Literature DB >> 27415753

From Gleason to International Society of Urological Pathology (ISUP) grading of prostate cancer.

Hemamali Samaratunga1,2, Brett Delahunt1,3, John Yaxley2,4, John R Srigley5, Lars Egevad6,7.   

Abstract

Gleason grading of prostate cancer has gained worldwide acceptance since its introduction 50 years ago. This system has fulfilled the role of a powerful prognostic indicator for many years and this has influenced treatment. There have been numerous changes to the management and diagnosis of prostate cancer since 1966, including prostate-specific antigen screening, resulting in the early detection of prostate cancer, This has resulted in the evolution of Gleason grading with the informal adoption of a number of alterations. Significant changes to Gleason grading were made in 2005 through a consensus conference convened by the International Society of Urological Pathology (ISUP). In more recent times, the necessity for further changes to prostate cancer grading has been apparent and a follow-up ISUP consensus conference was held in 2014. Changes resulting from this conference included the classifying of all cribriform cancer and glomeruloid patterns as Gleason grade 4, the grading of mucinous adenocarcinoma based on underlying architecture rather than uniformly considering these tumors as pattern 4, and the introduction of a Gleason score (GS)-based 5 grade system, which incorporated the 2014 modifications to the Gleason grading system. Designated ISUP grade, this system consists of five grades: grade 1 (GS ≤3 + 3), grade 2 (GS 3 + 4), grade 3 (GS 4 + 3), grade 4 (GS 4 + 4, 3 + 5, 5 + 3) and grade 5 (GS 9-10). With further advances recently reported in the literature, it is apparent that amendments to the current system are likely to be necessary in the future.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Gleason; International Society of Urological Pathology; grade; prognosis; prostatic adenocarcinoma

Mesh:

Year:  2016        PMID: 27415753     DOI: 10.1080/21681805.2016.1201858

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Scand J Urol        ISSN: 2168-1805            Impact factor:   1.612


  4 in total

1.  Survival and quality of life outcomes of high-intensity focused ultrasound treatment of localized prostate cancer.

Authors:  Peter L Royce; James J Y Ooi; Selva Sothilingam; Henry H Yao
Journal:  Prostate Int       Date:  2020-03-12

2.  Analysis of Prostate Adenocarcinoma Histopathological Types in Relation to Tumor Grade.

Authors:  Andrei PĂnuŞ; Cristiana Eugenia Simionescu; Petru Octavian DrĂgoescu; Paul Tomescu; Alex Emilian Stepan
Journal:  Curr Health Sci J       Date:  2020-12-31

3.  Prostate Cancer Detection with mpMRI According to PI-RADS v2 Compared with Systematic MRI/TRUS-Fusion Biopsy: A Prospective Study.

Authors:  Anja Sauck; Isabelle Keller; Nicolin Hainc; Denis Pfofe; Arash Najafi; Hubert John; Joachim Hohmann
Journal:  Tomography       Date:  2022-08-16

4.  Comparing the expression profiles of steroid hormone receptors and stromal cell markers in prostate cancer at different Gleason scores.

Authors:  Thomas Gevaert; Yves-Rémi Van Eycke; Thomas Vanden Broeck; Hein Van Poppel; Isabelle Salmon; Sandrine Rorive; Frank Claessens; Dirk De Ridder; Christine Decaestecker; Steven Joniau
Journal:  Sci Rep       Date:  2018-09-25       Impact factor: 4.379

  4 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.