226

2.  Ductal and Acinar Adenocarcinoma of Prostate: Morphological and Immunohistochemical Characterization.

Authors:  Faraz A Baig; Amna Hamid; Talat Mirza; Serajuddaula Syed
Journal:  Oman Med J       Date:  2015-05

Review 3.  Does true Gleason pattern 3 merit its cancer descriptor?

Authors:  Saiful Miah; Hashim U Ahmed; Alex Freeman; Mark Emberton
Journal:  Nat Rev Urol       Date:  2016-08-17       Impact factor: 14.432

4.  Transrectal quantitative shear wave elastography in the detection and characterisation of prostate cancer.

Authors:  Sarfraz Ahmad; Rui Cao; Tomy Varghese; Luc Bidaut; Ghulam Nabi
Journal:  Surg Endosc       Date:  2013-03-23       Impact factor: 4.584

Review 5.  The evolving Gleason grading system.

Authors:  Ni Chen; Qiao Zhou
Journal:  Chin J Cancer Res       Date:  2016-02       Impact factor: 5.087

6.  Exploration on Gleason score variation trend of patients with prostate carcinoma from 1996 to 2019: a retrospective single center study.

Authors:  Weiyu Zhang; Gongwei Wang; Fengling Lan; Huanrui Wang; Danhua Shen; Kexin Xu; Tao Xu; Hao Hu
Journal:  Gland Surg       Date:  2021-02

7.  Shear wave elastography for detection of prostate cancer: a preliminary study.

Authors:  Sungmin Woo; Sang Youn Kim; Jeong Yeon Cho; Seung Hyup Kim
Journal:  Korean J Radiol       Date:  2014-04-29       Impact factor: 3.500

8.  Outcomes and trends of prostate biopsy for prostate cancer in Chinese men from 2003 to 2011.

Authors:  Rong Na; Haowen Jiang; Seong-Tae Kim; Yishuo Wu; Shijun Tong; Limin Zhang; Jianfeng Xu; Yinghao Sun; Qiang Ding
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2012-11-26       Impact factor: 3.240

9.  Increased SNAIL expression and low syndecan levels are associated with high Gleason grade in prostate cancer.

Authors:  Cristian E Poblete; Juan Fulla; Marcela Gallardo; Valentina Muñoz; Enrique A Castellón; Ivan Gallegos; Hector R Contreras
Journal:  Int J Oncol       Date:  2014-01-10       Impact factor: 5.650

Review 10.  Central role of Snail1 in the regulation of EMT and resistance in cancer: a target for therapeutic intervention.

Authors:  Samantha Kaufhold; Benjamin Bonavida
Journal:  J Exp Clin Cancer Res       Date:  2014-08-02
View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.