Gleason grading and prognostic factors in carcinoma of the prostate

被引:342
|
作者
Humphrey, PA [1 ]
机构
[1] Washington Univ, Med Ctr, Dept Pathol & Immunol, Sch Med, St Louis, MO 63110 USA
关键词
prostate; cancer; Gleason grade; prognosis;
D O I
10.1038/modpathol.3800054
中图分类号
R36 [病理学];
学科分类号
100104 ;
摘要
Gleason grade of adenocarcinoma of the prostate is an established prognostic indicator that has stood the test of time. The Gleason grading method was devised in the 1960s and 1970s by Dr Donald F Gleason and members of the Veterans Administration Cooperative Urological Research Group. This grading system is based entirely on the histologic pattern of arrangement of carcinoma cells in H&E-stained sections. Five basic grade patterns are used to generate a histologic score, which can range from 2 to 10. These patterns are illustrated in a standard drawing that can be employed as a guide for recognition of the specific Gleason grades. Increasing Gleason grade is directly related to a number of histopathologic end points, including tumor size, margin status, and pathologic stage. Indeed, models have been developed that allow for pretreatment prediction of pathologic stage based upon needle biopsy Gleason grade, total serum prostate-specific antigen level, and clinical stage. Gleason grade has been linked to a number of clinical end points, including clinical stage, progression to metastatic disease, and survival. Gleason grade is often incorporated into nomograms used to predict response to a specific therapy, such as radiotherapy or surgery. Needle biopsy Gleason grade is routinely used to plan patient management and is also often one of the criteria for eligibility for clinical trials testing new therapies. Gleason grade should be routinely reported for adenocarcinoma of the prostate in all types of tissue samples. Experimental approaches that could be of importance in the future include determination of percentage of high-grade Gleason pattern 4 or 5, and utilization of markers discovered by gene expression profiling or by genetic testing for DNA abnormalities. Such markers would be of prognostic usefulness if they provided added value beyond the established indicators of Gleason grade, serum prostate-specific antigen, and stage. Currently, established prognostic factors for prostatic carcinoma recommended for routine reporting are TNM stage, surgical margin status, serum prostate-specific antigen, and Gleason grade.
引用
收藏
页码:292 / 306
页数:15
相关论文
共 50 条
  • [21] Gleason grading challenges in the diagnosis of prostate adenocarcinoma: experience of a single institution
    Chen, Sonja D.
    Fava, Joseph L.
    Amin, Ali
    VIRCHOWS ARCHIV, 2016, 468 (02) : 213 - 218
  • [22] A deep learning network for Gleason grading of prostate biopsies using EfficientNet
    Ramamurthy, Karthik
    Varikuti, Abinash Reddy
    Gupta, Bhavya
    Aswani, Nehal
    BIOMEDICAL ENGINEERING-BIOMEDIZINISCHE TECHNIK, 2023, 68 (02): : 187 - 198
  • [23] Statistical shape model for manifold regularization: Gleason grading of prostate histology
    Sparks, Rachel
    Madabhushi, Anant
    COMPUTER VISION AND IMAGE UNDERSTANDING, 2013, 117 (09) : 1138 - 1146
  • [24] A Contemporary Prostate Cancer Grading System: A Validated Alternative to the Gleason Score
    Epstein, Jonathan I.
    Zelefsky, Michael J.
    Sjoberg, Daniel D.
    Nelson, Joel B.
    Egevad, Lars
    Magi-Galluzzi, Cristina
    Vickers, Andrew J.
    Parwani, Anil V.
    Reuter, Victor E.
    Fine, Samson W.
    Eastham, James A.
    Wiklund, Peter
    Han, Misop
    Reddy, Chandana A.
    Ciezki, Jay P.
    Nyberg, Tommy
    Klein, Eric A.
    EUROPEAN UROLOGY, 2016, 69 (03) : 428 - 435
  • [25] The prognostic significance of Gleason scores in metastatic prostate cancer
    Rusthoven, Chad G.
    Carlson, Julie A.
    Waxweiler, Timothy V.
    Yeh, Norman
    Raben, David
    Flaig, Thomas W.
    Kavanagh, Brian D.
    UROLOGIC ONCOLOGY-SEMINARS AND ORIGINAL INVESTIGATIONS, 2014, 32 (05) : 707 - 713
  • [26] Nuclear Grading Versus Gleason Grading in Small Samples Containing Prostate Cancer: A Tissue Microarray Study
    Wittschieber, Daniel
    Koellermann, Jens
    Schlomm, Thorsten
    Sauter, Guido
    Erbersdobler, Andreas
    PATHOLOGY & ONCOLOGY RESEARCH, 2010, 16 (04) : 479 - 484
  • [27] Should a Gleason score be assigned to a minute focus of carcinoma on prostate biopsy?
    Rubin, MA
    Dunn, R
    Kambham, N
    Misick, CP
    O'Toole, KM
    AMERICAN JOURNAL OF SURGICAL PATHOLOGY, 2000, 24 (12) : 1634 - 1640
  • [28] Recent trends in Gleason grading of prostate cancer - I. Pattern interpretation
    Egevad, Lars
    ANALYTICAL AND QUANTITATIVE CYTOLOGY AND HISTOLOGY, 2008, 30 (04): : 190 - 198
  • [29] Gleason Grading of Prostate Tumours with Max-Margin Conditional Random Fields
    Jacobs, Joseph G.
    Panagiotaki, Eleftheria
    Alexander, Daniel C.
    MACHINE LEARNING IN MEDICAL IMAGING (MLMI 2014), 2014, 8679 : 85 - 92
  • [30] Artificial intelligence assistance significantly improves Gleason grading of prostate biopsies by pathologists
    Bulten, Wouter
    Balkenhol, Maschenka
    Belinga, Jean-Joel Awoumou
    Brilhante, Americo
    Cakir, Asli
    Egevad, Lars
    Eklund, Martin
    Farre, Xavier
    Geronatsiou, Katerina
    Molinie, Vincent
    Pereira, Guilherme
    Roy, Paromita
    Saile, Gunter
    Salles, Paulo
    Schaafsma, Ewout
    Tschui, Joelle
    Vos, Anne-Marie
    van Boven, Hester
    Vink, Robert
    van der Laak, Jeroen
    Hulsbergen-van der Kaa, Christina
    Litjens, Geert
    MODERN PATHOLOGY, 2021, 34 (03) : 660 - 671