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
  • [31] The value of the modified Gleason grading system of prostate adenocarcinoma in routine urological diagnostics
    Helpap, B.
    Egevad, L.
    UROLOGE, 2007, 46 (01): : 59 - 62
  • [32] Automated gleason grading on prostate biopsy slides by statistical representations of homology profile
    Yan, Chaoyang
    Nakane, Kazuaki
    Wang, Xiangxue
    Fu, Yao
    Lu, Haoda
    Fan, Xiangshan
    Feldman, Michael D.
    Madabhushi, Anant
    Xu, Jun
    COMPUTER METHODS AND PROGRAMS IN BIOMEDICINE, 2020, 194
  • [33] From Gleason to International Society of Urological Pathology (ISUP) grading of prostate cancer
    Samaratunga, Hemamali
    Delahunt, Brett
    Yaxley, John
    Srigley, John R.
    Egevad, Lars
    SCANDINAVIAN JOURNAL OF UROLOGY, 2016, 50 (05) : 325 - 329
  • [34] Objective grading of prostate carcinoma based on fractal dimensions. Gleason 3+4=7a ≠ Gleason 4+3=7b
    Waliszewski, P.
    Wagenlehner, F.
    Kribus, S.
    Schafhauser, W.
    Weidner, W.
    Gattenloehner, S.
    UROLOGE, 2014, 53 (10): : 1504 - 1511
  • [35] Prognostic factors for survival of patients with pathological Gleason score 7 prostate cancer: Differences in outcome between primary Gleason grades 3 and 4
    Lau, WK
    Blute, ML
    Bostwick, DG
    Weaver, AL
    Sebo, TJ
    Zincke, H
    JOURNAL OF UROLOGY, 2001, 166 (05) : 1692 - 1697
  • [36] The prognostic significance of tertiary gleason patterns of higher grade in radical prostatectomy specimens - A proposal to modify the Gleason grading system
    Pan, CC
    Potter, SR
    Partin, AW
    Epstein, JI
    AMERICAN JOURNAL OF SURGICAL PATHOLOGY, 2000, 24 (04) : 563 - 569
  • [37] Re: Factors Predicting Prostatic Biopsy Gleason Sum Under Grading
    Labanaris, Apostolos P.
    Kuehn, Reinhard
    Zugor, Vahudin
    JOURNAL OF UROLOGY, 2010, 183 (01) : 396 - 397
  • [38] The evolving Gleason grading system
    Chen, Ni
    Zhou, Qiao
    CHINESE JOURNAL OF CANCER RESEARCH, 2016, 28 (01) : 58 - 64
  • [39] Features and Prognostic Significance of Intraductal Carcinoma of the Prostate
    Montironi, Rodolfo
    Zhou, Ming
    Magi-Galluzzi, Cristina
    Epstein, Jonathan, I
    EUROPEAN UROLOGY ONCOLOGY, 2018, 1 (01): : 21 - 28
  • [40] The highs and lows of grading intraductal carcinoma of the prostate
    Mcdonald, Jodie ai ling
    O'Brien, Jonathan
    Kelly, Brian
    Murphy, Declan
    Lawrentschuk, Nathan
    Eapen, Renu
    Mitchell, Catherine
    JOURNAL OF CLINICAL PATHOLOGY, 2024, 77 (12) : 812 - 814