AIMS: The Gleason scoring system underwent revision at the International Society of Urological Pathology (ISUP) conference in 2005. It is not known how uropathologists have interpreted its recommendations. METHOD AND RESULTS: A web-based survey to European Network of Uropathology members received replies from 266 pathologists in 22 countries. Eighty-nine per cent claimed to follow ISUP recommendations. Key areas of disagreement included the following. Smoothly rounded cribriform glands were assigned Gleason pattern (GP) 3 by 51% and GP 4 by 49%. Necrosis was diagnosed as GP 5 by 62%. Any amount of secondary pattern of higher grade in needle biopsies was included in the Gleason score by 58%. Tertiary GP of higher grade on needle biopsies was included in the Gleason score by only 58%. If biopsy cores were embedded separately, only 56% would give a Gleason score for each core/slide examined; 68% would give a concluding Gleason score and the most common method was a global Gleason score (77%). Among those who blocked multiple biopsy cores together, 46% would only give an overall Gleason score for the case. CONCLUSION: Misinterpretation of ISUP 2005 is widespread, and may explain the variation in Gleason scoring seen. Clarity and uniformity in teaching ISUP 2005 recommendations is necessary.
AIMS: The Gleason scoring system underwent revision at the International Society of Urological Pathology (ISUP) conference in 2005. It is not known how uropathologists have interpreted its recommendations. METHOD AND RESULTS: A web-based survey to European Network of Uropathology members received replies from 266 pathologists in 22 countries. Eighty-nine per cent claimed to follow ISUP recommendations. Key areas of disagreement included the following. Smoothly rounded cribriform glands were assigned Gleason pattern (GP) 3 by 51% and GP 4 by 49%. Necrosis was diagnosed as GP 5 by 62%. Any amount of secondary pattern of higher grade in needle biopsies was included in the Gleason score by 58%. Tertiary GP of higher grade on needle biopsies was included in the Gleason score by only 58%. If biopsy cores were embedded separately, only 56% would give a Gleason score for each core/slide examined; 68% would give a concluding Gleason score and the most common method was a global Gleason score (77%). Among those who blocked multiple biopsy cores together, 46% would only give an overall Gleason score for the case. CONCLUSION: Misinterpretation of ISUP 2005 is widespread, and may explain the variation in Gleason scoring seen. Clarity and uniformity in teaching ISUP 2005 recommendations is necessary.
Authors: Luis F R Taveira; Tahsin Kurc; Alba C M A Melo; Jun Kong; Erich Bremer; Joel H Saltz; George Teodoro Journal: J Digit Imaging Date: 2019-06 Impact factor: 4.056
Authors: A Roosen; R Ganzer; B Hadaschik; J Köllermann; A Blana; T Henkel; A-B Liehr; D Baumunk; S Machtens; G Salomon; L Sentker; U Witsch; K U Köhrmann; M Schostak Journal: Urologe A Date: 2014-07 Impact factor: 0.639
Authors: Michelle R Downes; John R Srigley; Andrew Loblaw; Nathan Perlis; Sangeet Ghai; Theodorus van der Kwast Journal: Can Urol Assoc J Date: 2022-04 Impact factor: 1.862
Authors: D M Berney; F Algaba; P Camparo; E Compérat; D Griffiths; G Kristiansen; A Lopez-Beltran; R Montironi; M Varma; L Egevad Journal: Virchows Arch Date: 2014-03-04 Impact factor: 4.064
Authors: Frederik B Thomsen; Yasin Folkvaljon; Klaus Brasso; Stacy Loeb; David Robinson; Lars Egevad; Pär Stattin Journal: J Surg Oncol Date: 2016-08-11 Impact factor: 3.454
Authors: Daniel M Berney; Luis Beltran; Gabrielle Fisher; Bernard V North; David Greenberg; Henrik Møller; Geraldine Soosay; Peter Scardino; Jack Cuzick Journal: Br J Cancer Date: 2016-04-21 Impact factor: 7.640