Literature DB >> 27041927

The evolving Gleason grading system.

Ni Chen1, Qiao Zhou1.   

Abstract

The Gleason grading system for prostate adenocarcinoma has evolved from its original scheme established in the 1960s-1970s, to a significantly modified system after two major consensus meetings conducted by the International Society of Urologic Pathology (ISUP) in 2005 and 2014, respectively. The Gleason grading system has been incorporated into the WHO classification of prostate cancer, the AJCC/UICC staging system, and the NCCN guidelines as one of the key factors in treatment decision. Both pathologists and clinicians need to fully understand the principles and practice of this grading system. We here briefly review the historical aspects of the original scheme and the recent developments of Gleason grading system, focusing on major changes over the years that resulted in the modern Gleason grading system, which has led to a new "Grade Group" system proposed by the 2014 ISUP consensus, and adopted by the 2016 WHO classification of tumours of the prostate.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Gleason grading; International Society of Urologic Pathology (ISUP); Prostate adenocarcinoma; consensus

Year:  2016        PMID: 27041927      PMCID: PMC4779758          DOI: 10.3978/j.issn.1000-9604.2016.02.04

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Chin J Cancer Res        ISSN: 1000-9604            Impact factor:   5.087


  33 in total

Review 1.  Current practice of Gleason grading of prostate carcinoma.

Authors:  Antonio Lopez-Beltran; Gregor Mikuz; Rafael J Luque; Roberta Mazzucchelli; Rodolfo Montironi
Journal:  Virchows Arch       Date:  2005-11-23       Impact factor: 4.064

Review 2.  The 2005 International Society of Urological Pathology (ISUP) Consensus Conference on Gleason Grading of Prostatic Carcinoma.

Authors:  Jonathan I Epstein; William C Allsbrook; Mahul B Amin; Lars L Egevad
Journal:  Am J Surg Pathol       Date:  2005-09       Impact factor: 6.394

3.  The significance of modified Gleason grading of prostatic carcinoma in biopsy and radical prostatectomy specimens.

Authors:  Burkhard Helpap; Lars Egevad
Journal:  Virchows Arch       Date:  2006-11-08       Impact factor: 4.064

4.  Correlation of modified Gleason grading with pT stage of prostatic carcinoma after radical prostatectomy.

Authors:  Burkhard Helpap; Lars Egevad
Journal:  Anal Quant Cytol Histol       Date:  2008-02       Impact factor: 0.302

5.  The association of the cribriform pattern with outcome for prostatic adenocarcinomas.

Authors:  G Kir; B C Sarbay; E Gümüş; C S Topal
Journal:  Pathol Res Pract       Date:  2014-06-19       Impact factor: 3.250

6.  Gleason inflation 1998-2011: a registry study of 97,168 men.

Authors:  Daniela Danneman; Linda Drevin; David Robinson; Pär Stattin; Lars Egevad
Journal:  BJU Int       Date:  2015-02       Impact factor: 5.588

Review 7.  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.

Authors:  Jonathan I Epstein; Lars Egevad; Mahul B Amin; Brett Delahunt; John R Srigley; Peter A Humphrey
Journal:  Am J Surg Pathol       Date:  2016-02       Impact factor: 6.394

8.  Validation of Partin tables and development of a preoperative nomogram for Japanese patients with clinically localized prostate cancer using 2005 International Society of Urological Pathology consensus on Gleason grading: data from the Clinicopathological Research Group for Localized Prostate Cancer.

Authors:  Seiji Naito; Kentaro Kuroiwa; Naoko Kinukawa; Ken Goto; Hirofumi Koga; Osamu Ogawa; Masaru Murai; Taizo Shiraishi
Journal:  J Urol       Date:  2008-07-17       Impact factor: 7.450

Review 9.  Changes in prostate cancer grading: Including a new patient-centric grading system.

Authors:  Oleksandr N Kryvenko; Jonathan I Epstein
Journal:  Prostate       Date:  2015-12-28       Impact factor: 4.104

10.  Gleason score 3 + 4=7 prostate cancer with minimal quantity of gleason pattern 4 on needle biopsy is associated with low-risk tumor in radical prostatectomy specimen.

Authors:  Cheng Cheng Huang; Max Xiangtian Kong; Ming Zhou; Andrew B Rosenkrantz; Samir S Taneja; Jonathan Melamed; Fang-Ming Deng
Journal:  Am J Surg Pathol       Date:  2014-08       Impact factor: 6.394

View more
  20 in total

1.  Automated gleason grading on prostate biopsy slides by statistical representations of homology profile.

Authors:  Chaoyang Yan; Kazuaki Nakane; Xiangxue Wang; Yao Fu; Haoda Lu; Xiangshan Fan; Michael D Feldman; Anant Madabhushi; Jun Xu
Journal:  Comput Methods Programs Biomed       Date:  2020-05-26       Impact factor: 5.428

2.  PI-RADS version 2.1 scoring system is superior in detecting transition zone prostate cancer: a diagnostic study.

Authors:  Zhibing Wang; Wenlu Zhao; Junkang Shen; Zhen Jiang; Shuo Yang; Shuangxiu Tan; Yueyue Zhang
Journal:  Abdom Radiol (NY)       Date:  2020-09-09

3.  6-gene promoter methylation assay is potentially applicable for prostate cancer clinical staging based on urine collection following prostatic massage.

Authors:  Kostyantyn A Nekrasov; Mark V Vikarchuk; Evgeniya E Rudenko; Igor V Ivanitskiy; Viacheslav M Grygorenko; Rostyslav O Danylets; Alexander G Kondratov; Liubov A Stoliar; Bizhan R Sharopov; Volodymyr I Kashuba
Journal:  Oncol Lett       Date:  2019-10-29       Impact factor: 2.967

Review 4.  A Tale of Two Cancers: A Current Concise Overview of Breast and Prostate Cancer.

Authors:  Franklyn De Silva; Jane Alcorn
Journal:  Cancers (Basel)       Date:  2022-06-15       Impact factor: 6.575

5.  Patient-specific Boolean models of signalling networks guide personalised treatments.

Authors:  Julio Saez-Rodriguez; Laurence Calzone; Arnau Montagud; Jonas Béal; Luis Tobalina; Pauline Traynard; Vigneshwari Subramanian; Bence Szalai; Róbert Alföldi; László Puskás; Alfonso Valencia; Emmanuel Barillot
Journal:  Elife       Date:  2022-02-15       Impact factor: 8.713

6.  MetaNetwork Enhances Biological Insights from Quantitative Proteomics Differences by Combining Clustering and Enrichment Analyses.

Authors:  Austin V Carr; Brian L Frey; Mark Scalf; Anthony J Cesnik; Zach Rolfs; Kyndal A Pike; Bing Yang; Mark P Keller; David F Jarrard; Michael R Shortreed; Lloyd M Smith
Journal:  J Proteome Res       Date:  2022-01-24       Impact factor: 5.370

Review 7.  Cribriform Prostate Cancer: Clinical Pathologic and Molecular Considerations.

Authors:  Amanda B Hesterberg; Jennifer B Gordetsky; Paula J Hurley
Journal:  Urology       Date:  2021-05-28       Impact factor: 2.633

Review 8.  Possible association between androgenic alopecia and risk of prostate cancer and testicular germ cell tumor: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

Authors:  Weijun Liang; Liuying Song; Zheng Peng; Yan Zou; Shengming Dai
Journal:  BMC Cancer       Date:  2018-03-12       Impact factor: 4.430

9.  Immunohistochemical Expression of E- and N-Cadherin in Nodular Prostatic Hyperplasia and Prostatic Carcinoma.

Authors:  Rania Abdallah Abdallah; Asmaa Gaber Abdou; Moshira Abdelwahed; Hend Ali
Journal:  J Microsc Ultrastruct       Date:  2019 Jan-Mar

10.  Validation of the WHO 2016 new Gleason score of prostatic carcinoma.

Authors:  Vishal Rao; Gowri Garudadri; Arya Sahithi Shilpa; Daphne Fonseca; S Murthy Sudha; Rakesh Sharma; T Rao Subramanyeshwar; Sundaram Challa
Journal:  Urol Ann       Date:  2018 Jul-Sep
View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.